Something Bad Jesus Did

[Lunitik]

Saltmeister: the Baha'i Faith is that offer, it permits a logical common ground with valid proofs for each group while being a type of consultation at the same time.

Also, there have been 300 billion people that have lived on this planet, saying a billion have died due to the Abrahamic line is actually conservative. I did not say they had died at the same time, even in the OT there are many wars listed over a vast amount of time.

Jesus himself says it is not possible for a good tree to bring bad fruit, I merely point at his own line and ask all to judge even his results by the same. The conclusion has to be that each is foul. Of course, peoples identification with his words will permit them to justify one way or another why it isn't valid. In truth, this is all belief is good for: blinding people.

 

[Lunitik]

Saying "I believe this" or "I don't believe that", do you think reality cares one way or another? Do you think your view sways truth one iota? If it is swayed even a fraction of a milometer it has ceased to be true, even that much and it becomes a lie.

People live on these lies though, it gives them some consolation. I simply say go to the peak of life while you are still living, but you will move towards death because you are told there is something after it - strange. Living life to the fullest does not mean you will be a sinner, in fact it makes sin impossible, for the peak of life is love. A need to survive, a need to protect is all that brings hate. Hatred is merely being against that which you perceive as a threat, but if you have lived totally you are not concerned with any threat, you are merely thankful you have come to such heights, you are thankful existence has permitted it. If you live totally, death becomes something intriguing, you have experienced all else, what can this experience offer?

People only fear death because they have not lived fully, they have not fulfilled all they wanted out of life and now they are finished with it - now nothing more can be accomplished, they must leave.

Never permit the opportunity for regret when death comes for you, life should be lived in such a way that even death can be welcomed as a friend.

Death should be the last experience of a full life, the full stop in your sentence. Why long for more? Can you not simply be thankful to existence for all it has already given? Why be so greedy that even death cannot be your full stop? You jeopardize your own ability to enjoy life that you might live even beyond this point, but I ask you at what price? Do you really want eternal life under such conditions, such restrictions?

If your beliefs do not allow you to enjoy life, why will you believe they will cause a better afterlife? For me, this is absurd.

The true seeker wants abundant life, and for that one who finds it, even a second of it is enough. For him, that second is eternal, he longs for nothing more.

You can find fulfillment this moment, do not postpone for the promise of it later.

It can only be found in the now, even if you delay, the happening is still now... it is just a future now. Now is all there ever is, please see that you are constantly avoiding it.

Acknowledging the avoidance can bring you into a place of acceptance.

Let go to the now, for it is the only place God exists.

 

[Lunitik]

"God sufficeth"

Such potent words are hard to find.

When you find the now, when you find who resides there, you cannot identify with anything else, you see all else as petty. Everything but that becomes utterly irrelevant, yet all you do today is an attempt to distract you from it. Find out why this is so, find out what you are avoiding.

It is the truth of all religion, yet even the study of religion is used to distract, how strange.

Seeker, walk no path, for all paths lead there, truth is here - it is always now.

Will you permit it?

 

[Lunitik]

Now is the only reality, past and future are merely dreams.

Remembering what was, thinking about what could be, both take you out of the now.

Please understand.

This moment is all that ever can be.

Now is called the present because it is the gift.

It is where life resides.

God is merely life personified.

Its reality? You are that.

Stop avoiding it!

 

[Ben Masada]

Apparently.



Let’s hope not. I am somewhat reassured to hear that there are laws on the books which will not be enacted. Wrote Maimonides:

“Moses our Teacher was commanded by God to compel all human beings to accept the commandments enjoined upon the descendants of Noah. Anyone who does not accept them is put to death.” (p. 221)

Now, I ask you (again), what are the scriptural sources for what this sage says? Where, in scripture, are the laws God supposedly gave to Noah and which relate to me, a gentile? I want to read them, chapter and verse, whether or not I shall ever be tried by them.

Serv

I showed you already all the seven Noahide laws and wherefrom they were collected; from throughout the Torah. Regarding Maimonides' quote, IMHO, you are misunderstanding him. I don't recall to have read in the Scriptures that one has been put to death for rejecting the Noahide laws. But don't be too reassuring that the laws have no force upon the transgressor. According to the natural law of cause and effect, one usually pays somehow for his or her transgressions.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Saying "I believe this" or "I don't believe that", do you think reality cares one way or another? Do you think your view sways truth one iota? If it is swayed even a fraction of a milometer it has ceased to be true, even that much and it becomes a lie.

People live on these lies though, it gives them some consolation. I simply say go to the peak of life while you are still living, but you will move towards death because you are told there is something after it - strange. Living life to the fullest does not mean you will be a sinner, in fact it makes sin impossible, for the peak of life is love. A need to survive, a need to protect is all that brings hate. Hatred is merely being against that which you perceive as a threat, but if you have lived totally you are not concerned with any threat, you are merely thankful you have come to such heights, you are thankful existence has permitted it. If you live totally, death becomes something intriguing, you have experienced all else, what can this experience offer?

People only fear death because they have not lived fully, they have not fulfilled all they wanted out of life and now they are finished with it - now nothing more can be accomplished, they must leave.

Never permit the opportunity for regret when death comes for you, life should be lived in such a way that even death can be welcomed as a friend.

Death should be the last experience of a full life, the full stop in your sentence. Why long for more? Can you not simply be thankful to existence for all it has already given? Why be so greedy that even death cannot be your full stop? You jeopardize your own ability to enjoy life that you might live even beyond this point, but I ask you at what price? Do you really want eternal life under such conditions, such restrictions?

If your beliefs do not allow you to enjoy life, why will you believe they will cause a better afterlife? For me, this is absurd.

The true seeker wants abundant life, and for that one who finds it, even a second of it is enough. For him, that second is eternal, he longs for nothing more.

You can find fulfillment this moment, do not postpone for the promise of it later.

It can only be found in the now, even if you delay, the happening is still now... it is just a future now. Now is all there ever is, please see that you are constantly avoiding it.

Acknowledging the avoidance can bring you into a place of acceptance.

Let go to the now, for it is the only place God exists.

I subscribe myself to the wisdom of your post above.
Ben

 

[bananabrain]

I simply am not biased

between genocide victims and genocide perpetrators, you are "not biased". so much for morality.

The Jews killed thousands, perhaps millions to take over the land of Israel - it is all there, recorded in your very Holy texts, and it merely set the stage for what was to come.

ok then - so you're saying that you accept that the entire Tanakh is literally true? because if you don't, you have no case and if you do, then you'll have to accept that whatever happened (and it is clear to us at least that it's a rather more nuanced and complex picture than you suppose) was the Will and Command of G!D. you can't have your cake and eat it.

no group has inflicted or been the cause of as much throughout history either!

so if one person says that you deserve a punch on the nose and someone else punches you on the nose, you are morally equivalent to both of them? because that's the argument you're actually making.

Most intuit this cause, who can figure out how to heal it? There must be a way to find common ground, some arrangement that both brothers can agree upon - such an offer has already been presented, how many are even aware of this?

how about people stop thinking they can just kill us, or that we'll just disappear, for a start?

for me the entire Abrahamic tree has birthed nothing but poison

in which case, why bother coming to this site and talking rubbish about it? you're convincing nobody and adding nothing. the more you talk, the less you say and the more it sounds like moral idiocy.

Okay, calm down, you all. Always seems to happen when the Jewish Question comes up.

perhaps that's because certain people like to rationalise the jewish question into "people want to kill / have killed jews, so we must somehow have deserved it for political / religious / karmic reasons". until people give up on making theodicy effable, we will have to put up with this bollocks apparently. my only response can be "well, what happened happened, but that doesn't mean i now have a choice between a) acting like a knobhead and b) inviting people to murder me at their convenience". there are other options, but if anyone thinks this counts as dialogue they need their head examined.

I was continuing my attempt to be funny

i'm afraid i've had a bit of a sense of humour failure on this thread. call me mr grumpy, but there's something about being blamed for genocide against ourselves that just niggles a bit.

I would still argue that, as Jesus was, or became, the first Christian

fair enough, although i would have to disagree.

could he have eaten the “leaven of the Pharisees” (against which he reportedly warned), the “traditions of men” which were already then in operation, and, had he lived, grown up to become one of the first Talmudists. I know that Rabbinic Judaism was primarily a post-exilic phenomenon.

as i've said, encountering this stuff from the pov of rabbinic judaism, there is much to show that in many (but not all ways) he could be shown to be within the traditional mainstream.

you don’t always have to take me to task.

no, i am abundantly aware of the failings of the israeli state and particularly its political system and political class, although that does not translate into "fascist apartheid wiffle-piffle" any more than lunitik's comments on this thread translate into "a logical argument".

Could you please elaborate upon this point a bit? I don’t understand how Judaism is thought to solve, by particularism, the problem of universalism

the problem of universalism is essentially that "this is right for everyone". if it is, then we *must* "share the good news" and convert you, because if not, you're "going to hell" and even if we're terribly nice about it, it basically comes down to the fact that "we are better than you"; this problem is at the heart of all problems with proselytising religion. all universalist belief systems share this flaw, whether supercessionist abrahamic religions, baha'i, mormonism, scientism etc. only a particularist religion, one which maintains that its message is only for those who opt in and that, moreover, there is no particular benefit to non-members in doing so, can maintain any kind of moral high ground in this respect. one can do this only by virtue of ending proselytisation (which is not to say that people should be *prevented* from changing their beliefs if they really want to) and by the provision of a system within the particularist religion which allows for equal virtue and value to be attained by those who are not within it. judaism does this via the 7 noahide laws and, when coupled (which i am sad to say is not always the case) to a lack of chauvinism, this is an effective strategy in my view. in other words: "this is right for us, but there is no reason why that is not just as right for you".

its fortunately not the only place you can find particularism. Really good ideas hopefully will appear in multiple faiths.

no, it's not the only place you can find particularism - i'm pretty sure the sikhs and hindus have versions of it as well and i know both christianity and islam contain the potential building blocks of the same thing; all that is needed is for people to understand what happens to the system if this stuff is designed out and what happens if it isn't.

Actually, we do not all know what Judaism thinks of that sort of person.

ritual prostitution is one of the worst kinds of idolatrous behaviour.

Some of you Zionists (if Zionism be in this case equated with Judaism), especially on this side of the pond, are quite capable of using these Temple prostitutes for especially political purposes.

and they are as stupid to do so as king ahab was in trying to gain political advantage by marrying jezebel of tyre. those who forget history, etc...

objective anti-Semites can be used, provided, that is, one doesn’t altogether mind festering pieces of pork lard in one’s loaf of otherwise kosher bread.

as you surmise, i think this is the grossest moral (and, moreover political) idiocy.

Ben Masada, often uses the term. So, too, does Norman Podhoretz, to saying nothing of Abe Foxman.

abe foxman ought to know better. podhoretz is clearly an idiot anyway, but perhaps ben masada is not aware of the sociolinguistic issue.

You are arguing with Uri Avnery at Gush Shalom

i am not too impressed with gush shalom arguments at the moment; they will have to do better in the post-oslo, post-qassam era.

and I brought him into the discussion as an antidote, a counterpoise, to the sympathizing acolytes of Kach-Kahane, which terrorist organization, by the way, and speaking of hypocrisy, as you were, operates with practical impunity in these United States. It is, after all, the United States, not Israel, which in many of these discussions concerns me most.

as i continually point out, quoting two extreme and opposing points of view may make entertaining television, but it is not the basis of a common solution. i despise kahanism, but one can hardly claim with any credibility that it is anything like as mainstream as, say, j-street, even in the states.

King David lived at least a thousand years before Jesus.

and the first Temple was destroyed for reasons which are made clear in the prophets.

The reason that Jewish people were specifically targeted is that they were in favor of having multiple viewpoints as part of a large national or international conversation.

no. this was simply a convenient component of jew-hatred in nazi germany (we were at the same time apparently bloodsucking capitalists and bloodthirsty communists, you see) but the real reason was that we were an easy target; read amos elon's "the pity of it all" for why jew-hatred worked quite so well there and then.

You believe in prophecies and miracles, and I believe that the Christian Zionists were involved in putting Jews in Israel. If I'm right, does that mean Christian Zionists are approved by God?

not necessarily. i believe in the prophecies that we will return to our land and i hope that this is what is currently going on - but it's by no means certain. i do *not* believe in the prophecies that the "christian zionists" believe in, that we all have to go back in order to be killed and convert in order for the second coming. it's a different set of prophecies.

You have no idea. You just don't seem aware of how connected CZ is to the problems Jews in Israel are facing.

i really do. CZ is a manifestation of a particular package of mental software that is shared with the iranian government and indeed any type of fundamentalism, including the political fundamentalism of the hard left. it is a type of value system which says "X is what G!D Wants and not-X is a 'sin' and if you oppose this you are a fundamentally evil person; you are eith us or against us"; it is not a reflective type of value system except within the self-imposed rules of the particular value system chosen. the move out of that comes only when people start saying to themselves "well, hang on a minute, this really, really disadvantages me and appears to contradict observable reality and common sense on a number of levels - perhaps there's a bit more to it than this" - that is the emergence of awareness at which point the next package of mental software will start to download. it is not a "wrong" package of software; it is quite useful in many situations and i use it myself. however, that's not the only sort of software you need. this particular package of software (let's call it "blueware") is however a very dangerous and inappropriate package when used with high technology; this is why both CZ and the iranian government cannot be trusted with nuclear capability. the current israeli government is not run on "blueware" principles, although the religious parties which will support it in return for funding and favours are. the israeli government is run mostly by the next set of software (let's call it "orangeware") which says "everything can be explained and understood rationally and logically and if we do X, Y will be the result"; orangeware attempts to co-opt aspects of blueware that suit it at the time, discounting the motivations that blueware brings with it as unimportant in favour of the tactical advantage it might bring in a situation. thus, the israeli government thinks it can take the support of the CZ and use it for its benefit without taking on their values. as you can see, it's clearly not as simple as that.

bravery is a sign of morality.

i disagree. people are brave for different reasons at different times. blueware says "people are brave because being brave is good" and orangeware says "people are brave because it suits them for whatever reason, rational or not, to be brave". these are not the only software packages, however!

anyone who dismisses or altogether disregards the role of secret societies in especially European history hasn't read history.

yes, but anyone who thinks that all secret societies a) exist b) do something clear and specific with a global focus and c) are working together hasn't read "foucault's pendulum". go on, mention the templars, i dare ya!

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Servetus]

I was continuing my attempt to be funny.

i'm afraid i've had a bit of a sense of humour failure on this thread. call me mr grumpy, but there's something about being blamed for genocide against ourselves that just niggles a bit.

Then perhaps you should take issue with the person who, as you see it, has blamed you for genocide against yourself. Are you laying that charge at my doorstep? At any rate, despite your *alert*, I was not creating a false dichotomy: the historical divide between the Talmudists and Christians is not my invention and a dichotomy it certainly is.

I would still argue that, as Jesus was, or became, the first Christian.

fair enough, although i would have to disagree.

And disagree you freely may. I welcome it.

as i've said, encountering this stuff from the pov of rabbinic judaism, there is much to show that in many (but not all ways) he [Jesus] could be shown to be within the traditional mainstream.

As I see it, if Jesus had been a good, law-abiding Jew, he wouldn’t have been noticed and Christianity would not exist. However, I find it fine and, given my admitted bias in his favor, ennobling that there are those of you within the Jewish community who would like to find a place for him at table, even if he might be expected to send a few of his Dalit friends, the ritually impure, away in the process.

you don’t always have to take me to task.

no, i am abundantly aware of the failings of the israeli state and particularly its political system and political class, although that does not translate into "fascist apartheid wiffle-piffle" any more than lunitik's comments on this thread translate into "a logical argument".

As I read it, no one has yet said that the failings of the Israeli state translate into fascist apartheid wiffle-piffle; although, if you give me time, I might get around to it. I was talking to Ben Masada, who, you might have noticed, not only demonizes Palestinians as terrorists and children of darkness, but who also apparently fancies himself and Bernie Madoff (and others) as a collective messiah, sitting upon King David’s throne. I was wondering if, to him, Maimonides’s statement that the messiah would “fight the battles of the Lord” translates into dropping white phosphorous upon Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip: if that is an effective “messianic” strategy. I am, for that matter, still wondering. Thus far, I have only been (incorrectly) informed that that doesn't happen.

the problem of universalism is essentially that "this is right for everyone". if it is, then we *must* "share the good news" and convert you, because if not, you're "going to hell" and even if we're terribly nice about it, it basically comes down to the fact that "we are better than you"; this problem is at the heart of all problems with proselytising religion. all universalist belief systems share this flaw, whether supercessionist abrahamic religions, baha'i, mormonism, scientism etc. only a particularist religion, one which maintains that its message is only for those who opt in and that, moreover, there is no particular benefit to non-members in doing so, can maintain any kind of moral high ground in this respect. one can do this only by virtue of ending proselytisation (which is not to say that people should be *prevented* from changing their beliefs if they really want to) and by the provision of a system within the particularist religion which allows for equal virtue and value to be attained by those who are not within it. judaism does this via the 7 noahide laws and, when coupled (which i am sad to say is not always the case) to a lack of chauvinism, this is an effective strategy in my view. in other words: "this is right for us, but there is no reason why that is not just as right for you".

Thank you for elaborating. As I see it, your response is altogether too intelligent for this mud-slinging thread in which the presumed nationalist and racial sins of Jesus are, like the botched plastic surgeries of celebrities on the cover of National Enquirer, being polemically and sensationally “exposed.” I am holding a few subjects in abeyance, for a clearer moment, and might revisit this statement at some point because I think it contains much of potential value.

Actually, we do not all know what Judaism thinks of that sort of person.

ritual prostitution is one of the worst kinds of idolatrous behaviour.

Be that as it may, the apparently disguised Temple prostitutes of Hagee and Robertson’s type, provided they stay safely secured in the Court of the Gentiles, may lap-dance all they will for Israel and, the faster they gyrate, the higher their tip from AIPAC and Norman Podhoretz will be.

as you surmise, i think this is the grossest moral (and, moreover political) idiocy.

As you (ought to) surmise, so do I. Why else do you think I rail against the Temple prostitutes? Poor sods! They don’t even know, half the time, how they are being used. The next time John Hagee speaks at AIPAC, or, for that matter, the next time he puffs his cheeks, blows his shofar and tells us “God’s Foreign Policy," he should do it in a g-string, like the Temple prostitute he is.

… podhoretz is clearly an idiot anyway …

Please inform the US State and Defense Departments of that fact. Osama bin Laden called the marriage between Norman Podhoretz and John Hagee (and those of their type), in all of its many, infinite variations, the “Zionist-Crusader Alliance.” Politics makes strange bedfellows and jihadists, by any other sect or name, to me smell as foul.

and I brought him [Uri Avnery] into the discussion as an antidote, a counterpoise, to the sympathizing acolytes of Kach-Kahane, which terrorist organization, by the way, and speaking of hypocrisy, as you were, operates with practical impunity in these United States. It is, after all, the United States, not Israel, which in many of these discussions concerns me most.

as i continually point out, quoting two extreme and opposing points of view may make entertaining television, but it is not the basis of a common solution. i despise kahanism, but one can hardly claim with any credibility that it is anything like as mainstream as, say, j-street, even in the states.

I don’t see anyone from J-Street, at this point, squatting on disputed territory in East Jerusalem. Again, however unimpressed with Uri Avnery you may be, I was responding to someone in this thread who said that Palestinians are children of darkness. If you don’t mind, I will continue to present an extreme and opposing point of view to that one anytime I hear it.

anyone who dismisses or altogether disregards the role of secret societies in especially European history hasn't read history.

yes, but anyone who thinks that all secret societies a) exist b) do something clear and specific with a global focus and c) are working together hasn't read "foucault's pendulum".

Umberto Eco is in some ways a better author than Dan Brown, but, if the truth be told, the best, to me, is the one who got Winston Churchill’s goat, Mrs. Nesta Webster.

go on, mention the templars, i dare ya!

I already did.

Best regards,

Serv

 

[Lunitik]

so much for morality

What use is morality?

It is merely a training, there is nothing authentic in it.

Live through the heart and you see morality is meaningless, ethics are meaningless, for now you understand true virtue.

Yet, you will also understand that the past is a dead thing, why be sensitive about it? Only this moment is ever alive, yet many people are pulling along the entire past because they do not want to look at this moment. This moment is the only possibility for life, yet you are clinging to death.

This is my point in the Hitler statements, merely look into your own reaction to it and ask why it concerns you at all... you have not experienced it, it had nothing to do with you, but your identifications don't permit you to see.

You will probably react negatively to this too, you will want to prove why it relates to you... I would suggest you look at this before replying.

You identifications hold up the ego, nothing more.

Now that ego has been trying to offend me, this is naught but a defensive mechanism, yet you have the nerve to raise morals and ethics. See these again only serve your ego, for when the ego reacts it does not uphold any of your surface training.

 

[bananabrain]

Are you laying that charge at my doorstep?

not remotely; sorry if there is a misunderstanding.

At any rate, despite your *alert*, I was not creating a false dichotomy: the historical divide between the Talmudists and Christians is not my invention and a dichotomy it certainly is.

perhaps this is my lack of precision - what i mean is that at the time of jesus there are many, conflicting groups without necessarily clear ideological or theological distinction and what later becomes normative rabbinic judaism is closest to the "pharisees" and "doctors of law" of josephus and the NT, but there are also sectarians and heretics of various sorts, sadducees, boethusians,
essenes, sicarii, qumrani, therapeutae and other apocalyptic groups, as well as people who are essentially noahides - these are people around the roman empire who had taken on some of the ethical monotheism that the wandering preachers and teachers of the time espoused, but balked at the whole circumcision + kosher meat +++++ other 606 commandments required of a convert. it was these people, who i am given to understand eventually made up approximately 10% of the roman empire, that enabled the rapid growth of chrstianity when the pauline model of the early church outpaced the james model. the historical divide between talmudists and christians doesn't take place until after the definitive and bitter divorce of judaism and christianity, in my opinion. for me, to speak of that division at the time of jesus is a false dichotomy, albeit only in terms of time.

As I see it, if Jesus had been a good, law-abiding Jew, he wouldn’t have been noticed and Christianity would not exist.

that's an excellent point. i suppose my interest here is in trying to understand his relationship with his contemporary environment; but my starting point here can't easily be the NT, as that seems to have been written by people who were not really clear on the jewish context; here, i think the jewish texts from closer to the time are more instructive and, obviously, these come from a community that didn't really notice jesus, as he would have seemed just another entrant in the highly competitive messiah marketplace at the time (a point rather well made by the impressively jewishly accurate "life of brian").

However, I find it fine and, given my admitted bias in his favor, ennobling that there are those of you within the Jewish community who would like to find a place for him at table, even if he might be expected to send a few of his Dalit friends, the ritually impure, away in the process.

umph.... for me, he's a very interesting teacher, entirely characteristic of the historical, political and religious context, who has no religious significance in judaism, although i would almost certainly describe him as a martyr worthy of a portion in the world to come and, moreover, a symbol of the barbarity of roman rule, with which we were well acquainted.

no one has yet said that the failings of the Israeli state translate into fascist apartheid wiffle-piffle;

NCOT did - that comment was aimed at him.

if you give me time, I might get around to it.

don't bother. it is both inaccurate, lacks perspective and displays spectacular lack of insight into what apartheid actually was; that is not a perception of you i have had to date. i'm not particularly interested in having that debate, as it is always a bit "have you quit beating your wife?" and i've already done it ad nauseam here with the likes of "enlightenment". i'm not here to defend that fool netanyahu or that crooked racist scumbag lieberman, but anyone who thinks that the plight of the palestinians is anything like as bad as it was for black south africans, or the political opposition in any other middle eastern country (iran? syria? egypt? saudi arabia?), or that they can be totally absolved of moral responsibility for their shockingly poor political judgement and strategy, is wasting their time. i will confine myself to discussing reasonable solutions - if you want to do that, feel free to start yet another thread on it in the "politics" forum.

I was talking to Ben Masada, who, you might have noticed, not only demonizes Palestinians as terrorists and children of darkness, but who also apparently fancies himself and Bernie Madoff (and others) as a collective messiah, sitting upon King David’s throne.

....yeah....um, ok. i'm pretty sure i disagree strongly with him as well but neither of us are keen on suicidal pacifism.

As I see it, your response is altogether too intelligent for this mud-slinging thread in which the presumed nationalist and racial sins of Jesus are, like the botched plastic surgeries of celebrities on the cover of National Enquirer, being polemically and sensationally “exposed.” I am holding a few subjects in abeyance, for a clearer moment, and might revisit this statement at some point because I think it contains much of potential value.

i might suggest you do so in a separate thread in either the "abrahamic" or "comparative religion" forums; i would welcome that.

Be that as it may, the apparently disguised Temple prostitutes of Hagee and Robertson’s type, provided they stay safely secured in the Court of the Gentiles, may lap-dance all they will for Israel and, the faster they gyrate, the higher their tip from AIPAC and Norman Podhoretz will be.

i personally would avoid the suggestion that there is some kind of behind-the-scenes financial manipulation going on; that sort of thing would come across as an anti-jewish trope of the walt and mearsheimer type.

Please inform the US State and Defense Departments of that fact.

i am sure plenty have, i was just giving you my opinion.

Osama bin Laden called the marriage between Norman Podhoretz and John Hagee (and those of their type), in all of its many, infinite variations, the “Zionist-Crusader Alliance.”

actually, people like him consider any relationship whatsoever between any jew and any christian to be a "zionist-crusader alliance", as this bolsters their insanely paranoid world-view.

I don’t see anyone from J-Street, at this point, squatting on disputed territory in East Jerusalem.

there are plenty of native israeli peace groups, secular, political and religious, jew, arab and mixed, disputing the activity of settlement initiatives in east jerusalem elsewhere; i thought you were talking about the american political dynamic. i might note, incidentally, that there is a certain lack of peace groups on the palestinian side.

Umberto Eco is in some ways a better author than Dan Brown

if you can name me one way in which eco isn't a better writer, even in translation, i'll buy dan brown a new set of crayons for his next book.

b'shalom

bananabrain

This is my point in the Hitler statements, merely look into your own reaction to it and ask why it concerns you at all... you have not experienced it, it had nothing to do with you, but your identifications don't permit you to see.

actually, the repercussions are ongoing in my family, but it's interesting how you try and weasel out of any responsility for your statements and turn it back onto me. my reaction is to someone who has burrowed so far up his own bum that he barely counts as human any more. you disgust me. and you have the brass neck to represent yourself as some kind of enlightened being? despicable. what a con.

 

[radarmark]

BB--good point. If one postulates some inane conspiracy theory that (while it could be true) is not bloody likely (like the Hitler argument) without proof (or at least better than 1% confidence) how can one be enlightened?

 

[Dream]

and the first Temple was destroyed for reasons which are made clear in the prophets

not necessarily. i believe in the prophecies that we will return to our land and i hope that this is what is currently going on - but it's by no means certain. i do *not* believe in the prophecies that the "christian zionists" believe in, that we all have to go back in order to be killed and convert in order for the second coming. it's a different set of prophecies.

I realize that prophecy and prophecy is not always the same thing when you have two different groups reading it. My original reading of the prophets was colored by the CZ way of thinking to varying degrees and explored different types of CZ thought, but at all times we took the entire protestant Christian canon as the finger of God. Am I trying to bend the entire conversation? No, but I said all of that, to clarify my frame of reference. I've not read the prophets with a fresh eye since I ceased by fundamentalist, except for parts of them. On the whole I see them differently. On the whole I really should read them again before I briskly interpret why the 1st temple was destroyed.

One way I look at the 1st temple's destruction is to see it as a disaster caused by pedigreed mistakes which were caused by previous ones going all the way back to some original point where a crack started in the behavioral wall. David obviously make some big mistakes. I'm not sure how it relates to David's inclusiveness of people from other faiths. I thought he was inclusive, but that is taking us back to the original topic when everybody is starting to get tired of it.

people are brave for different reasons at different times. blueware says "people are brave because being brave is good" and orangeware says "people are brave because it suits them for whatever reason, rational or not, to be brave". these are not the only software packages, however!

I like this idea of software packages. There are many software packages required to make a running computer system, most of which are modular and can be repaced by competing packages. Even a kernel can be replaced by another provided all rest of the software is adjusted. That doesn't mean the system will run without bugs. There are always bugs and problems such as system crashes when you at first replace something. (To be clear I am talking about replacing software or ways of thinking -- not people.)

 

[Lunitik]

actually, the repercussions are ongoing in my family, but it's interesting how you try and weasel out of any responsility for your statements and turn it back onto me. my reaction is to someone who has burrowed so far up his own bum that he barely counts as human any more. you disgust me. and you have the brass neck to represent yourself as some kind of enlightened being? despicable. what a con.

I have not tried to weasel out of anything... tell me though, how is it still having repercussions on your family? If you're honest, I would bet each only stem from the inability for your family to get over it. Certainly, this has something to do with enlightenment, the enlightened man has no past, no future, he lives utterly in the now.

It is only NOW that God is accessible.

 

[Servetus]

not remotely; sorry if there is a misunderstanding.

Thank you. And there is, in this case, no need to apologize.

perhaps this is my lack of precision - what i mean is that at the time of jesus there are many, conflicting groups without necessarily clear ideological or theological distinction and what later becomes normative rabbinic judaism is closest to the "pharisees" and "doctors of law" of josephus and the NT, but there are also sectarians and heretics of various sorts, sadducees, boethusians, essenes, sicarii, qumrani, therapeutae and other apocalyptic groups, as well as people who are essentially noahides - these are people around the roman empire who had taken on some of the ethical monotheism that the wandering preachers and teachers of the time espoused, but balked at the whole circumcision + kosher meat +++++ other 606 commandments required of a convert. it was these people, who i am given to understand eventually made up approximately 10% of the roman empire, that enabled the rapid growth of chrstianity when the pauline model of the early church outpaced the james model. the historical divide between talmudists and christians doesn't take place until after the definitive and bitter divorce of judaism and christianity, in my opinion. for me, to speak of that division at the time of jesus is a false dichotomy, albeit only in terms of time.

I understand. With the facts kept fully in mind that neither Christianity nor Rabbinic Judaism was yet normative, at the time of Jesus, I clearly admitted that I was speculating and was playing upon which direction Jesus would most likely have taken had he been allowed to live: if he had grown up (which implies the passage of time and his passage through it).


By the way, I was re-reading Nietzsche last night, the bloke who forever scratches his claws upon not only Christianity but also Judaism, and noticed that he said, interestingly enough, that Jesus was not only the first but also the last Christian. “There only ever was one Christian and he died on the cross.” I quite naturally disagree with him, but still think it a compelling statement.

that's an excellent point.

Thank you.

i suppose my interest here is in trying to understand his relationship with his contemporary environment; but my starting point here can't easily be the NT, as that seems to have been written by people who were not really clear on the jewish context;

That is putting it both politely and mildly. St. Jerome, incidentally, said that he had a copy of the Aramaic “Matthew” when he translated the Vulgate. It’s too bad that neither of us has a copy of it. That would probably -nay, rather, undoubtedly- be considerably closer to the Jewish context.

here, i think the jewish texts from closer to the time are more instructive and, obviously, these come from a community that didn't really notice jesus …

Right. I notice, as well, that Alan Segal makes the point that St. Paul, or, if one prefers, Saul of Tarsus, offers some of the most extensive examples of Hellenistic Jewish writings on record. I realize, of course, that, as you have elsewhere said, the Hellenic stream is relatively unimportant to Rabbinic Judaism, but, to us (Christians), it obviously becomes scripture.

as he would have seemed just another entrant in the highly competitive messiah marketplace at the time (a point rather well made by the impressively jewishly accurate "life of brian").

“Why are you always on about women, Stan?”

umph....

That was good form. I was pulling the chain a bit.

for me, he's a very interesting teacher, entirely characteristic of the historical, political and religious context, who has no religious significance in judaism, although i would almost certainly describe him as a martyr worthy of a portion in the world to come and, moreover, a symbol of the barbarity of roman rule, with which we were well acquainted.

To me, Jesus is not only the Logos and Verbum made flesh but also the monogenes and prototokos par excellence. But, hey, however far apart on some things we may seem, you and I may sometimes be standing upon common ground after all.

don't bother. it is both inaccurate, lacks perspective and displays spectacular lack of insight into what apartheid actually was; that is not a perception of you i have had to date. i'm not particularly interested in having that debate …

Cheers. And your perception is in this case correct. We shall leave the “apartheid” debate for Jimmy Carter and the students at Brandeis. You and I have better things to discuss.

....yeah....um, ok. i'm pretty sure i disagree strongly with him as well but neither of us are keen on suicidal pacifism.

It seems to me that suicidal pacifism is a long way from “collective punishment.” Collective punishment, as a stratagem, reminds me more of Machiavelli on crack cocaine. I don't really have any solutions to the problem, though, I was just wondering if "fighting the battles of the Lord" included white phosphorous, depleted Uranium and such like.

Be that as it may, the apparently disguised Temple prostitutes of Hagee and Robertson’s type, provided they stay safely secured in the Court of the Gentiles, may lap-dance all they will for Israel and, the faster they gyrate, the higher their tip from AIPAC and Norman Podhoretz will be.

i personally would avoid the suggestion that there is some kind of behind-the-scenes financial manipulation going on; that sort of thing would come across as an anti-jewish trope of the walt and mearsheimer type.

Walt and Mearsheimer rock! But anyway, I am not suggesting that the payments are behind-the-scenes. They are up front and in everybody’s face. Hagee, for instance, is paid by publishing his anti-Muslim, pro-Jewish screeds and by finding an outlet in no less than Wal-Mart; Podhoretz, whose imprimatur of approval and disapproval can sometimes make and break careers in this country, tells Michael Lind to back off from “objective” anti-Semite Pat Robertson because the latter, with his “news” broadcasts, sticks his head so far up Israel’s donkey that the cameras go dark in the process.

Why are you always on about women, Stan?

i am sure plenty have, i was just giving you my opinion.

It’s my turn to apologize. What I should have more politely said is that Norman Podhoretz is an influential player in this country, with, at times, direct access to US Presidents. I think he is, even now, pimping for war with Iran and will probably soon get his wish. Absit omen!

actually, people like him consider any relationship whatsoever between any jew and any christian to be a "zionist-crusader alliance", as this bolsters their insanely paranoid world-view.

The point, to my mind, is that, from the time of the Balfour Declaration and onward, there has been an alliance of Jews with Christians. And Muslims, including Bin Laden and the reactionaries, tend to notice when the John Hagee, "immaculately tax-free" types waddle up to Washington D.C. to tell us that, curiously enough, “God’s foreign policy” happens to coincide exactly with that of Likud. AIPAC, meanwhile, gives standing ovations to this Mullah and, later, invites President Obama in for tea.

i might note, incidentally, that there is a certain lack of peace groups on the palestinian side.

Point noted. I would further note that it is easy to have “peace groups” when one has nukes. One can more afford talk of peace when one is better armed than one’s enemies. Napoleon, another skeptic and muckraker, said (something to this effect): “God is on the side with the best and biggest canons.”

if you can name me one way in which eco isn't a better writer, even in translation, i'll buy dan brown a new set of crayons for his next book.

That is simple. Dan Brown is a better writer and the proof of it is that he sells more books. That, to a Yank, or at least to this Yank, and quite apart from the fineries of either literary style or content, is sufficient proof and the bottom line. Homo economicus has spoken (but please don’t ever call me economicus).


Best regards,


Serv

 

[bananabrain]

I realize that prophecy and prophecy is not always the same thing when you have two different groups reading it.

it's also pretty much a different group of people making it; most of the apocalyptic stuff christians talk about tends to rely fairly heavily (and i know i'm generalising here) on the book of revelations, which is simply not a jewish book, so as a result they end up worrying about very different sorts of things.

I've not read the prophets with a fresh eye since I ceased by fundamentalist, except for parts of them. On the whole I see them differently. On the whole I really should read them again before I briskly interpret why the 1st temple was destroyed.

for this, i would strongly recommend you get hold of a copy of a.j. heschel's "the prophets", because he totally "gets" what is going on.

David obviously make some big mistakes.

yes, but not enough to lose him the right to the crown, unlike his predecessor. as he had to kill a lot of people to establish his dynasty, he was not permitted to build the Temple; this was given to solomon, who started with a clean slate.

I'm not sure how it relates to David's inclusiveness of people from other faiths. I thought he was inclusive, but that is taking us back to the original topic when everybody is starting to get tired of it.

nothing prevents us from starting a new thread! i don't think of david as inclusive like that; rather, this is solomon's issue. but the thing doesn't really go wrong until his successor rehoboam.

I like this idea of software packages.

in which case i strongly recommend you investigate gravesian theory and what is known as "spiral dynamics"; the chris cowan/don beck book is an excellent place to start to see how this stuff may work; i have found it extremely helpful both personally and in my job.

By the way, I was re-reading Nietzsche last night, the bloke who forever scratches his claws upon not only Christianity but also Judaism

i have rather enjoyed the nietzsche that i have read, although i think he understood about as much about judaism as he did about women (cf the rather barbed remark by bertrand russell on the subject).

St. Jerome, incidentally, said that he had a copy of the Aramaic “Matthew” when he translated the Vulgate. It’s too bad that neither of us has a copy of it. That would probably -nay, rather, undoubtedly- be considerably closer to the Jewish context.

it would be nice to think that the vatican had something like that (and it would be even nicer to think that we might get to look at it) - the usage of words and phraseology in the aramaic would give us a lot more clue to where they were coming from.

“Why are you always on about women, Stan?”

in fact, the "what have the romans ever done for us" sketch is virtually a word-for-word rewrite of a particular episode in the talmud; i have never had the opportunity to ask any of the pythons if this is intentional, but if i ever do, i shall certainly let people know the result!

however far apart on some things we may seem, you and I may sometimes be standing upon common ground after all.

that is almost certainly due to the fact that we have many of the same software packages installed, which essentially leads to congruence in value systems, although, importantly, not necessarily to congruent values.

It seems to me that suicidal pacifism is a long way from “collective punishment.”

it seems to me that collective punishment is actually a practical outcome rather than a tactic. if you intentionally situate your military positions in civilian areas as a strategic principle of assymetrical warfare, you are effectively conscripting your own people as human shields; this is inconscionable and one of the ways in which this situation is perpetuated; the likes of hamas and islamic jihad thus ensure a continued stream of angry volunteers and pr opportunities, whilst forcing israel into a reactive posture. the fact that innocent people get killed in the process bothers them not one whit. i am not a military tactician, however, but perhaps you might consider another analysis: i am aware that there are many different ways to look at this, but you might not have come across this one: col richard kemp gaza - Google Search

Walt and Mearsheimer rock!

i'm afraid they really don't. their reactions to legitimate criticism of their work show their real agenda.

Hagee, for instance, is paid by publishing his anti-Muslim, pro-Jewish screeds and by finding an outlet in no less than Wal-Mart;

sorry, are you saying that wal-mart is an agency of "international jewry" (i believe that's the phrase).

What I should have more politely said is that Norman Podhoretz is an influential player in this country, with, at times, direct access to US Presidents.

well, there are similar advocates in europe (and let's not forget russia and china) of the opposite extreme, so i dare say it balances out.

Why are you always on about women, Stan?

a question that the local university lecturer's union, which has been thoroughly infiltrated by anti-israel "lorettas", is now beginning to be thoroughly fed up with; recent successful candidates have run on platforms of "let's actually deal with things to do with being university lecturers, rather than spending all our time obsessing about how to boycott israel".

And Muslims, including Bin Laden and the reactionaries, tend to notice when the John Hagee, "immaculately tax-free" types waddle up to Washington D.C. to tell us that, curiously enough, “God’s foreign policy” happens to coincide exactly with that of Likud. AIPAC, meanwhile, gives standing ovations to this Mullah and, later, invites President Obama in for tea.

the likes of bin laden, like most political extremists, are excellent at noticing what it suits them to notice and ignoring what doesn't. all the people screaming for the indictment of tony blair for iraq conveniently forget his going to war on behalf of a muslim population threatened with genocide in the balkans; indeed, many bosnian mujaheddin later ended up in afghanistan, but i don't remember al-qaeda denouncing them as agents of new labour!

I would further note that it is easy to have “peace groups” when one has nukes.

that must be why there are so many pakistani, chinese and russian peace groups, i suppose; i look forward to the iranian peace groups that will spring up in the wake of their iminent attainment of nuclear capability.

One can more afford talk of peace when one is better armed than one’s enemies.

one wonders then why the syrian government found it necessary to murder nearly 10,000 of its own citizens, without even a tenth of the protest that was made against the gaza campaign.

Dan Brown is a better writer and the proof of it is that he sells more books.

in which case, i will inform madonna that she is a better musician than paco de lucia.

b'shalom

bananabrain

I have not tried to weasel out of anything...

that's all you do. everything is about someone else's imperfections, compared to your own godlike detachment.

tell me though, how is it still having repercussions on your family? If you're honest, I would bet each only stem from the inability for your family to get over it.

you're right. i will tell my wife that the fact that her aunt (who was 8 at the time), her grandparents and about 50-60 of her other relatives were murdered in auschwitz, thus traumatising her father and uncle for the rest of his life with knock-on effects to the people that they married and then their children - all of that is down to her inability to "get over it".

Certainly, this has something to do with enlightenment, the enlightened man has no past, no future, he lives utterly in the now.

fwah fwah fwah fwah drivel twaddle etc. is the reason you keep coming back here because nobody will talk to you in real life any more?

 

[radarmark]

"in which case, i will inform madonna that she is a better musician than paco de lucia."

OMG! Say it ain't so, Joe!

Popularity rarely (if ever?) has anything to do with art.

 

[Servetus]

it seems to me that collective punishment is actually a practical outcome rather than a tactic. if you intentionally situate your military positions in civilian areas as a strategic principle of assymetrical warfare, you are effectively conscripting your own people as human shields …

It seems to me that you are arguing as if all things are in this case equal. Given the fact that Israel, unlike Palestine, has realized its national ambitions and has achieved the status of modern, nation state, I hold it to higher standards than I hold the residents of the Gaza Strip, most of whom, I would guess, are as unable to stop the terrorism of those among them as I am to get the US troops out of Iraq.

i am not a military tactician, however, but perhaps you might consider another analysis: i am aware that there are many different ways to look at this, but you might not have come across this one: col richard kemp gaza - Google Search

Thank you for the recommendation.

i'm afraid they really don't. their reactions to legitimate criticism of their work show their real agenda.

I haven’t followed it that closely. I do respect your opinion, though, and will keep the possibility in mind. I just watched the sparks fly when they questioned the entrenched gods of especially neo-conservative Zionism and published their findings. For that, and iconoclast that I am, I quite naturally applauded them.

Hagee, for instance, is paid by publishing his anti-Muslim, pro-Jewish screeds and by finding an outlet in no less than Wal-Mart;

sorry, are you saying that wal-mart is an agency of "international jewry" (i believe that's the phrase).

Yes, that is the phrase. No, I am saying that, to the extent that it offers Imam John Hagee's books for sale, Wal-Mart is a distribution network for Zionism and Zionistic propaganda. Hagee’s reward is with him for parroting the Zionist party line: he gets a toast, though alcohol-free, from AIPAC.

well, there are similar advocates in europe (and let's not forget russia and china) of the opposite extreme, so i dare say it balances out.

I am less inclined to see balance.

the likes of bin laden, like most political extremists, are excellent at noticing what it suits them to notice and ignoring what doesn't ...

You are correct: that is true of all reactionaries and extremists, on all sides.

all the people screaming for the indictment of tony blair for iraq conveniently forget his going to war on behalf of a muslim population threatened with genocide in the balkans; indeed, many bosnian mujaheddin later ended up in afghanistan, but i don't remember al-qaeda denouncing them as agents of new labour!

Furthermore, OBL and Al-Quaida are themselves the golem created in American laboratories. Said the always pensive Zbignew Brzezinski : “"Which is more important in world history: The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? A few over-excited Islamists or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?" That question has yet to be answered.

i look forward to the iranian peace groups that will spring up in the wake of their iminent attainment of nuclear capability.

The striving for nuclear parity doesn’t always bring out the best, most peaceful traits in people, granted, but it is easier to talk peace when one is fully loaded and has veto power in the UN Security Council, such as the USA, that inveterate and shrill “preacher of peace” (with the pax in this case being understood to be the Pax Americana). "God," after all, "is on the side with the biggest canons."

one wonders then why the syrian government found it necessary to murder nearly 10,000 of its own citizens, without even a tenth of the protest that was made against the gaza campaign.

Good point. An answer, naturally, is that the modern state of “Syria” is as much an invention of the power elites, the (nominally Christian, or should I say “Judeo-Christian”) British and French governments, as is Israel. Sykes-Picot is a case in point. The “crusade,” as the Muslim extremists and reactionaries might put it (using G.W. Bush’s infelicitous phrase), has been in effect for a long, long while.

in which case, i will inform madonna that she is a better musician than paco de lucia.

She already knows that. The proof is in her bank account.

Best regards,

Serv

 

[Lunitik]

you're right. i will tell my wife that the fact that her aunt (who was 8 at the time), her grandparents and about 50-60 of her other relatives were murdered in auschwitz, thus traumatising her father and uncle for the rest of his life with knock-on effects to the people that they married and then their children - all of that is down to her inability to "get over it".

This traumatizing is nothing more than inability to let it go, why is it traumatizing to your wife? It is a clinging to the past, it is an inability to move beyond something which cannot be changed. You list excuses, and excuses are not meaningful. I just hope you're not permitting this to also affect your own family life because it is nonsense.

fwah fwah fwah fwah drivel twaddle etc. is the reason you keep coming back here because nobody will talk to you in real life any more?

You see your arrogance? Yet you are insistent that I am arrogant...

I come here because this is a site consisting of many seekers, I wish to help them come home. While conversations in person often subtly involve the same topics, believe it or not this is not something I define myself by, thus it rarely comes up in person. In fact, when it does, it is usually the other that has raised the topic...

While many in the world are asleep, their dream may be beautiful, what right does anyone have to wake them? Here online though, this is the central topic, thus I have endeavored to wake people. I am seeing that just because people talk about these topics doesn't mean they want anything to come of it, I am seeing that mostly people are wasting their time on this site. Yet you point to me and say I am one of those wasting their time? Certainly, but for different reasons.

 

[Lunitik]

Please understand, even good experiences have now past, there is no reason to even cling to them - you should be seeking the next blissful moment always. What more can be said about some bad experience? Yet people end up in psychological wards because they simply cannot move past a thing, their brains have become as a broken record just repeating the same thing over and over which is no more a reality. This is a dangerous thing, yet no one looks at it, they console these people and confirm how awful it must have been and they become just as much a cause of the repetition of this memory as the actual even itself. This is not my being cold or unloving, quite the contrary, it is a statement of unburdening, of release from your shackles. Will any ego permit that it be looked at in this way? Of course not, the ego lives on this type of thing...

It is strange, whenever I meditate in a public place and open my eyes, it is like the people around me are as posters on the wall of existence - there is no life there in them. Maybe on a long bus trip home, I will engage in this quite frequently, and this seems to always be the conclusion. It causes me to want even more to share that life I have just soaked myself in with them, and sometimes it will cause noticeable changes in those I am riding with. It is difficult for me to understand how people can live like this though, it doesn't seem possible sometimes that they are even living.

Then I look on a child, such liveliness, pure delight at merely being. Perhaps for their rowdiness, a parent will chastise the child and it will sulk briefly, then go immediately back into its laughter at the first distraction. Children do not become burdened at all by even a moment ago, let alone something from further back in the past. I have even known children that have been abused by their parents, yet within an hour they will be playing with the same parent without holding anything back. Where is the break between this pure living and the people I see devoid of life on the bus?

Society has happened, nothing else. Many years have passed and such nonsense has been picked up in these peoples psyches that it is almost wrong to enjoy life now. Every enjoyment is not allowed, so much pressure is there to succeed, I cannot even call what society is producing as human. Society is only interested in developing robots, and what is even more depressing is that society actually enforces this voiding of life among itself. It seems people become jealous when another seems more alive, they will chastise this person and bring them down to their levels if the person is not strong enough. We can tolerate a depressed person, but happy we will not permit.

I do not understand why people are not simply grateful they exist, why they endeavor for so much that they cannot appreciate this simple fact. Life seems so utterly impossible to me, yet it is so. I would challenge each of you, daily, to remember this fact a few times during the day - just stop and thank existence for supporting you. Yet, most are not grateful, they jump right past to the why. Seeing there is no logical reason at all, depression ensues quite naturally. Why do we need a reason? It is because the mind demands some goal, some end to everything...

Please see that the ends and means to all things which are meaningful in life come together, whenever they seem divided, you are sure to suffer for this is nothing but desire. If you can let go utterly into now, every ends and means is there already, for the more you let go of the minds perceptions, the more you can see the beauty of this world. All beauty is pointless, and in this is lifes beauty too.

 

[luecy7]

... you should be seeking the next blissful moment always.

That would be a rather selfish mindset, to always be seeking a blissful moment.

We can tolerate a depressed person, but happy we will not permit.

You speak from yourself, from your mindset. Why do you love depression, and can't tolerate a happy person?

It is because the mind demands some goal, some end to everything...

So the goal that you advise others to adopt came from your mind, demanding an end: a blissful moment.