See other Activism Articles
Title: One More Hate Letter
Source:
Davidduke.com
URL Source: http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=309#more-309
Published: Jun 16, 2005
Author: David Duke
Post Date: 2005-06-16 12:43:15 by Zoroaster
Keywords: Letter, More, Hate
Views: 3112
Comments: 129
6/14/2005 One More Hate Letter Posted under: General— @ 8:51 am Hate Letters Department The following is an excerpt from another Hate Letter from one of my obviously not-so-enamored admirers. I thought you might enjoy my response so I will share it with you. Dear Mr. Duke: I commend to you the article by Paul Johnson, the prominent historian, in the June issue of Commentary magazine concerning Anti-Semitism being a persistent mental disease. This confirms what I wrote you several years ago, concerning getting help from a psychiatrist. Incidentally,while you are in the Ukraine, I suggest you visit Babi Yar. I am sure you are making a lot of money from your skinhead and anti-semitic followers, but you evidently do not believe in the fatherhood of God, and the brotherhood of men. How sad. R. Ginson Your letter is typical of the absolute blind sightedness of the Jewish supremacism mental illness that YOU are infected with. Why do you mention Babi Yar in Ukraine, why no mention of the 7 million men, women and children murdered by the Jewish Bolshevik Kaganovich and his other Bolshevik henchmen. You obviously only value Jewish lives. To you only the Jews who died at Babi Yar are even worth mentioning, the 7 million Gentiles are just goyim to you! Don’t tell me about supremacism and racial hatred, go tell that to the NPR and Likud Party and the mass murderer Ariel Sharon and all of you damned Jewish supremacist accessories to his and Israel’s ethnic cleansing, torture and murder. If anti-Semitism is a disease, then what is anti-Gentilism, what is the Chosen People (master race) genocide boasted about in the Torah and Talmud? ( “and they killed every man, women, child, and spared not a thing that breathes") In fact the three main holidays are about genocide of Jewish enemies. Passover, the Passing of the evil spirit over the Jewish homes and striking down the first born of all Egyptians; Purim, the slaughter of Haman and 75,000 persians; and Hannakuk, the bloody massacre of the Greeks and the capture of the temple in Jerusalem. It seems your whole favored religion is rooted in genocide while Christianity is based on love and forgiveness. Not to even understand this tells me that you may well be the sick one, and you are the one who needs some help. Give your canned “Brotherhood of Man” speech to Jewish supremacists that you dare not oppose. I believe all people deserve respect and all people have a right to exist and have societies based on their own values and heritage. But, I really don’t take kindly to Jewish supremacists and their defenders who are trying to destroy my own heritage and freedom as well as every other people on the planet. If you want an example of the “Brotherhood of Man” launched by those wonderful supremacists such as Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Crystal and Wurmser take a look at our 1700 dead American patriots in Iraq, and 20,000 maimed Americans there as well as the 100,000 Iraqis who died and the hundreds of thousands who have been maimed and hurt in this bloody, insane war for Israel. Are you so stupid as not to know that this was a war created by the Jewish supremacists for Israel’s benefit? As for your suggestion about me making money opposing the Jewish extremists. Nothing is more costly and hard than going against the Jewish supremacist powers. As one Jewish observer said, “There is no business like Shoah business!” Holocaust mania and praising the Jewish supremacists can land you the media appearances and publishing contracts and the really big bucks. Opposing them causes a constant struggle to financially survive. As for going to a psychiatrist, remember that the father of psychiatry, Freud himself, was a vicious hater of Gentiles who wrote of his desire to destroy Europeans (see the quotations of Freud cited and fully footnoted in my book). I am sure a Jewish psychiatrist will pronounce anyone who opposes Jewish hatred to be mentally ill. Maybe you should go see your Jewish psychiatrist, pay him a few shekels and I am sure he will tell how you how loving and wonderful you are to worship the Jewish supremacists and blind your eyes to the oceans of blood found in their wake. Sincerely, David Duke
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Arator, Don, Burkeman1 (#0)
FYI
If you love America, you'll hate Israel.
ROTFL. Should be a tag line...
Outstanding rebuttal by David Duke. I wasn't aware that Freud was a hater of gentiles--curious that Don mentioned Freud in a post to me the other day.
Ah, Jews had nothing to do with the passover, God did. He was punishing the people of Egypt for not letting the Jews be free and leave Egypt.
God is always good!
Nor I. ...7 million men, women and children murdered by the Jewish Bolshevik Kaganovich and his other Bolshevik henchmen.
Just another fabricated straw man argument. There is no anti-Gentilism. Arrogance, disdain, and conceit amongst Jewish leaders, probably. Hostility towards sworn enemies, most definitely. But no agenda to hate, destroy or subject all Gentiles. God "chose" the descendants of Jacob (Israel) to be God's people to fulfill God's purpose. God chose Israel. God's purpose was that Israel be a living testimony to God and also bear the Messiah. Israel did not choose God or decide why God chose them. Further, God's choosing was not to establish a master race (Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;) nor for genocide (the killing of any particular race). The quote seems to be a misquote of Deut 20:16. Here it is correct and in context: Now, you may argue God is "harsh" or "genocidal", but take that up with God - He was giving the orders for His reasons in His omnipotence and sovereignty. The Israelites were being instructed by God to obey Him. They didn't decide on their own to kill indiscriminatly. Passover is the Jewish celebration of when God's angel of death (who was punishing Egypt for Egypts slavery of Israel and defiance of God's instructions to free them) "passed over" Jewish homes who so marked themselves as "covered under" the blood of the paschel lamb. The Israelites didn't cause the deaths, God did. Purim is a minor festival (not a main holiday - but David Duke already knew that) celebrating, not the death of Hamaan who was trying to have all Jews killed: Hannakuk (actually Hanukkah or Chanukkah) is the Festival of Lights, another minor (not major) festival and celebrates the rededication of the Jewish Temple (recently desecrated by Antiochus IV) when it and Jerusalem and Judea were freed by the Maccabean revolt from the Greek occupying forces subsequent to Alexander the Great's invasion and occupation in 332 BC. Yes Greeks were massacred, but then they were Greek military occupying a land not their own. Occupation forces that desecrate a locals religious temples tend to get bloodied, do they not? And just where precisely is this Christian love and forgiveness David Duke exhorts when he was compelled to distort as many facts as required to target the man/country he hates? If David Duke were to adhere to his Christian teachings, he would hate what Ariel Sharon and others do but love the man himself as well as stop hating everyone who merely has a genetic or geographic affiliation with Sharon. And where is Duke's Christian love in hating Jews because they're Jewish and distorting the bible and history? Hate Ariel Sharon for his own behavior if you like. Hate Israel for their politics if you like. But don't paint God and all Israelites as if they are to blame. Judge the fruit, such as it is, for yourselves, but hopefully with open eyes.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I admire anyone who challenges authority and especially political correctness. DD qualifies.
Actually, way back when, a tribe from the Desert wastes decided to concoct an explanation of their place in the cosmos, they made themselves the universal center and the big sky deity's favorite children. Imagine that.
We aren't. Many of us take great pains to never generalize. We specifically say over and over the fanatical elements of the Likud party, and their neocon friends (some with dual-citizenship with Israel) in high places in our govt are the problem.
lol - then they sure botched it because their 'self-chosen fabrication by a fabricated deity' gameplan doesn't match what their 'fabricated deity' actually says in their 'fabricated' playbook. How can they be in control of all the fabrication parts and still get their own complete fabrication all wrong?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Absolutely I agree. I was arguing against David Duke's diatriabe, not the posters I pinged. I pinged them in even't they weren't aware of the biblical distortions Duke had made. Again, I absolutely agree the 'Palestinians' (a somewhat abused term, as well as group) have a right to their own country. In fact, so did Britain, Arab leaders and Jewish Leaders back in 1917-1922 when Israel was to be re-established from the British Palestine Mandate (formerly occupied by the Ottoman Turks). It hda been then agreed the Palestinians would get what was then known as the Transjordan (modern Jordan today) and the Jews living in the Transjordan were told to pack and move out (which they did), but then the Arabs never let the 'Palestinians' move into Transjordan. But, yes, the Palestinians do indeed deserve a/their homeland. Would you agree enforcing prior agreements for them to have all of the Transjordan ought to be an option, as they were originally promised by the British and Arabs?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
"Communal responsibility is based on the fact that each of us is born into a community and shares its history, memories, identities, achievements, and failures. We are not simply human beings who can retreat behind a Rawlsian 'veil of ignorance,' secure in our universal rights and historical innocence. We are also members of specific families and communities ... We are all coresponsible for that which our community has perpetrated or condoned, for both sins of commission and omission." The Kingdom of God is within you.
are dominated by the relatively small number of persons ... who (and nephew of famed Jewish psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud). The Kingdom of God is within you.
"It is possible to be an ex-Catholic or an ex-Baptist, but it is not possible to be an ex-Jew." "All is race; there is no other truth." The Kingdom of God is within you.
Honestly, I don't know. Anything would be better than as it stands now.
I have to wonder about that when I see tv shows they have out now and when I listen to NPR, the only radio station where I live. NPR seems to thrive on talkshows with topics pertaining to the bad white people. The other day they had an hour long show about how African Americans are discriminated by whites in our country, and yesterday there was a similar show about how the whites have hurt the native Americans throughout the centuries. Many of the white people in this area just don't listen to it anymore because it's saturated with anti-white talk shows. On tv there is a similar trend painting white Christian types as either neurotic, criminal and/or ignorant. It gets tiresome seeing white people being bashed, though at this point in time I would not want to be a regular Jewish person as they suffer because of the bad acts of their evil brethren such as Sharon and our media bosses, who along with our foriegn policy makers have brought scorn to Jews in general. It's the same way most of the world hates Americans now and paints all of us guilty of war crimes. There's too much stereotyping all the way around with a lot of different ethnic groups hating one another. It does not need to be promoted any further by our media.
The Prefect God does not play favorites. Those who quote the Bible as a "testament of God's favoritism of Jews" are merely admiring it as a momument over the grave of Christianity.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
"testament of God's favoritism of Jews" is obviously someone else's quote as you'll never find in my post #6, will you. What I did say was God chose them to fulfill God's purposes. God had chosen responsibilities (not favoritism) in mind for Israel: If your boss hands you a big assignment, did your boss 'play favorites' or did your boss set you apart for an important task? You also conveniently overlooked my statement and quote of Romans 10:12: (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I'm sorry I don't believe God actually did it. I believe that he allowed it to happen. Just like he allowed the devil to afflict Job.
God is always good!
The prevailing theory in Israel today is that the ancient Israelites never left Egypt but probably emerged out of Canaan. They took on a new identity as Israelites, and were perhaps joined or led by a small group of kinfolk from Egypt – so there might be a kernel of truth according to some scholars. In a book called "The Bible Unearthed," the Israeli archaeologist Israel Finklestein of Tel Aviv University and the archaeological journalist Neil Asher Silberman (no relation) raised similar doubts and offered a new theory about the roots of the Exodus story. They argue that it was written during the time of King Josiah of Judah in the 7th century BCE, 600 years after the Exodus. Many serious scholars doubt Moses ever existed.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
The narrative in Ex 11 & 12 (and earlier) makes it quite clear the LORD (the tetragrammaton for God's personal sacred name) claims personal responsibility and authority for killing the firstborn (as well as bringing about the former plagues). The LORD also claimed He personally would pass over those homes covered under the blood of the paschel lamb. That is a theological issue as well in that it is God who has the sovereignty to judge or 'pass over' anyone covered in the blood of Jesus (or the paschel lamb) and such sovereignty to so judge or pass over is not delegated by God (well, other than to God the Son). I'd be interested in any cites to the contrary. Further one of the points in Exodus (unlike Job) is God is making it clear to Egypt and the Israelites that God was Egypts adversary, not Moses or magicians or spirits . God was also making the point that He was bringing about what He declared He would do.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I seldom quote the Bible. "Favoritism" is my word. As I wrote previously, "The Prefect God does not play favorites." I am neither a Zionist, Christian Zionist, nor a Noahide. Nothing is more dangerous to freedom than fanatics claiming divine authority for some unholy cause.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
So were you just making statements against interest and using my post as a foil, or do you actually have some specific issue with what I wrote? Moses was the only human to have been favored by God to have seen God face to face. Dan 9:23 "At the beginning of your supplications the command was issued, and I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed; Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased." Somehow I suspect you're neither surprised nor disappointed.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
They planted the seeds of fabrication and thousands of permutations have since sprouted by opportunists that wish to wield a moral Damacles sword. You seem to be well versed in the scripture, if you'll allow me to digress a moment then maybe you can solve a question that's been nagging me lately. The tower of Babel was destroyed because man was building too high and thus encroaching on God's Kingdom, correct? God's Kingdom is eternal, timeless and immovable, correct? Then how come mankind is now able to traverse God's kingdom in Aircraft at will? Or launch satellites, capsules and people into space? Has he become much more lenient since the Old Testament and doesn't mind airplane noise interfering with the fanfare of his angle's chorus. There are many, many other examples of Biblical stories which are farcical in the face of modern science but rather than answering for their inaccuracy, at that point they become interpretations which you aren't supposed to read literally. Right?
Well.. the tower is only mentioned in Genesis chapter 11:1 - 9.. thats it.. and
it wasn't because of where they were building the tower and how high it was..
the scripture says.. 3 They said to each other, "Come, let us make
oven-fired bricks." They had brick for stone and asphalt for mortar. 4 And they
said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the sky.
Let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise, we will be scattered over the face
of the whole earth." Genesis 11:5 Then the Lord came down to look over the
city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The Lord said, "If, as one
people all having the same language, they have begun to do this, then nothing
they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let Us go down there and
confuse their language so that they will not understand one another's speech." 8
So the Lord scattered them from there over the face of the whole earth, and they
stopped building the city. 9 Therefore its name is called Babylon, for there the
Lord confused the language of the whole earth, and from there the Lord scattered
them over the face of the whole earth. It has more to do with the people's
attitude.. that they would be equal to God.. not that it was going to be in the
skies..
I should add that this attitude also has more to do with 'getting to God' or
seeking God (going to heaven) by their own means rather than by God's plan..
man's idea vs God's plan.. "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush
The KVJ says "whose top may reach unto heaven". Which is a specific locational reference. If the tower was a physical manifestation of their attitudes, surely space flight rivals any ambitions of biblical people, so are some types of transgressions no longer unpleasant to the Lord? How about laboring on the Sabbath which is said to be punishable by death (Exodus 35:2), or the abomination of eating shellfish Lev. 11:10, or contact with women during their period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24).
Well the KJV is not a very good translation.. #1.. the OT is the new concealed
and the NT is the Old revealed. The OT although the things did physically
happen..they are allegory for spiritual things.. the plan of salvation started
in Genesis at the beginning. All that happened was to point us to God's plan..
Those Levitical laws..had to do with what were considered unclean and were an
allegory for sin.. (most had to do with health issues which were in the best
interests of the people.. such as shellfish.. bottom feeders.. could cause the
people illness... ) Jesus said he is the fulfillment of the Law.. so if we
accept Him we are no longer under the Law.. for if He is in us.. all are
kept in us through Him..
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush
Jesus said he is the fulfillment of the Law.. so if we accept Him we are no longer under the Law.. for if He is in us.. all are kept in us Necessity is a fine selling point, informercials were smart to follow religion on that feature. If a salesman told me "Hey, you are inherently evil and need my redemption serum" I would probably assault him. Damnation is not a part of my system of beliefs which preempts the need for a savior. That point is irreconcilable with the faithful who won't deny themselves and others the prospect of divine punishment. Nietzsche summed it up best for me "Fellow creators the creator seeks, not corpses or herds or believers." Aspiring to be a "fellow creator" is diametrically opposed to Christianity as I understand it and I make it a point to never ever handicap my spiritual potential.
You have to actually understand the bible (even if you don't agree with it) to know what it intended as history, as doctrine, as spiritual, as physical, as literal, or symbolic. There are differing views among theologians regarding interpretive systems, and they would disagree in their personal interpretive views, but they would agree on the need for correctly interpreting the different kinds of passages. To be fair in any question or criticism you might care to raise, you must first be 'in the right ballpark' insofar as knowing what God intended to be conveyed. For example, just because the bible records slaughter in historical accounts does mean the bible "teaches" God expects one to go out and likewise slaughter. Genesis 1 is one of those "biblical stories" as you put it, that is literal and physical and even supported by modern science. Consider The Age of the Universe by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, in which he describes a possible reconciliation of the scientifically measured age of the universe (some 15B years) with the Genesis account of six days. Not "farcical" but a trustworthy physical literal account that can be disected and studied and aligned with what science measures and understands (albeit imperfectly as yet). If the article at all interests you, I further recommend Dr. Schroeder's book "Genesis and the Big Bang" for an intriguing elucidation of how the original Hebrew text conveyed to the ancient sages what cosmologists are now begining to understand about how the universe began. Not quite. The builders were essentially guilty of pride and a desire to obtain or reach God's domain on their own effort or merit, by their own hand. Human hubris being what it is, anything they imagined they could achieve they assumed they would in fact achieve - that is overreaching ego, not confidence. God destroyed it not because God was threatened by their civil engineering skill, but to put an end to their collective pride. A false premise. God's kingdom is also infinite. Where has man been able to traverse God's Kingdom? If by Kingdom you mean "heaven", clearly no aircraft has traversed it (well, outside of the Bermuda triangle anyway - lol). If by "kingdom" you really meant "creation", well then man has traversed the earth, moon and nearby planets, not nearly so much as the infinite extent of God's entire creation, no? A kingdom is also the domain of a King - where the King reigns or lives. Jesus would live and reign in our hearts, spiritually, and likewise no aircraft has traversed our "hearts" either. And most often in the bible "heart" does not mean the blood pumping organ, but the place from which love, feeling and belief emanate - clearly more a mental concept but not purely intellectual either as feeling and instinct are involved as well. The key to understanding the bible is properly interpreting it and such rules of interpretation are known as a "hermeneutic", the benefit of a consistently applied hermeneutic is to always correctly differentiate between what is history, doctrine, spiritual, physical, literal, or symbolic. A few more examples: Before you presume the bible is farcical, ask yourself, if it were true, if God is real and wanted to prepare His creation for an eternal life in His presence or outside of His presence, what does God accomplish by nuturing and cultivating humanity as He did and thus writing the bible the way it is? Or asked another way, assume it is correct and then seek to understand and verify it, reserving your own judgement to dismiss it after you've 'mastered' it all. And bring your brain. God delights in sincere questions and sincere truth seekers. (ping to others who may have an interest)
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I dont quite follow.. you had asked what the OT references where.. not sure how it went to Nietzsche.. Seems you are seeing the negative and I see it as positive.. All I can say is each of us has to come to an understanding ourselves.. I didnt become a Christian out of fear of damnation.. not at all.. it was quite the opposite..
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush
Yikes! Correction: For example, just because the bible records slaughter in historical accounts does not mean the bible "teaches" God expects one to go out and likewise slaughter. (Sheesh... I proof and proof and proof, and still screw up, big time)
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Agreed.. just as the difference in Cain and Abel's sacrifices..
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush
The Kingdom of God is within you.
That's cool.
what does God accomplish by nuturing and cultivating humanity as He did and thus writing the bible the way it is? Ah, He wrote it? With a word processor? And bring your brain. That's the problem. I do. And the scripture doesn't reconcile with the natural world. Animals don't talk for instance. People can't live in the belly of a whale. Weather patterns are not such that they can encompass the entire world in a flood. And the one remaining family, biologically speaking cannot replenish the whole population. We know from the fossil record, there were bipedal hominids, which were never accounted for in the creation story (that I'm aware of). We are told Man was made in God's image, but what about Homo Erectus? We have in our bodies remenants of an evolutionary past. The human tailbone, the now-useless appendix (God had extra parts lying around, or what?). Wisdom teeth often grow in impacted because the jawbone used to be longer. An entire molecular world which science didn't know about is now unmitigated fact. And nothing about this essential universe was alluded to in the scripture. Dihygrogen Oxide molecules, for instance, must function a certain way and the reality is they cannot stray from their nature even if Jesus walks on a mess of them. Why would God go to the painstaking effort of creating such balance only to make a mockery of it to amaze us with miracles? God delights in sincere questions and sincere truth seekers. He might, but his dogma doesn't seem to.
Did you even try to read and understand the one link I provided? Did you actually bring your brain as you claim or did you just bring presumption and attitude? And why should it? The bible is the story of what God did and why. God has left it to us (using the brains He gave us) to figure out how He did it. Your complaint is that the bible isn't believable, and your argument is because in spite it's having provided the accurate cosmological answer, 3000 years before science even knew there was a question, it is silent (not wrong, just merely silent) on the subject of molecular physics. Instead of investigating for accuracy what the bible does say, you have dismissed it because of something it did not say. Is that the standard of truth you would want applied to what you write in your posts? Would you want to be judged not on the accuracy of what you did write, but your failure to include mention of every topic in which every lurker has some interest? To be believable the bible merely has to be truthful on everything it does say. And neither archeology nor science have sufficiently advanced to have full grasp of every subject the bible does cover. That is precisely the 'Tower of Babel' kind of hubris that God detests. To presume that you know all that can be known not only about water, its phases, surface tension, molecular forces, gravity, bouyancy, etc but also whether Jesus was supported by water tension, bouyancy, null-gravity field, tractor beams, or whatever, and to further presume that God is limited to the same extent as your understanding, ie, that God can only do what you understand is possible, is unscientific. Even science allows for what it doesn't yet understand, but not you? Because we need the balance for our physical survival and existance , and the miraclulous is provided as demonstrable evidence that God does not. That God is in fact beyond it all and in control of it all. God is not a prisoner of His creation and the miracluous reveals to us (well, to anyone with eyes to see) that He is in fact "God".
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Amen and well stated...
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush
Sorry I'm just getting around to this now. You're right: Purim is a minor holiday. Chanukah is too: both shrink to comparative insignificance behind the High Holidays, of which the major two are Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. But I'm afraid you're not right about the number of Persian deaths involved with Purim. Read Esther 9. Sorry...
Instead of investigating for accuracy what the bible does say, you have dismissed it because of something it did not say. I did. It says animals used to talk and people used to live to be several hundred years old. Along with many other stretches of the imagination that the faithful gloss over or claim those can't be read literally. did you just bring presumption and attitude? I'm not grilling anyone or trying to be an asshole. I'm on a search for faith too, but I insist on a docrtine that jibes with the world as it presents itself. Not a compendium of Asiatic fairy tales. And neither archeology nor science have sufficiently advanced to have full grasp of every subject the bible does cover. Because they're at odds. For God to have made the Earth and humanity his special project, it used to be believed that we were at the very center of the universe. As we've learned that's not remotely the case, we've dragged religion with us kicking and screaming. When it comes to critical questions abour creation, Religion is inflexible. It insists on not being questioned (and this excercise seems to irritate you - not my intention) because the answers show it in a bad light or make it look downright ridiculous. Science thrives on "heresy" towards it's subjects. More questions and more doubts lead it's students further toward real truths about our structural makeup. Others are always stuck on ancient and irrelevant "Begats, begets and begones". I notice you glossed over my sentence about "We have in our bodies remenants of an evolutionary past. The human tailbone, the now-useless appendix (God had extra parts lying around, or what?). Wisdom teeth often grow in impacted because the jawbone used to be longer." We have (or had ;) tails for crying out loud, like animals. So it God a comedian? I would buy that explanation. Dihygrogen Oxide molecules, for instance, must function a certain way and the reality is they cannot stray from their nature even if Jesus walks on a mess of them. That is precisely the 'Tower of Babel' kind of hubris that God detests. Right, the faithful don't like questioning by scientific facts. They don't like explaining why the Earth is strewn with the fossils of creatures never mentioned in the creation account. Our how the immortal soul can be captured and tortured relentlessly when the central nervous system, a necessity for feeling pain remains here on terra firma to rot after death. Or how human beings, with a physical makeup we know a lot about can live to be 700 years old. Joints, cartilage, eyesight, the respiratory and circulatory systems; these things give out after 70 years or so on average. How did they used to last hundreds as repeatedly stated in the Bible? Did God at some point start making budget humans? Yeah, I know what you're going to say. That I should take it on faith that every mind boggling impossibility happened and it's our science that is lacking here. Bullfeathers!
Great posts, Dude, but there is no arguing with fanatics who believe they have divine knowlegd and are on a divine mission. "At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytzing zeal on behalf of religions or political idols." Aldous Huxley (1956)
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
And yet, I did not ask you to take on faith the earth is 6 days old, did I. No, in fact I actually offered you a scientific article based on relativity and an expanding universe which establishes an agreement between the biblical account and modern cosmology: The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years. The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years. The third 24 hour day also included half of the previous day, 2 billion years. The fourth 24 hour day -- one billion years. The fifth 24 hour day -- one-half billion years. The sixth 24 hour day -- one-quarter billion years. When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance? Actually, you were offered one above, but what you have insisted on is ignoring it and shifting to new targets. And should you be offered answers to those too, will you ignore them as well and shift yet again to other targets? You're the one that seems so inflexibile as to be incapable of acknowledging answers and questions posed back to you. But what is irritating about this exchange is your hypocrisy in ignoring those answers and questions while complaining that a couple questions were "glossed over" out of the dozen that were in fact answered with detail and clarity - enough so that you ducked them. And incidently, I do in fact believe it is your intention to provoke and irritate. Your first post to me alluded to the "big sky deity" and deliberate fraud in the biblical account, and every post since has been strewn with sarcasm and derision, but oddly, no acknowledgements or response to answers given. I didn't gloss over it. It didn't even exist in your first question to me about the 'Tower of babel' which I did answer fully. Here then is your post #24 to me in it's entirety: You seem to be well versed in the scripture, if you'll allow me to digress a moment then maybe you can solve a question that's been nagging me lately. The tower of Babel was destroyed because man was building too high and thus encroaching on God's Kingdom, correct? God's Kingdom is eternal, timeless and immovable, correct? Then how come mankind is now able to traverse God's kingdom in Aircraft at will? Or launch satellites, capsules and people into space? Has he become much more lenient since the Old Testament and doesn't mind airplane noise interfering with the fanfare of his angle's chorus. There are many, many other examples of Biblical stories which are farcical in the face of modern science but rather than answering for their inaccuracy, at that point they become interpretations which you aren't supposed to read literally. Right? And here in your post #35 you (not I) "glossed over" every answer I gave you, and instead shifted targets and asked about the human tailbone, wisdom teeth, the bible being silent on molecular physics, and God's ability and purpose in the miraculous. In response, in my post #36, I asked if you had read the link I provided and pointed out the illogic in criticising the bible for being silent on molecular physics and explained why God does miracles. Did you acknowledge or respond to any of that? No. You instead have shifted targets yet again and complain I glossed over one of your questions, when you have glossed over every answer you have been previously given. But I didn't gloss over it so much as I didn't address it at all, wasting my time (apparently) instead on a what I thought you'd appreciate was a bigger biblical/cosmological issue. While I reserve judgement on your premise that an "evolutionary past" is the only explanation for a "human tailbone", I don't have an explanation. [BTW, that's what honesty looks like.] And if on the basis of one person not having one explanation you wish to declare victory, then by all means do so. Likewise, if your "trump card" is always going to be the bible didn't discuss every scientific topic you imagined, then declare victory and walk away. Question all you like, but at least have the common intellectual courtesy to respond to the answers you are given. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that you clearly understood that the answer you were given exposed a false presumption that Jesus' weight had to be supported by molecular surface tension and that science understands perfectly all the physics involved, and all required information and data is known and there are and never will be any other mechanism, thus the only conclusion is that God can not walk on water. You clearly understood that science has no explanation for the miraculous (as yet anyway). But rather, for the sake of your argument, you instead take the position that science is at present sufficiently all-knowing to declare any not-understood biblical account as false. There was a time (about 40 years ago) when science "knew" the universe had no beginning that it always was, and the Genesis account of a universe created from nothing was patently absurd. Well, the biblical account hasn't changed, but science matured to the point it now understands something it did not understand previously. That maturation will continue. Perhaps likewise there will be a day when science will understand how God might be able to walk on water. But for you to pretend you weren't offered a solid explanation showing alignment between the world as it presents itself (15 3/4 Billion years old) and the biblical account (6 days old) is simply dishonest. Perhaps when you acknowledge and respond to the points made in the answers you have been given, we can move on to whatever you believe to have been glossed over. Otherwise we're just sucking up bandwidth without communicating, with no chance to intelligently agree or disagree.
#2. To: Zoroaster (#0)
“There is no business like Shoah business!”
We'll split the threads. You can have chem trails, 911, and Bildeberg. I want gold bugs and racists.
#3. To: Zoroaster, Jethro Tull, 1776, Zipporah, robin, Dakmar, itisa1mosttoolate, wbales, Dude Lebowski, Ricky J, Red Jones, Eoghan (#0)
If anti-Semitism is a disease, then what is anti-Gentilism, what is the Chosen People (master race) genocide boasted about in the Torah and Talmud? ( “and they killed every man, women, child, and spared not a thing that breathes")
#4. To: Zoroaster (#0)
In fact the three main holidays are about genocide of Jewish enemies. Passover, the Passing of the evil spirit over the Jewish homes and striking down the first born of all Egyptians;
#5. To: christine (#3)
I wasn't aware that Freud was a hater of gentiles
You won't read this in a history book in high school. Some of these bolsheviks must have been the grandparents of today's Russian (90% Jewish) Oligarchs.
#6. To: Zoroaster, christine, RickyJ, Robin, Zipporah, Fatidic, Diana, Barak (#0)
then what is anti-Gentilism,
what is the Chosen People (master race) genocide boasted about in the Torah and Talmud? ( "and they killed every man, women, child, and spared not a thing that breathes")
Deu 20:16-18 (NASB)
The Israelites, prior to entering the Promised Land given them by God, were further instructed by God (the same God a "Christian" David Duke alleges to serve) to destroy selected and specfic tribes that were to be punished by God for their idolotry and depravity to prevent them from further influencing the Israelites.
"Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. (17) "But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you, (18) so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God. In fact the three main holidays are about genocide of Jewish enemies. Passover, the Passing of the evil spirit over the Jewish homes and striking down the first born of all Egyptians; Purim, the slaughter of Haman and 75,000 persians; and Hannakuk, the bloody massacre of the Greeks and the capture of the temple in Jerusalem.
Est 3:5-6 (NASB) (5) When Haman saw that Mordecai neither bowed down nor paid homage to him, Haman was filled with rage. (6) But he disdained to lay hands on Mordecai alone, for they had told him who the people of Mordecai were; therefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews, the people of Mordecai, who were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus.
But a celebration that God through Esther and King Ahasuerus had saved the Jews whom Haman was trying to kill. No persian deaths (othr than just Haman's himself) were involved in either this 'episode' or the celebration. It seems your whole favored religion is rooted in genocide while Christianity is based on love and forgiveness.
#7. To: christine (#3)
#8. To: Starwind (#6)
God "chose" the descendants of Jacob (Israel) to be God's people to fulfill God's purpose. God chose Israel. God's purpose was that Israel be a living testimony to God and also bear the Messiah. Israel did not choose God or decide why God chose them. Further, God's choosing was not to establish a master race (Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;) nor for genocide (the killing of any particular race).
#9. To: Starwind (#6)
But don't paint God and all Israelites as if they are to blame.
Wouldn't you agree?
Most of us believe Israel has the right to exist. I know I do. I also believe that the Palistinians have the right to their own country. Do you?
#10. To: Dude Lebowski (#8)
they made themselves the universal center and the big sky deity's favorite children
#11. To: robin (#9)
We aren't. Many of us take great pains to never generalize. We specifically say over and over the fanatical elements of the Likud party, and their neocon friends (some with dual-citizenship with Israel) in high places in our govt are the problem. Wouldn't you agree?
Most of us believe Israel has the right to exist. I know I do. I also believe that the Palistinians have the right to their own country. Do you?
#12. To: Zoroaster (#0)
-- Amitai Etzioni, 'Kristnallnacht' Remembered. History and Communal Responsibility. Commonweal, February 12, 1999, p. 12-16
{Note: Etzioni, who was talking about Germans in the above quote, apparently changes his views about communal responsibility with the changing moon. Or more likely, like so many Jewish observers, he understands one standard of judgment for Jews, and another for everyone else.}.
#13. To: Zoroaster (#0)
"If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is
now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will
without their knowing it ... The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our
country ... In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere
of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we
understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses.
It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."
-- Edward Bernays,
the "Father of Propaganda"
The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays & the Birth of PR, PR Watch,
2nd Quarter, 1999
#14. To: wbales (#1)
--- Alice Bloch, Jewish feminist and lesbian
--- Benjamin Disraeli, Jewish P.M. of Britain
#15. To: Starwind (#11)
Would you agree enforcing prior agreements for them to have all of the Transjordan ought to be an option, as they were originally promised by the British and Arabs?
#16. To: Starwind (#6)
There is no anti-Gentilism. Arrogance, disdain, and conceit amongst Jewish leaders, probably. Hostility towards sworn enemies, most definitely. But no agenda to hate, destroy or subject all Gentiles.
#17. To: Starwind (#6)
#18. To: Zoroaster (#17)
The Prefect God does not play favorites. Those who quote the Bible as a "testament of God's favoritism of Jews" are merely admiring it as a momument over the grave of Christianity.
1) To be a living testimony to God
2) To bear the messiah Further, God's choosing was not to establish a master race (Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;)
"not to establish a master race"
Now just how, pray tell, do you construe "God's favoritism of Jews" from what I actually wrote?
"no distinction between Jew and Greek"
"all [or any] who call on Him"
#19. To: Starwind (#6)
The Israelites didn't cause the deaths, God did.
#20. To: RickyJ (#4)
In fact the three main holidays are about genocide of Jewish enemies. Passover, the Passing of the evil spirit over the Jewish homes and striking down the first born of all Egyptians; Ah, Jews had nothing to do with the passover, God did. He was punishing the people of Egypt for not letting the Jews be free and leave Egypt.
#21. To: RickyJ (#19)
I'm sorry I don't believe God actually did it. I believe that he allowed it to happen. Just like he allowed the devil to afflict Job.
#22. To: Starwind (#18)
#23. To: Zoroaster (#22)
"The Prefect God does not play favorites."
"play" favorites, no, but "have" favorites, most certainly.
#24. To: Starwind (#10)
How can they be in control of all the fabrication parts and still get their own complete fabrication all wrong?
#25. To: Dude Lebowski (#24)
#26. To: Zipporah (#25)
They had brick for stone and asphalt for mortar. 4 And they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the sky. Let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise, we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth."
#27. To: Dude Lebowski (#26)
#28. To: Zipporah (#27)
the plan of salvation started in Genesis at the beginning ...
#29. To: Dude Lebowski, Diana, Zipporah, fatidic, Barak (#24)
There are many, many other examples of Biblical stories which are farcical in the face of modern science but rather than answering for their inaccuracy, at that point they become interpretations which you aren't supposed to read literally. Right?
The tower of Babel was destroyed because man was building too high and thus encroaching on God's Kingdom, correct?
God's Kingdom is eternal, timeless and immovable, correct? Then how come mankind is now able to traverse God's kingdom in Aircraft at will?
#30. To: Dude Lebowski (#28)
#31. To: All (#29)
#32. To: Starwind (#29)
The builders were essentially guilty of pride and a desire to obtain or reach God's domain on their own effort or merit, by their own hand. Human hubris being what it is, anything they imagined they could achieve they assumed they would in fact achieve - that is overreaching ego, not confidence. God destroyed it not because God was threatened by their civil engineering skill, but to put an end to their collective pride.
#33. To: Diana, Eoghan, Bayonne (#16)
On 30 March the Heretical Press was raided by Metropolitan Police (Special Branch) and Humberside Police and almost all book stock, including scientific papers and material which has been published without hint of difficulty for several years, was taken away. Three computers were impounded. The arrest was on "Suspicion of Incitement to Racial Hatred," particularly in respect of TALES OF THE HOLOHOAX. After being further interviewed by West Yorkshire Police Sheppard was released, the renegade government's evident aim being to harass their political opponents and copy their hard drives. All titles except THE TYRANNY OF AMBIGUITY are currently unavailable. Your patience is requested while normal operations are restored.
#34. To: Zipporah (#30)
All I can say is each of us has to come to an understanding ourselves.. I didnt become a Christian out of fear of damnation.. not at all.. it was quite the opposite..
#35. To: Starwind (#29)
#36. To: Dude Lebowski (#35)
And the scripture doesn't reconcile with the natural world.
An entire molecular world which science didn't know about is now unmitigated fact. And nothing about this essential universe was alluded to in the scripture.
Dihygrogen Oxide molecules, for instance, must function a certain way and the reality is they cannot stray from their nature even if Jesus walks on a mess of them.
Why would God go to the painstaking effort of creating such balance only to make a mockery of it to amaze us with miracles?
#37. To: Starwind (#36)
God is not a prisoner of His creation and the miracluous reveals to us (well, to anyone with eyes to see) that He is in fact "God".
#38. To: Starwind (#6)
But a celebration that God through Esther and King Ahasuerus had saved the Jews whom Haman was trying to kill. No persian deaths (othr than just Haman's himself) were involved in either this 'episode' or the celebration.
#39. To: Starwind (#36)
#40. To: Dude Lebowski (#39)
#41. To: Dude Lebowski (#39)
Yeah, I know what you're going to say. That I should take it on faith that every mind boggling impossibility happened and it's our science that is lacking here. Bullfeathers!
The calculations come out to be as follows:
I'm on a search for faith too, but I insist on a docrtine that jibes with the world as it presents itself.
Religion is inflexible. It insists on not being questioned (and this excercise seems to irritate you - not my intention) because the answers show it in a bad light or make it look downright ridiculous.
I notice you glossed over my sentence about "We have in our bodies remenants of an evolutionary past. The human tailbone, the now-useless appendix (God had extra parts lying around, or what?). Wisdom teeth often grow in impacted because the jawbone used to be longer." We have (or had ;) tails for crying out loud, like animals. So it God a comedian? I would buy that explanation.
They planted the seeds of fabrication and thousands of permutations have since sprouted by opportunists that wish to wield a moral Damacles sword.
I answered it entriely in my post #29, glossing over or omitting nothing, as you well know. Right, the faithful don't like questioning by scientific facts.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#42. To: Barak (#38)
I'll concede I had forgotten that when King Ahasuerus declared that what Haman had planned for Mordecai and the Jews was reversed and wrought (by the King's decree) upon Haman and the enemies of the Jews, that included Haman's 10 sons and 75,000 existing enemies. Mea culpa.
But I'm afraid you're not right about the number of Persian deaths involved with Purim. Read Esther 9. Sorry...
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#43. To: Zipporah (#37)
Thanks very much.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#44. To: Zoroaster (#40)
Thanks my man. You're right of course, but I insist on futile endeavors I guess.
Great posts, Dude, but there is no arguing with fanatics who believe they have divine knowlegd and are on a divine mission.
#45. To: Dude Lebowski (#44)
Yours are not exactly futile endeavors. Religious fanaticisn should be confronted whenever encountered. Many freethinkers on this forum appreicate your posts. Folks who know they are right because God tells them so do the greatest damage in the world.
Thanks my man. You're right of course, but I insist on futile endeavors I guess.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
#46. To: Starwind (#41)
The answers you've given are basically "nothing is impossible if God wills it". That's conjecture and frankly an insult to my intelligence. God hasn't willed anything for the entire world's amazement in a very long time (2 millenia maybe?), barring the occasional appearance of the savior's countenance in various potato chips. He altogether stopped communicating through burning bushes which don't get consumed by the fire (as SCIENCE WOULD DICTATE!), nor does he seem to revel in the pleasant odor of a bull burned on the altar of sacrifice (Lev. 1:9). He's relaxed now man, to the point of almost complete withdrawl compared to his persona way back when. No more fanfare these days. That's uncharacteristic of a tribal Deity addicted to worship and acknowledgement. Wouldn't you say? What's happening here is common. When you subscribe in totality to a doctrine as 100% truth, you're left defending it tooth and nail no matter how opposed it is to the natural world. For instance, if the scriptures had stated that verily Moses broke a mighty wind and thereby filled a passenger balloon with its contents and yea he flew his people to safety in the first ever trans-sea balloon flight, the faithful wouldn't bat an eye. Religious scholars would be calculating the trajetory of his flight path, artists would paint their renditions and the faithful would be making pilgramages and attempting recreations. The rest of us would be shaking our heads in incredulity. But that's what is happening. I like you SW. You punked Badeye on LP like I've never seen done on a forum. And I don't want for us to have a sour acquaintance here. Again, I'm not trying to be a contrarian, but I understand your defensive posturing. But you're right, nothing is getting done. If presented with sincere questions such as how Noah's Arc could hold a pair of every animal in existence, millions of species including those native to far away regions which none of the biblical authors even knew about or how people used to live to be several hundred years old or snakes and donkeys used to talk with human voices, you would casually brush it off as a matter of faith or link to god-knows-what. That doesn't go very far for legitimacy or the burden of proof, which is on you, not me. Arguing religion is one of the most futile things possible because faith preempts common sense, so I'll likely leave it at this and whatever last words you want to say.
Perhaps when you acknowledge and respond to the points made in the answers you have been given
#47. To: Starwind (#41)
The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years. The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years. The third 24 hour day also included half of the previous day, 2 billion years. The fourth 24 hour day -- one billion years. The fifth 24 hour day -- one-half billion years. The sixth 24 hour day -- one-quarter billion years. When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance? No it's not by chance. Science and nothing else determined the age of the Earth. With core sampling, calculations of tectonic plate and glacier movements, fossil deposits. And heck, this wasn't even pinpointed to a very accurate age until the 20th century. So how long did religion fumble around without the answer? Thousands of years. Once religion knew the truth, I'm sure it didn't take long to break down your day 1 was x millions years calculation. But it doesn't add to legitimacy of the creation story because somebody simply extrapolated data provided by science into a neat little matrix. The bigger problem for you is during those billions of years, things happened that the biblical authors weren't wise to. Giant animals were the undisputed stewards of the land, not man as the bible states. After their extinction simple hominids came to being, then intermediate hominids, then advanced hominids. Which one's were created in God's image? The Neanderthal? The Erectus? The Sapiens? If the latter represent God's image, what were the former? Beta tests? Or as some of the religious folks claim, the fossils were planted by Satan in order to test people's faith. Of course that's ridiculous, but it's more of any explanation you've provided which are along the lines of "Science just doesn't understand God's awesome work yet". That's no kind of answer for an honest inquiring brain.
The calculations come out to be as follows:
#48. To: Dude Lebowski (#46)
You're still evading the first answer I gave you, and you know it. So, show me some of that common sense and critique Schroeder's explanation. I'm not big on people smiling in my face while they evade my question. As do you, I don't appreciate when they're glossed over. But, unlike you, I did answer your question(s) didn't I, and since you've still not answered mine (as you're very much aware), kindly go back and read The Age of the Universe and if you disagee that Schroeder provided an explanation that reconciles the cosmological age of the universe of 15 3/4 Billion years with the biblical account of 6 days, then please explain what Schroeder got wrong. Otherwise, if you do agree it is a plausible reconciliation, at least then have the intellectual honesty to say so.
The answers you've given are basically "nothing is impossible if God wills it".
Arguing religion is one of the most futile things possible because faith preempts common sense, so I'll likely leave it at this and whatever last words you want to say.
I like you SW.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#49. To: Dude Lebowski (#47)
Schroeder: When you add up the Six Days you get the age of the universe You have again ignored what the facts presented were. They dealt with the age of the universe (not the earth), and a reconciliation of them to the biblical account of the 6 days of creation (the heavens & the earth, etc). Schroeder's article and the biblical six-days creation account address the age of the universe, of all creation, not just the earth. Please, reread the article and offer a critque of what Schroeder got wrong if you disagree with his work.
Lebowski: Science and nothing else determined the age of the Earth.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#50. To: Dude Lebowski, Starwind (#46)
Hey, fellers, this is getting essentially nowhere. Dude, you're running into the fact that a man with an experience is not susceptible to a man with an argument. Starwind, you're running into the fact that you don't argue folks into the Kingdom of Heaven. I think there are better arguments that can be made on both sides. Dude, if you sat down and read Genesis 1 and 2, you could pretty easily come up with absolutely irrefutable arguments that evolution and Biblical creation cannot be reconciled, period. Starwind, if you thought about it a little more you could come up with a couple more historical examples of the scientist spending centuries struggling painfully up the mountain and reaching the summit only to find the theologian already there. But better arguments will neither create faith where it does not exist nor destroy it where it does. It's experience that brings faith. The Bible says that God has created the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; that's what's happening here. God is not going to allow assertions about him to be objectively proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, because he's after living faith, not dead, boring scientific certainty. Starwind, keep in mind that God's major objective here is not helping people win arguments, it's changing people's lives. Dude, keep in mind that you're dabbling in an area in which objective proof does not and cannot exist, but subjective proof is available for the asking in whatever quantities you're capable of tolerating. (Suppose, for example, that you wanted to prove to Starwind that you either are or are not married, and he was determined to contradict you. He could throw all sorts of attacks at whatever "evidence" you provided (Marriage certificate? Forged. Witnesses? Lying--etc.) and you would in the end be reduced simply to the fact that you know what you're saying is true because you were there when it happened (or didn't), even if he wasn't.) If you want to have a productive discussion, it can certainly be done; but you won't get there by arguing about the scientific accuracy of the Bible. The Bible posits an omnipotent God--that is, one beyond science (at least as we understand it). If that's true, arguing about his nature or even his existence using science is a fool's errand.
#51. To: Starwind (#48)
Just to get something straight. I'm talking about the age of the Earth. The creation story doesn't mention that hundreds of millions of other individual suns exist and God's pet project is dedicated to a microcosmic area in the Universe. The creation story centers around Earth. So don't throw the Earth vs. Universe obfuscation into this. That article is dated 1/30/2005. So Mr.Schroeder has the benefit of knowing, courtesy of science, how old the Earth is. From there, he can break that number down six ways. That's not so impressive. But you keep pointing to it, saying "see there I gave you an answer, didn't I?" The article starts out with "The world may be only some 6000 years old. God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light arriving from distant galaxies to make the world appear to be billions of years old. There is absolutely no way to disprove this claim. God being infinite could have made the world that way. There is another possible approach that also agrees with the ancient commentators' description of God and nature. The world may be young and old simultaneously. In the following I consider this latter option." In other words abstract bullshit. But he has to keep it abstract, that way you won't get pinned down with embarrasing evidence. I'm not big on people smiling in my face while they evade my question. As do you, I don't appreciate when they're glossed over. Forget you then, I'm trying to be reasonable. You're getting hot under the collar and turning this around. You've evaded every point. Why does our physical structure resemble animals? What does the fossil record mean relative to the creation story? What aren't the times of other hominids accounted for? Why doesn't God talk through burning bushes anymore? How could Homo Sapiens live for hundreds of years each? How could animals talk? How could a massive flood encompass the whole world and then mysteriously disappear? How was every species in creation saved (do you even understand what this would entail?) How did one family replenish the entire planet? Your responses: "God can do it, and here's an article for you to read". And you have the audacity to say that I should bring my brain????? It doesn't matter what you are presented with, because you're on a divine mission and completely oblivious to fact. Who is weak minded, the questioners or believers?
The Age of the Universe and if you disagee that Schroeder provided an explanation that reconciles the cosmological age of the universe of 15 3/4 Billion years with the biblical account of 6 days, then please explain what Schroeder got wrong.
#52. To: Starwind (#49)
You have again ignored what the facts presented were. They dealt with the age of the universe (not the earth), and a reconciliation of them to the biblical account of the 6 days of creation (the heavens & the earth, etc). In fact no one knows the age of the universe because there's not enough evidence for conclusive proof. We can, however, reasonably tell how old the Earth is. Mr. Schroeder is making an assumption that the Earth was created at the same time as the universe which has zero basis in FACT, which you've implied this nonesense is.
Schroeder: When you add up the Six Days you get the age of the universe Lebowski: Science and nothing else determined the age of the Earth.
#53. To: Barak (#50)
Dude, you're running into the fact that a man with an experience is not susceptible to a man with an argument. That's fine. When my experience in this world shows some signs of correlating with the world of centuries-old Mid-Eastern mystics then I'll sign on as it's most devout student. Until then I'll ask questions, and apparently piss some people off. Dude, keep in mind that you're dabbling in an area in which objective proof does not and cannot exist, but subjective proof is available So I should lend credence to anyone wielding subjective proof? Wouldn't that make me a great big tool? The guy downtown wearing the sandwich board has subjective proof that we are all to be relegated to a 8'x10' cell in the afterlife and he preaches the gospel as he understand it in the loudest tone he can muster. But heck, he's chalk full of subjective proof. arguing about his nature or even his existence using science is a fool's errand. Then how should we ascertain his nature? The texts that claim to know are so pathetically ridiculous when held up to scrutiny, they cannot adjust themselves before the heresy scientific breakthroughs. What it requires is blind faith, pretty the same mind control method cults use. I rage against that sort of handicapping of my spiritual ability. But I'm glad we can disagree in a cordial manner, I thought SW would be up to task on that.
#54. To: Dude Lebowski (#51)
Just to get something straight. I'm talking about the age of the Earth. (sigh) I'm painfully aware that you are. The creation story doesn't mention that hundreds of millions of other individual suns exist and God's pet project is dedicated to a microcosmic area in the Universe. The creation story centers around Earth. The first 8 verses of Genesis describes the creation of the heavens and earth (space-time and matter) and light separating from darkness (matter condenses out and order proceeds from chaos) and then subsequent verses discuss the (planet) earth, seas, birds, fish, animals etc. The creation story doesn't " center" on anything except man, but the preponderance of the time elapsed during creation prior to and including man, covers the creation of the universe - just as science has observed. Further, "hundreds of millions of other individual suns" are in fact part of that creation account - the heavens. I never said the " six days" of creation accommodated the earth only. That seems to be your presupposition. I in fact gave you an article which explains how, enough time elapsed during the "six days" of creation for the formation of the entire universe as well as those stars and the earth. So don't throw the Earth vs. Universe obfuscation into this. LOL! That "obfuscation" as you call it has been included since my first post #29 to you. You had stated: There are many, many other examples of Biblical stories which are farcical in the face of modern science but rather than answering for their inaccuracy, at that point they become interpretations which you aren't supposed to read literally. Right? And so I gave you an answer that, no, there are some biblical stories which are to be interpreted literally and not farcically in the face of modern science. I gave as an example the fact that what the Bible states was six days of creation can be reconciled with the cosmological age of the universe of 15 3/4 Billion years. I wrote exactly: Genesis 1 is one of those "biblical stories" as you put it, that is literal and physical and even supported by modern science. Consider The Age of the Universe by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, in which he describes a possible reconciliation of the scientifically measured age of the universe (some 15B years) with the Genesis account of six days. Not " farcical" but a trustworthy physical literal account that can be disected and studied and aligned with what science measures and understands (albeit imperfectly as yet). If the article at all interests you, I further recommend Dr. Schroeder's book "Genesis and the Big Bang" for an intriguing elucidation of how the original Hebrew text conveyed to the ancient sages what cosmologists are now begining to understand about how the universe began. Somehow wherever I wrote "age of the universe" you instead read "earth". I can't do much about that except try to highlight where the disconnects are. The point of all this is that depending on what relativistic time frame is used to observe the creation, it can be observed as six days or 15 3/4 billion years. The article I linked elaborates for you on relativistic time dilation and reference frames and how, given the expansion of the universe, 6 days in one reference frame can equate to 15 3/4 billion years in another. Consequently, there is no conflict between the cosmological age of the universe and the biblical age of the creation. Consequently there is ample time for the development of the geologically and biologically old specimens that we observe on the earth. Do I agree we (humans) evolved from apes, no. But I do agree speciation took place over millions of years. Do I agree we (humans) are as old as Neanderthals and other hominids (Homo erectus, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis and Homo rhodesensis)? No. But science hasn't yet proven that we are their genetic evolutionary descendants, either. But the point I've been making is the billions of years required for all that is not irreconcilable. Science and the bible can be reconciled on the age of the universe (which obviously includes stars and the earth). So this obfuscation as you call it of my introducing the age of universe has been at the core of my answers to you since my first post and I did it then to demonstrate an example of science reconciling with a literal "bible story". How did you miss that? The article starts out with "The world may be only some 6000 years old. God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light arriving from distant galaxies to make the world appear to be billions of years old. There is absolutely no way to disprove this claim. God being infinite could have made the world that way. There is another possible approach that also agrees with the ancient commentators' description of God and nature. The world may be young and old simultaneously. In the following I consider this latter option." In other words abstract bullshit. But he has to keep it abstract, that way you won't get pinned down with embarrasing evidence. That demonstrates to me, you still haven't read it, and are probably assuming what you think it says. Rather than post the entire article, I have below excerpted portions. Please explain how they are "abstract bullshit": We have a clock that begins with Adam, and the six days are separate from this clock. The Bible has two clocks. Why were the Six Days taken out of the calendar? Because time is described differently in those Six Days of Genesis. The text says "there was evening and morning Day One... evening and morning a second day... evening and morning a third day." Then on the fourth day, the sun is mentioned. Nachmanides says that any intelligent reader can see an obvious problem. How do we have a concept of evening and morning for the first three days if the sun is only mentioned on Day Four? There is a purpose for the sun appearing only on Day Four, so that as time goes by and people understand more about the universe, you can dig deeper into the text. Nachmanides says the text uses the words "Vayehi Erev" -- but it doesn't mean "there was evening." He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet -- the root of "erev" -- is chaos. Mixture, disorder. That's why evening is called "erev", because when the sun goes down, vision becomes blurry. The literal meaning is "there was disorder." The Torah's word for "morning" -- "boker" -- is the absolute opposite. When the sun rises, the world becomes "bikoret", orderly, able to be discerned. That's why the sun needn't be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos. That's something any scientist will testify never happens in an unguided system. Order never arises from disorder spontaneously and remains orderly. Order always degrades to chaos unless the environment recognizes the order and locks it in to preserve it. There must be a guide to the system. That's an unequivocal statement. Nachmanides says that before the universe, there was nothing... but then suddenly the entire creation appeared as a minuscule speck. He gives a dimension for the speck: something very tiny like the size of a grain of mustard. And he says that is the only physical creation. Nachmanides further writes: "Misheyesh, yitfos Bo zman" -- from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Not "begins." Time is created at the beginning. But time "grabs hold." When matter condenses, congeals, coalesces, out of this substance so thin it has no essence -- that's when the Biblical clock of the six days starts. Science has shown that there's only one "substance-less substance" that can change into matter. And that's energy. Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2, tells us that energy can change into matter. And once it changes into matter, time grabs hold. Even if the Torah was seeing time from Adam, the text would have said "a first day", because by its own statement there were six days. The Torah says "Day One" because the Torah is looking forward from the beginning. And it says, How old is the universe? Six Days. We'll just take time up until Adam. Six Days. We look back in time, and say the universe is approximately 15 billion years old. But every scientist knows, that when we say the universe is 15 billion years old, there's another half of the sentence that we never say. The other half of the sentence is: The universe is 15 billion years old as seen from the time-space coordinates that we exist in on earth. That's Einstein's view of relativity. But what would those billions of years be as perceived from near the beginning looking forward? The key is that the Torah looks forward in time, from very different time-space coordinates, when the universe was small. But since then, the universe has expanded out. Space stretches, and that stretching of space totally changes the perception of time. Light travels 300 million meters per second. So the two light pulses are separated by 300 million meters at the beginning. Now they travel through space for billions of years, and they're going to reach the Earth billions of years later. But wait a minute. Is the universe static? No. The universe is expanding. That's the cosmology of the universe. And that does not mean it's expanding into an empty space outside the universe. There's only the universe. There is no space outside the universe. The universe expands by its own space stretching. So as these pulses go through billions of years of traveling, the universe and space are stretching. As space is stretching, what's happening to these pulses? The space between them is also stretching. So the pulses really get further and further apart. Now we can go one step further. Let's look at the development of time, day-by-day, based on the expansion factor. Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half. Now when the universe was small, it was doubling very rapidly. But as the universe gets bigger, the doubling time gets longer. This rate of expansion is quoted in "The Principles of Physical Cosmology," a textbook that is used literally around the world. (In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That's the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.) The calculations come out to be as follows: The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years. The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years. The third 24 hour day also included half of the previous day, 2 billion years. The fourth 24 hour day -- one billion years. The fifth 24 hour day -- one-half billion years. The sixth 24 hour day -- one-quarter billion years. When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance? [now back to your points] Forget you then, I'm trying to be reasonable. You're getting hot under the collar and turning this around. You've evaded every point. Sincerely, reasonable would be for you to have acknowledged the article and my point (even if you disagreed with it) back in your first response to my posting of the article. But you didn't. Reasonable would be to have acknowledged that I originated the topic of reconciling the age of the universe between cosmology and the bible (it wasn't a recent "obfuscation" - it has been there all along). But you didn't. Reasonable would have been to at least once have explained what you believe Dr. Schroeder got wrong, or state your agreement. But you didn't. Evaded every point? Every? LOL! Go back and count how many of your questions I painstakingly already answered. My refusal at this point to play more " bible-story whack-a-mole" with you is not evasion. I offered to resume and address every one if you would first explain what Dr. Schroeder got wrong, or state your agreement. But instead you dismissed it based on the 2nd paragraph as "abstract bullshit". Your responses: "God can do it, and here's an article for you to read". And you have the audacity to say that I should bring my brain?? ??? And your brain has been ... where? I first offered a cosmologist's scientific reconciliation of the six days of creation with the 15B year age of the universe in my first response to you. I answered your questions about the Tower of Babel and then also explained further what biblical hermeneutics were. Then you asked about tail bones, wisdom teeth and Jesus walking on water and why did God create balance and then do miracles. I explained the illogic of criticizing the bible (or your posts for that matter) on what they did not say and then - only then - in answer to your question about miracles did I state the obvious - that God can do miracles - and why He would do them. But from that you distort my typical responses as "God can do it, and here's an article for you to read". You've conveniently overlooked everything underlined in the above paragraph and reversed the order and then misapplied it to every response I've given you. Any casual examination of my responses shows I've addressed the substance of your questions every time, in far more detail and accuracy than you have yet to extend me the same intellectual courtesy. Picking up now with your post #52: Mr. Schroeder is making an assumption that the Earth was created at the same time as the universe which has zero basis in FACT, which you've implied this nonesense is. You really haven't read or understood Dr. Schroeder's article, have you? Here is an excerpt: Nachmanides says that before the universe, there was nothing... but then suddenly the entire creation appeared as a minuscule speck. He gives a dimension for the speck: something very tiny like the size of a grain of mustard. And he says that is the only physical creation. There was no other physical creation; all other creations were spiritual. The Nefesh (the soul of animal life) and the Neshama (the soul of human life) are spiritual creations. There's only one physical creation, and that creation was a tiny speck. The speck is all there was. Anything else was God. In that speck was all the raw material that would be used for making everything else. Nachmanides describes the substance as "dak me'od, ein bo mamash" -- very thin, no substance to it. And as this speck expanded out, this substance -- so thin that it has no essence -- turned into matter as we know it. Nachmanides further writes: "Misheyesh, yitfos Bo zman" -- from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Not "begins." Time is created at the beginning. But time "grabs hold." When matter condenses, congeals, coalesces, out of this substance so thin it has no essence -- that's when the Biblical clock of the six days starts. I trust you recognize the obvious? Schroeder does not assume the earth was created at the same time as the universe. Schroeder describes Nachmanides realization that the physical universe started as a 'big bang' from a singularity (size of a mustard seed), space-time expanded and matter coalesced, then the six days starts, not completes, but starts. Schroeder is an MIT PhD cosmologist and physicist and he is merely aligning standard big bang theory with Nachmanides commentaries. Schroeder knows (and the above demonstrates) the earth did not form until billions of years after the big bang. The whole point of his article is that the billions of years theorized for formation of the earth via stellar, galactic and planetary formation processes fits within the estimated 15 3/4 billion year age of the universe, which in turn reconciles (from a different relativistic time frame) with the six day biblical creation account. So, the question yet remains: please explain what you believe Dr. Schroeder got wrong, or state your agreement.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#55. To: Dude Lebowski (#53)
That's pretty much the way it works for most of us. That's not how subjective proof works. In fact, subjective proof is very much like liberty: you can't get it from somebody else; instead, you have to produce it yourself. We get to know him. Personally. The Bible can clarify things, but it can't create a relationship any more than an issue of People magazine can create a relationship between you and, say, Lindsey Lohan.
That's fine. When my experience in this world shows some signs of correlating with the world of centuries-old Mid-Eastern mystics then I'll sign on as it's most devout student.
So I should lend credence to anyone wielding subjective proof?
Then how should we ascertain his nature?
#56. To: Barak, Zipporah, tom007, dakmar, the rest of THEM, Arete (#50)
Or bully and insult them either. That attitude coupled with arrogance tends to turn a lot of people off to the whole biblical issue.
Starwind, you're running into the fact that you don't argue folks into the Kingdom of Heaven.
#57. To: Starwind (#54)
My 2 cents.. the bible is not a scientific record #1 and #2 it is not a book of politics.. for as the bible says '1,000 years as a day is to God'.. therefore time is not recorded in the bible as to be taken in a literal sense when certain numbers are used, large numbers in the bible are always used figuratively. Just as the scripture that says God owns the cattle on a 1,000 hills. So then should we conclude that God ONLY owns part of the cattle on 1,000 hills only? As well as the # 144,000 which is 12 X 12 X 12 X 1,000.. not to be thought as a literal number..a huge mulitude of those "called out" those promised to Abraham as his descendents through his 'seed' which is Christ " 4 I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky... " A figure of speech meaning a huge multitude.
#58. To: Dude Lebowski (#24)
Yes, he loosens up quite a bit, guess he gets mellow in his old age!!
Has he become much more lenient since the Old Testament
#59. To: Dude Lebowski, diana (#39)
So G-d sees that Adam is alone and lonely. He goes to Adam and says unto him, "Adam, I am going to give you a beautiful companion, one who will toil endlessly for you with no complaint, supply you with all comforts and be totally generous with her Love". "Cool" Adam sayith. "What's she to cost"? "An arm and a leg", came the reply. "Gee, What can I get for a rib"?
#60. To: Dude Lebowski (#24)
hmm not really.. God never changes.
Has he become much more lenient since the Old Testament
#61. To: Starwind (#54)
It's simple. Science has not, and at this point cannot determine the age of the Universe. The Earth yes, because there is substantial material to test. But not the universe. Not even remotely. So when Mr. Schroeder pulls a number out of his ass, it can't be corroborated with anything. That blows the entire articles premise away. It amounts to navel gazing and nothing more. But here you are hopping up and down pointing to his profoundly unscientific "work" and thinking it signifys something. I've answered your question without hesitation, and to your satisfaction unless you are completely unreasonable. Now please answer how humans used to live 500+ years old and where Cro-Magnons, Homo-Erectus, Neanderthal, et all fit in the to the biblical creation story without any more of your background noise, thanks.
please explain what you believe Dr. Schroeder got wrong, or state your agreement.
#62. To: Starwind, all (#61)
source http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/1240.html?1117071439 also see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Gerald+Schroeder%22+kabbalist&btnG=Search Holyshit. Dr. Schroeder is an Orthodox Jewish Israeli Physicist and a Kabbalist. How is that for credibility? Yeah, Starwind, I always trust guys with these credentials to tell the truth. Maybe I'll post a retort from a book written by a Santeria practitioner or a sub-Saharan witch doctor.
Now Kabbalist Physicist Gerald Schroeder--in his book The Science of God (HERE)
#63. To: Dude Lebowski (#62)
Perhaps Starwind belongs to the Noahide movement: http://www.truthbeknown.com/th eocracy.htm Anatomy of a One World Religion? As the millennium is upon us, increasing numbers of people will hear about the "One World Religion" purportedly being planned by the ruling elite, i.e., the "Illuminati," "Masons," or various other cultic/religious interests. Many people believe that such a One World Religion, if indeed a planned development, will be a form of Catholicism or "New Age Spiritualism," while others such as Jews and Muslims insist that their ideologies will rule the world. In fact, rather than heading for a "new age of enlightenment" with increased personal freedom, including the freedom from religion, as is popularly believed, the United States - and by extension the world - is evidently being pushed instead towards a fascistic theocracy. Indeed, although governmental agencies may have had a hand behind some aspects of the "New Age Movement" (NAM), the One World Religion intended by these various agencies is not the pastiche of airy-fairy, lovey-dovey concepts found within the NAM, by which everyone is equal and accepted. Vying for the authorship of the One World Religion are a number of factions, including certain interest groups that wish the theocracy to be based primarily on Judaic ideology, emulating the firm and merciless hand of Islam's mullahs and omams. Under such a dictatorship, books would be banned and burned, and freethinkers would be jailed or executed. If the Hassidic Jewish Movement has its way, the so-called Noahide Laws would be followed to the letter, as would many others found in the "Old Testament," prescribing capital punishment for abortion, euthanasia and "sexual deviation" such as adultery and homosexuality. The punishment, in fact, for breaking any of the Noahide Laws is decapitation. Although the term "Noahide Laws" is not widely known, it is fairly common knowledge among the political and religious powermongers, allegedly representing "holy writ" passed along to the (mythical) Noah prior to the "Great Flood." According to some, these Laws are to be the basis of the One World Religion being pushed by the "Committee of 300's" New World Order. That the New World Order - which has been been plotted by a variety of peoples for centuries - currently has a strong Judaic aspect is evidenced by such comments as the following from The American Hebrew, Sept. 10, 1920: "The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of Jewish Dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose work is to create a NEW ORDER in the WORLD. What was performed in so excellent a way in Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction and by Jewish planning, shall also through the same Jewish mental and physical forces become a reality all over the world." (Emphasis added) The supremacist intentions are also displayed by the Temple Mount & Eretz Yisrael Faithful Movement - Jerusalem, a supposed "fringe group" (with Knesset connections) that advocates as one of its long-term objectives: "Consecrating the Temple Mount to the Name of G-d so that it can become the moral and spiritual center of Israel, of the Jewish people and of the entire world according to the words of all the Hebrew prophets. It is envisioned that the consecration of the Temple Mount and the Temple itself will focus Israel on (a) fulfilling the vision and mission given at Mt. Sinai for Israel to be a chosen people separate unto G-d, a holy nation, and a nation of priests, and (b) becoming a light unto all the nations [Yeshayahu (Isaiah) 42:6] so that the Name of G-d may be revered by all nations and the Biblical way of life may be propagated throughout the world." The Temple Mount Faithful group claim that the United States was "founded by G- d to stand with Israel against her enemies . . . " It further asserts that anyone who moves against Israel is "anti-G-d"; Israel and "her people" are essentially equated with God, but all others are not. Another quote from Temple Mount Faithful: "No one can stop the G-d of Israel." Providing strong evidence of such a Judaicly based New World Order/One World Religion, on March 26, 1991, U.S. President George Bush signed Public Law 102- 14, a congressional resolution on the Seven Noahide Laws (H.J. Resolution 104, Public Law 102-14). Prior to that event, as Val Valerian says, "The bill was passed in the House by a voice vote on March 5, 1991 and was passed by the Senate on March 7, 1991." The Proclamation was as follows: "Whereas Congress recognized the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded; "Whereas these ethical principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization when they were referred to as the Seven Noahide Laws; "Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stand in serious peril of returning to chaos; "Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society; "Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of the Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future; "Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world; "Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991; "Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, 'the rebbe,' this his ninetieth year will be seen as one of 'education and giving,' the year in which we turn education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and "Whereas this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state; Now, therefore, be it "Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as 'EDUCATION DAY U.S.A.' The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities." What are the Noahide Laws? The Noahide Laws are said to be from the "Bible," but evidently are Talmudic. The Encyclopedia Americana relates concerning the Noahide Laws: "A Jewish Talmudic designation for seven biblical laws given to Adam and to Noah before the revelation to Moses on Mt Sinai and consequently binding all mankind. Beginning with Genesis 2:16, the Babylonian Talmud listed the first six commandments...After the flood a seventh commandment, given-to Noah, forbade the eating of flesh from living animals (Genesis 9:4). Throughout the ages scholars have viewed the Noahide Laws as a link between Judaism and Christianity, as universal norms of ethical conduct, as a basic concept of international law, or as a guarantee of fundamental human rights for all." In Matrix III, Val Valerian says: " . . . the Noahide Laws apply only to non-Jews living under Jewish jurisdiction. Interestingly, Webster's Dictionary, New International Edition 2nd Ed 1950, states that a Noachite is 'one who has taken the 21st degree of the Scottish Rite (Freemasonry).'" As noted, the punishment for breaking these Laws is decapitation. Valerian wonders: "In discussing this curious sociological development, I was reminded of the stories that have been going around for the past three or four years about shipments of guillotines into the United States. A connection?" Valerian further quotes a "Dr. Earnest Easterly, III, Professor of International Law and Director of the Institute for Comparative Legal Studies, Southern University Law Center," as saying: "With further recognition by other nations and international courts, the Seven Noahide Laws should become the cornerstone of a truly 'civilized' international legal order." There have been a number of calls lately for the the "establishment of justice" based on the "seven mitzvot of the children of Noah," which are claimed to be "universal." In essence, Judeo-centric writers and leaders wish to impose the Noahide Laws upon the rest of the world. In fact, those who do not follow the "Seven Commandments of Noah" are considered to be "lower than the mosquito." What are these Laws, which should cause consternation to all thinking individuals? The order of the Laws varies from source to source; the following is the Chabad version. The First Noahide Law The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is: "Thou shall not engage in idol worship." "Idolatry" is clarified as: "Any teaching or belief system that attempts to deify man (any man) or to humanize God is idolatry." Since the definition of "idolatry" is also culturally dependent, Christians, Buddhists and Hindus, among many others, would all be considered criminals. Islam, of course, takes this law to the extreme, fervently banning "idolatrous images." However, according to this Noahide Law, Muslims who "worship" the kaaba stone at Mecca would be subject to punishment, although supposedly not death. In other times and eras "God" was viewed as a female, such that, were such cultural biases reversed, the worship of God as a giant man in the sky, as found in Islam and Judaism, would also be considered idolatry. The Trinity of Catholicism is considered idolatrous, as are the many Hindus gods. Under this law, the precepts of Buddhism would be illegal, since Buddhism is designed to recognize and produce the "god within," and to thus treat people and other sentient beings with dignity and respect, as godly entities. Pantheism, of course, or the recognition of the Divine in all creation, would also be illegal. People who erect "beautiful graven images," even without intention to worship them, will also be subject to punishment. It is also forbidden to buy products from "idol-worshippers," such as incense or health food from Hindus, if they are used in "idol-worship." Bending down in front of an "idol" or picking up a brick and saying, "This is my god," makes a person liable for (capital) punishment. Astrology and the "full form" of the Zodiac are forbidden, although separate images of the signs are permitted. "Complete" images of the sun and moon are also verbotten, as are various forms of jewelry and music. "Three-dimensional" forms of man (i.e., statuary) are also forbidden to be "gazed upon." The three "chief idolatrous forms in the world" are the dragon, as a "symbol of the primordial serpent"; a "full figure of man" offering something from his extended palm (Christ as the "Pantocrator?"); and "a woman nursing an infant" (Madonna and Child). Anyone who induces someone else to bow to an idol is a "seducer" and is liable for punishment, which, again, is decapitation. Bowing down or genuflecting before a cross, of course, is considered idolatry. The list goes on and on, with nitpicking over the smallest minutae, including forbidden and permissible rocks, trees, water, ghosts and spirits, and how to "nullify" idolatrous images. "Witchcraft" and "divination" practised by a "Noahide," i.e., "Child of Noah" or Gentile who follows the Laws, are debatable as to their permissibility under this Noahide Law, as one must be a "true wizard" to be liable for death by stoning. Astrology that determines a person's character is permissible, but forecasts of the future are not. The Second Noahide Law The second of the Noahide Laws is: "Thou shall not blaspheme God." It is further referenced at Leviticus 24:16: "He who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." This outrageous and inhumane law was lampooned in Monty Python's brilliant and enlightening "Life of Brian": "Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!" The concept of "God" has been utterly culturally dependent, and those freethinkers who have questioned it have often constituted some of the most intelligent, honest and brave human beings around. This Law would catch in its deadly net not only "atheists," who make up a tiny, highly persecuted minority, but evidently also anyone who did not agree with the Judaic interpretation of "God" as determined by the Torah, Tenach ("Old Testament") and Talmud. In other words, the vengeful tribal god Yahweh. Blaspheming or cursing the gods of other cultures, by calling them "idols," however, is not punishable. It is the duty of a pious Jew to "place the blasphemer under a ban of excommunication." The belief in two powers, God and Satan, is also considered "blasphemy," for God is "Lord and Master of all." Ditto with the belief in Lucifer as a rebellious angel. "False" or "meaningless" oaths taken in the name of God are also forbidden (except the Kol Nidre "prayer" said each year at Yom Kippur, wherein the pious can retract oaths made during the coming year). "One who curses G-d in the name of idolatry is subject to being attacked and killed by zealots, who are, in turn, held harmless by the law." Surprisingly, this Noahide Law is clarified by saying that one should refrain from insulting one's "fellow man," because "man was made in God's image," and hence one would be blaspheming. Of course, "fellow man" would refer to a pious Jew or Gentile Noahide. While asserting that God is absolutely separate, such that worshipping "him" in the creation is "idolatry," this Noahide Law nonetheless paradoxically prescribes that one recognize the divine hand in everything and abstain as much as possible from speaking ill of any aspect of creation! A Catch-22. The Third Noahide Law "Murder" is the subject of the third Noahide Law: "Thou shall not shed innocent blood of an human or fetus nor ailing person who has a limited time to live." This Law is based on Genesis 9:6: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." Naturally, putting people to death for blaspheming the Name of the Omnipotent, who could not possibly be harmed by such measly assaults, would NOT constitute murder. Nor would it be "murder" to slaughter entire cultures (genocide) in that very same sacrosanct Name, as is the behavior of the "chosen people" depicted throughout the Old Testament. Such murder, as long as it is done by the group who makes up the rules, is perfectly acceptable. Under this law, doctors who perform abortions, along with their nurses and the patients themselves, could also be put to death, in effect murdering real, living breathing humans to protect the nebulous "unborn." One who strikes a woman and kills her fetus receives the death penalty, provided the fetus is more than 40 days old. If under 40 days old, it is considered the same as the "destruction of the man's seed," which is an offense to be judged in Heaven, not on Earth. Euthanasia, or "mercy killing," no matter how much the suffering, is punishable by death. Although some authorities claim it is permissible to save a woman's life by aborting the fetus, others proscribe it. After much bickering, it is concluded that "spilling one's seed" or masturbating is "strictly forbidden," as it is equivalent to "murdering one's own children." In other words, masturbation is punishable by death. The Fourth Noahide Law The Fourth Law is against "illicit sex": "Thou shall not engage in bestial, incestuous, adulterous, or homosexual relations nor commit the act of rape." This Law also proscribes "fornication," i.e., sex outside of marriage. However, polygamy - or more, appropriately, "polygyny," or "many wives" - is exempt from this law, as is the possession of "concubines." The determination of what is considered "sexually immoral" has been a cultural artifact, not a writ from "God." Cultures that have different sexual practices, such as the Tibetans, who for centuries practiced "polyandry," or "many husbands," would be considered deviant and criminal. The Tibetans had practical reasons for such practices: They lacked land and had to keep the population down. What is considered "adulterous" has likewise been culturally dependent. Under this Law, a man could get the death penalty for having sex with his mother-in-law, for example. Like the Jewish biblical scriptures, the Noahides do not proscribe lesbianism; however, it is considered immoral and against natural laws, upsetting the natural order. Male homosexuality, in whatever form and whether with an adult or child, consentual or rape, private or public, is punishable by death. Under the Noahides, a man can have sex with the "Gentile wife of a Jew," because she is not really his wife and is therefore unmarried. A Jewish wife is off limits. A man may also practice sodomy or other non-vaginal relations with a married woman, and such will not be considered adultery. (Now we know where Clinton got his defense from!) The commentary on this Noahide relates: "One who caresses a forbidden member of the opposite sex, or hugs or kisses in a manner of lust, or has close personal contact for the sake of pleasure, transgresses the commandment prohibiting forbidden relationships, but he is not punished by the courts. In all cases where the courts are not empowered to act, punishment is meted out by G-d." One must also not flirt with a "forbidden woman" in any way, shape or form. More commentary: "Relations with an animal are forbidden at any stage of the animal's maturity, even the day of its birth." "Even the day of its birth?" This statement implies there was doubt that it was wrong to have sex with an animal when it was newborn. Incest is permissible when not siblings are not maternally related: "The Children of Noah are considered related only through the mother. Those on the father's side are not considered relatives. This means that a man's half- sister of the same father but a different mother is not considered related to him, and is permissible to him." The Fifth Noahide Law The fifth Law is against theft: "Thou shall not steal." "Theft," of course, is also ambiguous, as one could easily argue the case that the Federal Reserve's business is "theft." While the Noahide cult considers "adultery" as the "theft" of the wife, it doesn't seem to recognize that taking sons and daughters away from their mothers and fathers, through warfare and the murder of "infidels," also constitutes "theft." Forcing people to conform to a belief in "God" or other intangible concept would also constitute "theft" of one's intellectual freedom. The theft of a woman during war is prohibited for Gentiles, or "Noahides" (i.e., "Children of Noah," Gentiles who follow the Noahide Laws; Jews who follow them are called "Israelites"). Under various circumstances, such as a "Milchamot Mitzvah," it is permissible for a Jew to steal a woman during war. The "Children of Noah" are forbidden to overcharge or engage in usury. Nothing is said of the "Children of Israel." The justification for the death penalty for thieving is that the Noahide Courts are created to mete out justice so that the violator will not suffer punishment in the "World to Come," i.e., the afterlife. "Because of the justice of the courts, therefore, a man can transgress and still receive a share of the World to Come as a righteous person." It is further believed that at Rosh Hashanah, "God" decides what wealth one will acquire during the coming year, such that no one can change the outcome. Although this fact is not explicated upon in the Chabad exegesis of the Noahides, in Talmudic law there is a double standard as concerns theft, among other things. In many cases, it is permissible for an Israelite to steal from a Gentile. The Sixth Noahide Law The sixth Noahide Law is: "Thou shall not be cruel to animals." This Law proscribes the "eating of the limb of a living animal," and incorporates Genesis 9:4: "Only the flesh with the life thereof with the blood thereof thou shalt not eat." It seems sane and humane enough, except that humans would be executed if convicted of cruelty to animals. It is hard to believe that it was necessary to create a law against the "eating the limb of a living animal," but apparently there was an epidemic of such foul behavior among the biblical people. Indeed, it is evidently permissible under Mosaic Law to eat an animal after it has been ritually slaughtered, while its limbs are still moving (although it is not necessarily still alive, with brain activity). In fact, the debate over which was proper, Mosaic or Noahide law, is presented in the story of Joseph and his brothers, representing one of the reasons Joseph was sold into slavery. Unlike other ideologies, Judaism professes that animals have souls. (Latin - anima=soul) This Law surely seems the sanest of the lot, sounding very Jainist in its call for not deliberately harming animals and suggestion that those who do are spiritually unsound. Except that it apparently allows for the flaying alive of an animal and use of its hide. Animals killed humanely, of course, are available to eat. Gentiles are punishable no matter what animal they "eat of the limb of," whereas Jews are guilty only if the animal is "spiritually clean," i.e., "those that have split hooves and chew their cud." The justification for this Law is that the soul of the animal must be detached from the body before humans can eat it, because, while the flesh of a human and animal may become one, their souls must never merge. The Seventh Noahide Law The seventh Law discusses the establishment of "courts of justice": "Thou shall establish laws and courts of law to administer these laws, including the death penalty for those who kill, administered only if there is one testifying witness." These "courts of justice," naturally, would be based on the Noahide Laws. Harsh punishments, such as the death penalty for breaking any of these Laws, would be strictly enforced. According to some sources, Rebbe Menachem Schneerson's disciples will be the governors of these courts of justice. According to a Chabad opinion, a boy is liable at the age of 13, and a girl at 12, such that they could be executed at these ages. Any court that does not follow the Noahides is considered to be "an instrument for driving G-d's blessings out of the world." Failure to establish a Noahide court is punishable by death, as is the establishment of a court other than one based on the "Seven Universal Laws." If a city does not institute justice according to the Noahide Laws, all inhabitants are liable. "The only punishment meted out by the Noahide courts of law in criminal cases is the death penalty." The defendant, however, must be judged "mentally competent." Circumstantial evidence is admissible in a Noahide court. The death penalty for a murderer cannot be appealed and must be carried out swiftly. Judges in the Noahide courts are to be chosen using strict criteria, including that they possess the following: "a. wisdom b. humility c. fear of Heaven d. fear of Sin e. contempt for money f. love of truth g. beloved by his fellow man h. a good reputation" A woman, however, may never be a judge, nor can a "slave," small child, "fool" or "the insane." Deaf mutes and the blind are also forbidden. "Whoever disgraces himself publicly is disqualified as a witness. These are people who walk and eat in a coarse, impolite fashion in public, or who go naked in public, or who are involved in any disgusting work or activity, or anyone who feels no self-embarrassment. All these people are considered on the level of a dog, and we cannot trust them to be stringent against giving false testimony." Although it seems incredible that these archaic and culturally biased laws could be applicable or relevant to 20-21st century America, the wheels are already in motion, as we have seen. Such legislation as that passed under George Bush is indicative of what the future holds, i.e., a fascist theocracy, in which the death penalty would be wielded freely. Who is Rebbe Schneerson? Why Menachem Schneerson plays so central a role in this frightening development is unclear, except that his followers - Hassidic Chabad- Lubavitcher Jews - at the time of Bush's resolution believed he was the Messiah. When Schneerson, a "direct descendant of King David," failed to rise from the dead three days after he died in June 12, 1994, it was clear he wasn't the Messiah, although Lubavitchers still await his resurrection. Other orthodox/religious Jews did not believe the tale. Allegedly Schneerson had declared prior to the Gulf War that Israel would be "the safest place in the world." When the war ended with very few Israeli casualties, the event was portrayed as miraculous and Schneerson as a great prophet. This event no doubt had something to do with Bush's virtual canonization of Schneerson, since the Gulf War was Bush's "baby." It is interesting to note that the truce in the Persian Gulf War was called on March 3, 1991, just two days before the House passed the Noahide/Schneerson bill. Although supposedly only 100,000 strong worldwide, the Lubavitcher movement apparently has enormous clout and influence. Influenced by the Baal Shem Tov, a Polish-Jewish mystic of the 18th century, Chabad-Lubavitcher Chassidic Movement was founded by Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, author of the "Tanya," the "Written Torah" of Chabad. Chabad-Lubavitch is an "international movement headquartered in New York." It stresses "outreach" or "missionary" work and claims to have "propelled huge numbers to a deeper Jewish commitment," as well as to provide "powerful weapons in the War Against Assimilation.'" In other words, its goal is to prevent Jews from becoming assimilated into "Gentile" culture. It also asserts that the "Judaism that makes peace with the world the way it stands now is not Judaism," and that "Kaballa is as central to Judaism as the sun is to the solar system, as a heart is to a body, as Human Liberty is to America." "Kaballa," or Kabbalah/Cabala, etc., is the bizarre mystical system that Rabbi Lewis Browne declared was plagiarized from the Egyptian and Babylonian mystery schools, a statement Chabad would no doubt deny. The Kaballa, of course, is considered THE system of voodoo that will "accomplish G- d's will," as defined by the Lubavitchers. In regard to this goal of world domination, Rebbe Schneerson stated: "The main avodah of this generation is to go out to the final war of the golus, to conquer and to purify all the gentile countries (such that 'and kingship will be Hashem's,' Ovadiah 1:21)." --Shabbos Parshas VaYelech, 5746. ("Avodah" means a "spiritual mission," "prayer service" or "cleaving unto God." The "golus" refers to the "exile," i.e., Jews living in the Gentile world. "Hashem" is the unnamed "name" of the Jewish god.) "Consequently, it is obvious and self-evident that in modern times we must carry out the Divine Command we received through Moshe [Moses]: 'To compel all human beings to accept the commandments enjoined upon the descendants of Noach.'" (Shabbos Parshas Tsav, 5747, Sichos in English, vol. 35, p. 75) "We must therefore deduce that this is an auspicious time to conquer the world with Torah and Yiddishkeit in a pleasant and peaceful way: 'All the land is before you.'" (Bereshis 13:9). ("Conquer the World with Torah: A Message to the Shluchim Convention," 5747, Sichos in English, vol. 33, p.270) "The Seven Laws must be explained in a way that the nations can relate to and, because non-Jews do not possess genuine free will, they will be willing to change more quickly and easily than a Jew." (Hisvaduyos 5748 3:183, cited in "The Deed is the Main Thing," Kol Boi Ha'olam, p. 385-386) "Even in the future, the nations will continue to exist, to serve and help the Jewish people.… This, then, is our lesson -- to increase our activities in the areas where the many will be influenced: Jews, the world, and the nations" (Shabbos Parshas Vayeishev, 21 Kislev, 5745) (Emphasis theirs.) Other quotes at the Lubavitch Noahide site include the following by Yitzchok Dovid Smith, Esq., who speaks of: ". . . the Torah mandated role of Judaism as the only true religion for all of mankind, either as Jews or as Bnai Noach." (The "Bnai Noach" are the "children of Noah," i.e., Gentiles who adhere to the Noahide Laws.) Smith continues: "There is no room for dialogue with other religions, for the ‘purification of Christianity’ or lost-ten-tribes theology. These falsehoods . . . are destructive anti-Torah viewpoints. The Rambam [Schneerson] writes that the time will come when Christians and Muslims will realize that their religions are false, and fault their forefathers for teaching it to them. They will accept the One G-d of the Jewish people, and all other religions, in any form or variation, will be abolished in their entirety. The time for this is now, and all other approaches only are intended to delay the revelation of the absolute Truth of Torah in the entire world." (Emphasis added.) And another Lubavitcher article, "The Final War for Jerusalem," proclaims: "In reality, neither the Jewish people nor the gentiles support the betrayal of Israel, and essentially all six billion gentiles are quite ready to ask the Jews for spiritual leadership in these times of darkness. . . . "Judaism has always been a conquering religion, not for the purpose of converting gentiles to become Jews, but rather with the mission of returning the world to the universal covenant between G-d and Noah. For halachic reasons too numerous and detailed to list here, gentiles today who follow Christianity, Islam, or other religions are not, for the most part, "righteous gentiles" who inherit the World to Come. That status belongs only to those gentiles who carefully observe the Seven Laws of Noah, including following the halachic authority of the oral Torah and the rabbis. . . . "And as the Lubavitcher Rebbe has explained, by transforming the gentiles we can quickly create a vast army of supporters who will help us reveal Moshiach and bring all Jews back to the Torah. Specifically, the Rebbe has emphasized that the "peace process" in Israel will be defeated only through our influence on the gentiles--especially through the campaign to teach the Noachide Laws . . . "Our most pressing task, to put it simply, is to launch an international Noachide revolution without delay. The process has already begun, with dozens of tiny Noachide communities having appeared throughout the United States, generally composed of former Christians who have abandoned that religion. . . . ". . . the growing Noachide movement will seize political power--using only peaceful, lawful means--in the capitals of the Western nations. This, of course, will not take place until the Noachide society has grown to some threshold size. We do not know how large this needs to be nor which nations will join the revolution first, although the United States, as a fairly religious, conservative nation, certainly tops the list of prospects." (Emphasis added.) In Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel by Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky, the authors are quoted in a review by Allan C. Brownfeld as relating the following quotes by Rebbe Schneerson: "The difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish person stems from the common expression: 'Let us differentiate.' Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather, we have a case of 'let us differentiate' between totally different species. This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world. A non-Jew's entire reality is only vanity. It is written, 'And the strangers shall guard and feed your flocks' (Isaiah 61:5). The entire creation [of a non- Jew] exists only for the sake of the Jews." Brownfeld also writes: What particularly concerns the authors [of Jewish Fundamentalism] is the total contempt which Jewish fundamentalists show toward non-Jews. Rabbi Kook the Elder, the revered father of the messianic tendency of Jewish fundamentalism, said, "The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews all of them in all different levels is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle." Rabbi Kook's entire teaching, which is followed devoutly by, among others, those who have led the settler movement on the occupied West Bank, is based upon the Lurianic Cabbala, the school of Jewish mysticism that dominated Judaism from the late 16th to the early 19th century. "One of the basic tenets of the Lurianic Cabbala," the authors write, "is the absolute superiority of the Jewish soul and body over the non-Jewish soul and body. According to the Lurianic Cabbala, the world was created solely for the sake of Jews; the existence of non-Jews was subsidiary. If an influential Christian bishop or Islamic scholar argued that the difference between the superior souls of non- Jews and the inferior souls of Jews was greater than the difference between the human soul and souls of cattle, he would incur the wrath of all and be viewed as an anti-Semite by most Jewish scholars regardless of whatever less meaningful, positive statements he included." And: Rabbi Schneerson always supported Israeli wars and opposed any retreat. In 1974 he strongly opposed the Israeli withdrawal from the Suez area. He promised Israel divine favors if it persisted in occupying the land. After his death, thousands of his Israeli followers played an important role in the election victory of Binyamin Netanyahu. Among the religious settlers in the occupied territories, the Chabad Hassids constitute one of the most extreme groups. Baruch Goldstein, the mass murderer of Palestinians, was one of them. Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh, who wrote a chapter of a book in praise of Goldstein and what he did, is another member of this group. An immigrant to Israel from the U.S., Rabbi Ginsburgh speaks freely of Jews' genetic-based, spiritual superiority over non-Jews. "If you saw two people drowning, a Jew and a non- Jew, the Torah says you save the Jewish life first," Ginsburgh states. "If every simple cell in a Jewish body entails divinity, is a part of God, then every strand of DNA is part of God. Therefore, something is special about Jewish DNA "If a Jew needs a liver, can you take the liver of an innocent non- Jew passing by to save him? The Torah would probably permit that. Jewish life has an infinite value." A "Powerless Minority"? As has been demonstrated abundantly, there is a concerted and effective effort to compel the world's governments to establish the oppressive Noahide Laws as the "law of the land." The non-Jewish politicians' motivation in joining with these onerous efforts evidently comes from not only material "incentives" but also "spiritual" benefits. The Chabad website relates: "When one of the Children of Noah [Goy] engages in the study of the Seven Universal Laws, he is able to attain a spiritual level higher than the High Priest of the Jews, who alone has the sanctity to enter the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem." In addition, Schneerson's "Education Day" honor was presented because of his efforts to bring education of "the people" to the forefront. Schneerson is depicted as being a great lover of "humankind." However, as reported in the New Republic, May 4, 1992, the Chabad-Lubavitch interpretation of "humankind" is right in line with their "sacred texts" that constitute the Talmud: To wit, "humankind" does not refer to Gentiles, or goyim, but to Jews alone. Furthermore, it is reported that in an article in The New York Times, May 27, 1996, Israeli columnist Ari Shavit wrote, concerning the killing of more than 100 Lebanese civilians in April of that year: "We killed them out of a certain naive nubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now with the White House, the Senate and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count so much as our own." In consideration of the dangerous factors outlined here, it is crucial that people examine their belief systems, especially those promulgated by the monolithic religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Each of these ideologies is despotic and designed as a method to control the masses, as well as to pit them against each other. While many people are becoming hip to the numerous political conspiracies, they likewise need to realize that the scoundrels who are manipulating and exploiting them politically are the SAME puppetmasters behind the world's organized religions. Romans 13: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. . . . For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due." And to whom is honor due? "Honor the emperor." (1 Pet. 2:17) As demonstrated in my book The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, Christianity and the story of Jesus Christ were created by a multinational cabal of members of the various religions, sects, cults, mystery schools and secret societies in the Roman Empire and beyond. This artifice was designed to unify the Roman Empire under one state religion. The much-later Christian offshoot, evangelizing Protestantism, is currently being funded worldwide by governmental agencies for various nefarious purposes, including to promulgate the fundamentalist notion of "the chosen people." The average individual is merely a pawn in the religion game and business, which rakes in 100's of billions, if not trillions, of dollars annually. Such profitable business is supported by the blind belief in the preachings of so-called religious authorities. It would be best for the world if people would "question authority" and thoroughly investigate what they have believed in, often merely because they have been programmed by it since birth. © 2000 Acharya S. THE NOAH'S COVENANT Web Site Previous: Proof that God Doesn't Exist Next: Heaven's Gate Commentary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Truth Be Known Contents Acharya S on the Radio! Religion & Spirituality Politics & Society Earth & Cosmos Emails I Have Loved About the Author Recommended Reading Institute for Historical Accuracy From Sex to Superconsciousness Favorite Sites Web Promotion Tools Truth Be Known Home © 2000 Acharya S
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
#64. To: Zoroaster (#63)
Damn. There sure is some crazy shit out there. But one man's bunk is another mans gospel. At this point I would put anything past SW, quoting Kabbalists in a scientific discussion is lunacy. I mean at what point do we interject L. Ron Hubbard?
Perhaps Starwind belongs to the Noahide movement:
#65. To: Dude Lebowski (#61)
Science has not, and at this point cannot determine the age of the Universe. The Earth yes, because there is substantial material to test. But not the universe. Not even remotely. Below are several excerpts from cosmological papers dealing with measuring the age of the universe, published between 1999-2003. There are several ways cosmologists measure the age of the Universe (discussed below in the links), the most common being the inverse of the Hubble expansion constant, while others are based on various dating techniques of white dwarfs and globular clusters. Essentially, they establish the most widely accepted age of the universe being about 15 billion years, with a range of at least 11 billion to not likely more than 17 billion. So when Mr. Schroeder pulls a number out of his ass, it can't be corroborated with anything. That blows the entire articles premise away. Except, Dr. Schroeder didn't "pull a number out of his ass", but rather he has used the accepted, peer-reviewed research of world cosmologists and physicists. However, you may be right in so far as perhaps they all have pulled numbers out of their asses, and so I have provided you with links to their papers so that you may contact them and correct their stupidity: COSMOLOGY: RECENT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS Introduction: Precision Cosmology 3 ways that the age of the Universe can be estimated 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr. based on cosmological model based on Hubble constant 11.5-17.5 Gyr based on radioactive decay estimation of chemical elements 15.6 +/- 4.6 Gyr based on radioactive dating of old stars - based on two stars: CS 22892-052 and HD 115444. 14.1 +/- 2.5 Gyr based on radioactive dating of old stars - based on star CS 31082-001 14.6 +/- 1.7 Gyr based on age of globular clusters - Chaboyer 8.5 - 13.3 Gyr with 12.1 being most likely based on age of globular clusters - Gratton et al 11 - 13 Gyr based on mean age of the oldest globular clusters - Reid 11.5 +/- 1.3 Gyr based on mean age of the oldest globular clusters - Chaboyer et al. 12.8 +/- 1.1 Gyr based on ages of white dwarfs in the globular cluster M4 - Hansen et al. Age Estimates of Globular Clusters in the Milky Way: Constraints on Cosmology we find, on the basis of main sequence turnoff estimates of the age of the oldest globular clusters in our galaxy, a 95% confidence level lower limit on the age of the Universe of 11.2 Ga, and a best fit age of 13.4 Ga. The expansion age of the Universe is approximately the inverse of the Hubble constant (1/Ho ~ 1.3 x 1010 yrs). Dr. Schroeder is an Orthodox Jewish Israeli Physicist and a Kabbalist. Apparently you are now reading the article. Yes, he is not Christian, he does not believe Jesus Christ was Messiah. Does that diminish or enhance his scientific credentials in your view? I don't believe (I'm uncertain) he is a Kabbalist. He does however study the commentary of Nachmanides who is Kabbalist: Schroeder explained his reasoning up front in the article: So the only data I use as far as Biblical commentary goes is ancient commentary. That means the text of the Bible itself (3300 years ago), the translation of the Torah into Aramaic by Onkelos (100 CE), the Talmud (redacted about the year 500 CE), and the three major Torah commentators. There are many, many commentators, but at the top of the mountain there are three, accepted by all: Rashi (11th century France), who brings the straight understanding of the text, Maimonides (12th century Egypt), who handles the philosophical concepts, and then Nachmanides (13th century Spain), the earliest of the Kabbalists. How is that for credibility? I think it's excellent. Who better to comment on the meaning of ancient Torah text (with its intricacies of spelling, grammar, letter shapes, cadence, parallelism, etc) than ancient Hebrew sages. Why not study their commentary? Or, do you think it somehow clouded Dr. Schroeder's mind and caused him to commit a math error somewhere in his article? I've answered your question without hesitation, and to your satisfaction unless you are completely unreasonable. Well, not quite. Now, Dr. Schroeder hasn't written "abstract bullshit"; he didn't assume the earth and universe were created at the same time; and he didn't pull "numbers out of his ass" either. Perhaps your teachers gave you credit for incorrect answers, but I don't. Or is that unreasonable of me? So, unless you're busy correcting all the above cosmologists on the foolishness of their estimates, perhaps you can again turn your attention to actual errors Dr. Schroeder has made, or maybe you'd care to explain any errors made by Rashi, Maimonides, and Nachmanides in their commentaries? (BTW, I have copies of Nachmanides "Commentray on the Torah (5 volumes) and Maimonides "Guide of the Perplexed" (2 volumes) so don't worry, I'll be able to follow you right along).
Our knowledge of the cosmological parameters has made tremendous strides in the last two years. [...snip...] The Hubble parameter H0 = 70 km/sec/ Mpc, to an accuracy of about 10%, and the age of the Universe t0 = 14 Gyr, within about 8%. [...snip...] In the last few years, the uncertainty in these parameters has dropped from the neighborhood of 50-100% to 10-20%. Moreover, the prospects for improving the precision of the measurement of many of these parameters in the near future are excellent. Equally important, we now have confidence that these determinations are robust, because they derive from independent measurements using different techniques, each with their own systematic errors. This is a relatively new phenomenon in cosmology.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#66. To: Starwind (#65)
Below are several excerpts from cosmological papers dealing with measuring the age of the universe, published between 1999-2003. There are several ways cosmologists measure the age of the Universe (discussed below in the links), the most common being the inverse of the Hubble expansion constant, while others are based on various dating techniques of white dwarfs and globular clusters. That's the beauty of science. It allows for theories which can be adjusted, debated, pondered, etc. Religion, OTH demands a rigorous orthodoxy which insists on not questioning our invisible friend in the sky. As far as I know, these studies you posted are still just that: theory. Unless you can link to where this aging method has been accepted as cosmological law (you know, that "fact" thing you keep sqwaking about) then I will accept the point. Essentially, they establish the most widely accepted age of the universe being about 15 billion years, with a range of at least 11 billion to not likely more than 17 billion. There were many theories on the age of the Earth. To quote Bill Bryson "Human beings would split the atom and invent television, nylon, and instant coffee before they could figure out the age of their own planet." And these were debated, pondered, studied and adjusted since minds first began questioning things (they were heretics worthy of death in the eyes of your school, btw). How many adjustments to their calculations had to be made before we knew the truth? And you think the age of the Universe has been definitively pinpointed in the small amount of time that transpired? Hell, it was once accepted that Earth was only thousands of years old. And scholars could prove it. Okay, so there is a theory on the age of the Universe. Great. Now what is so spectacular about a medicine man dividing that number by 6 and adjusting the offsets a little? And where do our bipedal ancestors and cousins play into the Creation story?
#67. To: Dude Lebowski, Zipporah, Diana, fatidic, Barak (#66)
That's the beauty of science. It allows for theories which can be adjusted, debated, pondered, etc. Religion, OTH demands a rigorous orthodoxy which insists on not questioning our invisible friend in the sky. As far as I know, these studies you posted are still just that: theory. Unless you can link to where this aging method has been accepted as cosmological law (you know, that "fact" thing you keep sqwaking about) then I will accept the point. I never said science had all the answers, nor did I say the bible answered every scientific question. I said there were some biblical accounts that could be interpreted literally to which scientific observation could also be reconciled and I gave the age of the universe and the "six days" of creation as an example. You now seem to not like questioning by scientific facts and it seems you are the one arguing the limitations of science, aren't you. It does seem now that it is science that is lacking here, isn't it. I suggest if you are all that serious about pursuing the truth, then you go study cosmology and how the age of the universe is measured and upon which laws of physics such measurements depend and what are the limits of precision and resolution of the instruments used to make those measurements. Let us all know what you find. I certainly wouldn't want you to take it on faith from me. And you think the age of the Universe has been definitively pinpointed in the small amount of time that transpired? You continue, blatantly, to impute viewpoints to me I never made. I listed a range for the age of the universe. My exact words, again, were " Essentially, they establish the most widely accepted age of the universe being about 15 billion years, with a range of at least 11 billion to not likely more than 17 billion. " No where did I imply it had "been definitively pinpointed". But you needed something to argue about and so you fabricated yet another strawman, didn't you. Hell, it was once accepted that Earth was only thousands of years old. And scholars could prove it. And flat as well. So what? Okay, so there is a theory on the age of the Universe. Great. Now what is so spectacular about a medicine man dividing that number by 6 and adjusting the offsets a little? Ok, I'll accept that as a grudging "no contest plea" that the six days of creation can be reconciled to the measured age of the universe. And where do our bipedal ancestors and cousins play into the Creation story? I don't know. I don't agree they are our ancestors and cousins, nor has science proven otherwise. While the fossil record does in fact demonstrate their existence, strikingly absent from the fossil record (after nearly 100 years of futile searching) is any proof that we are their genetic evolutionary descendants. Why do we and they have "tail bones" I don't know. Just another of sciences' limitations to determine why, so far. Where do they fit in the Creation story? Somewhere in Gen 1:20-25. There was ample time for their existance as well as their demise at the hands of whatever befell them. Related to that, you asked earlier: The bigger problem for you is during those billions of years, things happened that the biblical authors weren't wise to. Giant animals were the undisputed stewards of the land, not man as the bible states. After their extinction simple hominids came to being, then intermediate hominids, then advanced hominids. Which one's were created in God's image? The Neanderthal? The Erectus? The Sapiens? If the latter represent God's image, what were the former? Beta tests? The biblical authors don't concern themselves with what they are "wise to" (or ignorant of for that matter). They merely write what God inspires them to write. The bible teaches it is all inspired by God, what is to have been recorded and revealed. Some guy didn't sit on a rock somewhere and think, "Hmm.... now what bit of paleontological information ought I record for posterity?". Regardless, what little the bible does tells us about 'dinosaurs' is again, the six day creation allows time for their existance and demise, but further in the case of dinosaurs, Job 41 hints at their existance when God (speaking to Job) alludes to "Leviathan". What species that actually was, I don't know. Perhaps a dinosaur, but it also has aspects of a mythical dragon and Psalm 104:26 makes it sound like a sea serpent or whale. There isn't enough information (at least for me) to reach any conclusion. You also asked earlier: If presented with sincere questions such as how Noah's Arc could hold a pair of every animal in existence, millions of species including those native to far away regions which none of the biblical authors even knew about or how people used to live to be several hundred years old or snakes and donkeys used to talk with human voices, you would casually brush it off as a matter of faith or link to god-knows-what. I too have wondered about how Noah's ark could hold all the genera let alone species that would seem to have re-populated the earth after the flood. I don't know. I would like to see an expedition get up Mt. Ararat to see what remants of an ark if any are actually there. I'd also like to see the Shroud of Turin tested again for a DNA sample if possible. And I'd like to see the various archeological digs around the world proceed unmolested. Do I brush these questions off as a matter of faith? Not hardly. I have sought and continue to seek real answers. I just don't always have an intelligent one yet. Does that make me believe the bible is false? Of course not. Unknowns are not the same as falsehoods. Perhaps some day the answers to these questions will fall in place. Just like with the cosmological age of the universe being reconciled with a "six day" creation. Intelligent answers can be had when enough information is collected. What I do find personally highly faith affirming is the transformation in my life as a believer in Jesus Christ. A transformation only people who know me see, but a transformation that is so unmistakable to me (on the inside) that it can't be denied or excused away. A transformation that happens pretty much as the bible says it would. For me the rest is details. Interesting to be sure, and I strive to be accurate in my search for confirmation of biblical authenticity whenever possible, but nonetheless mere details relative to my knowing Jesus. As I said at the beginning of this exchange, some biblical accounts are to be interpreted literally, and some of those can be subjected to verification. When possible, I do. Right, the faithful don't like questioning by scientific facts. What this thread amply demonstrates is that the answers given by the faithful rarely satisfy the questioner, whose motive all too often is merely to ridicule the faith. Look back and note that whether my answer was scientific, biblical, historical, pure faith, or don't know, you took pains to dismiss or ridicule it. It isn't that the faithful don't like questioning by scientific facts, rather it is that scientific questioners don't like the faithful.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#68. To: Starwind (#67)
see below.....
I would like to see an expedition get up Mt. Ararat to see what remants of an ark if any are actually there.
#69. To: Starwind, Dude Lebowski, Zipporah, Diana, fatidic, Barak (#67)
May I interupt this highly involved and interesting theological discourse with a question: How much longer, how many more years, must America and Americans be required to tithe to Israel? I'll accept an answer from anyone.
If you love America, you'll hate Israel.
#70. To: wbales (#69)
Until we are abject slave to the bankers and their plans for population control runs it's course.
How much longer, how many more years, must America and Americans be required to tithe to Israel?
#71. To: Starwind (#67)
As I said before.. the bible is not a scientific record nor is not a poltical book to be interpreted using the newspaper.. the bible has one purpose and one purpose only.. it is a book of the story of salvation.. beginning in Genesis.. it is the story of the church ..
#72. To: Starwind (#67)
Not sure what you said there, but judging from the volume it must have been something. I skimmed it, because focusing on mystical justifications too much seems to make me dumber by proxy, and I see you quit harping on that psychic spoonbender Kabbalist who reads Ivy League studies and parses the numbers they provide to apparently prove something. With that said, I can sign off knowing that we'll meet up on these threads in the future and hopefully by then science will be up to par with fantasy land. Until then...
#73. To: Starwind, Dude Lebowski, Zipporah, Diana, fatidic, Barak (#67)
Think out of the box, and I bet you could figure it out pretty fast/ ;)
I too have wondered about how Noah's ark could hold all the genera let alone species that would seem to have re-populated the earth after the flood. I don't know.
#74. To: wbales (#69)
I'll accept an answer from anyone. Till the truth sets us free?
How much longer, how many more years, must America and Americans be required to tithe to Israel?
#75. To: Zipporah, Starwind, Dude Lebowski (#57)
I've heard this argument used before, but I don't buy it. First, do you know where in the Bible it says that? It's in 2 Peter chapter 3, in the New Testament. Using 2 Peter 3 to interpret something in Genesis 1 (rather than the other way around) is dangerous, without a very good argument. Also, if you actually look the passage up and examine the context, you'll find that Peter is talking not about Creation, but about end-time prophecy. He's saying that the Day of the Lord cannot be pinned down accurately by men, because "with the Lord a thousand years are as a day, and a day as a thousand years." Applying that prooftext out of context is another danger factor. Secondly, if you're going to interpret the Creation story as containing thousands, millions, or billions of years to the day, then you're also going to have to come up with a creative interpretation of "And there was evening and morning, the third day." The author of Genesis is very specific that he is speaking of 24-hour days, containing one evening and one morning. If you wish to argue that he misunderstood the inspiration of God, or that he is for some reason being deliberately deceptive, or that he was otherwise uninformed, then that's fine: I'd like to hear it. But arguing that Genesis was intended to be understood as setting forth a million- or billion-year creation simply won't wash. Thirdly, there's the theological issue of sin. Romans 5:12 states that death entered the world through the sin of Adam. If there had been billions of years of "nature red in tooth and claw" evolution, then death had been going on for a long time before the sin of Adam, and a major foundational piece of Christian theology must be yanked out and thrown away. Again, if that's the argument you want to make, fine; but you need to consider the implications of it. And finally, there's the simple issue of sequence. No matter how far you stretch the six days of Creation, you simply can't fix the sequence. For example, God had the day-and-night thing going from the very first day, but the sun didn't get created until the fourth day--after the earth was already organized enough to support vegetation (third day). Also, God creates birds on the fifth day, and then land animals later on the sixth day. That flies in the face of everything evolution claims. And then, of course (not a sequence issue, but important nonetheless) the Bible says that until the end of Creation Week, however many billions of years you'd like that to be, all animals including Adam and Eve were strictly vegetarian. I agree with Dude: anybody who tries to reconcile the Creation story with any kind of evolutionary theory I've ever heard is merely setting himself up to be made an idiot of. Again, you want to be a little more careful here. First, you have one too many 12s in there: you've got 1,728,000 instead of 144,000. Secondly, perhaps you should read through that passage in Revelation 7 again and see if you still think 144,000 is intended to mean "a large group of people, indeterminate in number." The derivation of that number is pretty detailed. Any argument that it's intended to be understood as generic rather than specific needs to explain why the author of Revelation was so careful to be specific.
or as the bible says '1,000 years as a day is to God'.. therefore time is not recorded in the bible as to be taken in a literal sense when certain numbers are used, large numbers in the bible are always used figuratively.
As well as the # 144,000 which is 12 X 12 X 12 X 1,000.. not to be thought as a literal number
#76. To: wbales (#69)
That's a political question, not a theological question. But I tell you what: let's join forces. Let's cut off all foreign aid not only to Israel, but also to everybody else as well. Let's bring home our troops from all 135 countries they're in and reunite them with their families. Let's eliminate all artificial barriers (on our side, anyway) to trade with everyone in the world--including Cuba. (I enjoy the occasional fine cigar, and it's criminal that Cuba still has the best cigar tobacco in the world, but only torcedores that aren't good enough to be able to support themselves in a market like the Dominican Republic or Honduras.) In fact, let's eliminate all taxes, of every kind, period. If the government wants money, let it hold a telethon on some obscure cable channel and accept voluntary contributions, then operate within the resulting budget. Are you with me?
How much longer, how many more years, must America and Americans be required to tithe to Israel?
#77. To: wbales (#69)
Well the bible does say something to the effect of "I will bless he who blesses Israel and curse he who curses Israel". And we've blessed the hell out of Israel to be sure. Some of the bible-beltway morons thinks this passage justifice the perpetual theft. And Jesus said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". Ariel Sharon is the modern day Caesar, no?
How much longer, how many more years, must America and Americans be required to tithe to Israel?
#78. To: All (#77)
"justifies" I wish this board had an edit feature.
justifice
#79. To: Dude Lebowski (#78)
It does! :P
I wish this board had an edit feature.
#80. To: Barak (#75)
No matter what Peter was talking about ..the premise is the same.. the bible interprets itself.. And if I had too many 12s it was an error.. and of course you knew that.. The book of Revelation is allegory.. and the numbers have meaning.. its not about a specific # of people but it is representative of a group of people.. believers..
#81. To: Barak (#75)
Point! I always thought it was unfair and disingenuous to attribute this epic strife, this slow and painstaking progress which emerged from a sea of blood to the wave of a hand from an irritable, brooding desert-tribe deity who exhibits the most questionable personal characteristics of mankind. I appreciate you chiming in, and not just because of the affirmation. I'm on a legitimate quest for faith and knowledge like anyone else and always enjoy reading good points.
If there had been billions of years of "nature red in tooth and claw" evolution, then death had been going on for a long time before the sin of Adam, and a major foundational piece of Christian theology must be yanked out and thrown away. Again, if that's the argument you want to make, fine; but you need to consider the implications of it.
#82. To: Zipporah (#79)
Ah yes. The "bug-a-mod" method :)
It does! :P
#83. To: Dude Lebowski (#82)
Uh huh.. you got it. :P
The "bug-a-mod" method :)
#84. To: Dude Lebowski (#81)
Thanks for the appreciation, but I'm afraid there's not much affirmation involved, at least not this time. I'm a 144-hour Creationist, myself. (I'm a professional software developer, and I know a little too much about information theory to be tempted by evolution.) But I can't stand cop-outs, and I think all the attempts I've seen to reconcile Creation with naturalistic origins so far have been just that.
I appreciate you chiming in, and not just because of the affirmation. I'm on a legitimate quest for faith and knowledge like anyone else and always enjoy reading good points.
#85. To: Zipporah (#80)
Are you sure you want to dissolve into wishy-washy irrelevance like this? I had had you pegged as somebody who was serious. This makes it sound like you're making excuses for God. Do you think he needs you to make excuses for him? Look: do you believe that God is smarter and more powerful than you are, or not? If not, then what good is he? Anything he can do, you can do. Why not just get rid of him and strike out on your own? If so, then by definition he's going to be doing stuff you don't understand. Probably stuff you can't understand. Just back off and let him go. It says more than you'd probably like it to about your opinion of him that you think you should be able to explain everything he does. You're supposed to be able to give reasons for the hope that is in you. Are you a believer because God has license to trick us with regards to time? Are you a believer because the book of Revelation is an allegory? Are you a believer because 144,000 is not a literal number? Me either. Stick to the real reasons and don't let yourself get backed into cop-outs like that. Trust God: he can handle it.
No matter what Peter was talking about ..the premise is the same.. the bible interprets itself.. And if I had too many 12s it was an error.. and of course you knew that.. The book of Revelation is allegory.. and the numbers have meaning.. its not about a specific # of people but it is representative of a group of people.. believers..
#86. To: Barak (#85)
Modern Christianity shouldn't use the term "believer" at all when they choose to believe their preachers and their interpretations rather than the Creator's Word. Your post is on point.
You're supposed to be able to give reasons for the hope that is in you. Are you a believer because God has license to trick us with regards to time? Are you a believer because the book of Revelation is an allegory?
It's gonna get worse before it gets "worser" !
#87. To: Barak (#85)
What ARE you talking about? Cop-out? What are you attempting to imply here? My position on Revelation and scripture is the orthodox position.. 1800 years of orthodox interpretation of scripture.. now explain what the heck you are trying to say..
Stick to the real reasons and don't let yourself get backed into cop-outs like that.
#88. To: Zipporah (#87)
1800 years of orthodox (MIS-) interpretation of scripture for the politically correct sheepfold ! "Allegory", oh "that's" a spiritual inference, the Jews are "the chosen", Peter is the "ROCK" ... barf !
1800 years of orthodox interpretation of scripture..
It's gonna get worse before it gets "worser" !
#89. To: noone222 (#88)
SO you are saying that all the disciples and apostles were wrong and you're right.. uh huh.. You need help ..
#90. To: Zipporah (#89)
No, I didn't say that the apostles or disciples were wrong ... I said you are wrong, and you're too stubborn in your blind ignorance to admit it. Throughout history "priests" have been the ones to force the populace at large to sacrifice their children to Molech, etc., todays ministers, preachers and priests are no different, nor are THEIR ADHERENTS !
SO you are saying that all the disciples and apostles were wrong and you're right.. uh huh.. You need help ..
It's gonna get worse before it gets "worser" !
#91. To: noone222 (#90)
What I believe is in absolute accord with the apostles and disciples.. so.. get on the clue bus..
No, I didn't say that the apostles or disciples were wrong ... I said you are wrong, and you're too stubborn in your blind ignorance to admit it.
#92. To: Barak (#84)
I should have worded that better; our agreement on certain points rather than affirmation. I find value in your arguments because you've applied some critical thought and scrutiny to the material presented, rather than simply take everything at face value (and making far-fetched excuses for it as believers are inclined to do). For you, I gather, the scripture simply "is that it is". I respect that, because I view the higher power(s) the same way. My problem is I try to reconcile their method to creating/managing the world as our minds are capable of understanding it (science) and I've never been able to fit the square peg of Christianity into a round hole.
Thanks for the appreciation, but I'm afraid there's not much affirmation involved, at least not this time. I'm a 144-hour Creationist, myself. (I'm a professional software developer, and I know a little too much about information theory to be tempted by evolution.)
#93. To: Barak, Zipporah, Starwind, Tom007 (#75)
In God's reality there is no time, I believe that applies to the creation as well.
Also, if you actually look the passage up and examine the context, you'll find that Peter is talking not about Creation, but about end-time prophecy. He's saying that the Day of the Lord cannot be pinned down accurately by men, because "with the Lord a thousand years are as a day, and a day as a thousand years." Applying that prooftext out of context is another danger factor.
#94. To: Diana (#93)
Exactly..
In God's reality there is no time, I believe that applies to the creation as well.
#95. To: Dude Lebowski (#81)
This part has always bothered me as well, the OT God does seem to possess some of the more blood-thristy aspects of human beings.
Point! I always thought it was unfair and disingenuous to attribute this epic strife, this slow and painstaking progress which emerged from a sea of blood to the wave of a hand from an irritable, brooding desert-tribe deity who exhibits the most questionable personal characteristics of mankind.
#96. To: noone222 (#88)
I don't believe in the rapture. I suppose that means I will go to hell. If I had lived 300 years ago and believed in the rapture then I would have gone to hell.
#97. To: Dude Lebowski (#92)
It seems to me that you'd either take things at face value, or you'd make excuses for them, but not both. I'm not a literalist. Actually, nobody's a literalist. Some people may claim to be literalists, but they're not really, and by making the claim they're setting themselves up to be ridiculed. I'm a normativist, which means that I strive to understand Scripture in the way its original intended audience would have understood it. Sometimes that's literal, sometimes it's figurative, sometimes it's poetic; but in the case of the sequence (first day, second day, etc.) and the day length (evening and morning, the fifth day) in Genesis 1, it's definitely literal. I don't know that I'd say that. I don't mean to be offensive or presumptuous here, but I'm personally acquainted with God. As part of a relationship like that, the Scripture takes on a whole different perspective. You might say that it's illuminated, in a way. If you don't share the relationship, then it would be silly for me to argue Scripture with you, in the same way that it would be silly for me to argue with a bumblebee about how it's physically impossible for him to fly. Actually, if you think about it, I believe you'll see that our minds are capable of comprehending much, much more than science, including things like love, beauty, and sorrow. Science is good, and very useful when confined to its proper domain; but it can't and shouldn't be applied everywhere. For example: apply science to your next argument with your wife, and you're liable to find yourself in the doghouse for a [i]week.[/i] I don't mean to say that you can't find God in science: quite the opposite. But it's very difficult to find him there until after you already know what he looks like.
I should have worded that better; our agreement on certain points rather than affirmation. I find value in your arguments because you've applied some critical thought and scrutiny to the material presented, rather than simply take everything at face value (and making far-fetched excuses for it as believers are inclined to do).
For you, I gather, the scripture simply "is that it is". I respect that, because I view the higher power(s) the same way.
My problem is I try to reconcile their method to creating/managing the world as our minds are capable of understanding it (science) and I've never been able to fit the square peg of Christianity into a round hole.
#98. To: Diana (#93)
That brings up the fascinating subject of the dimensionality of God. Based on the work I've done, I believe I can make a good (extra-biblical) argument that God has at least six dimensions, possibly more (ordinary Cartesian orthogonal dimensions like on a graph, not weird metaphysical dimensions), and that he is a simultaneity rather than having any sort of sequence forced on him the way our time dimension is forced on us. But if Creation didn't involve time, then what did the writer of Genesis mean by talking about all those evenings and mornings?
In God's reality there is no time, I believe that applies to the creation as well.
#99. To: Dude Lebowski (#77)
UUUGGGHHH. That sounds terribly indefinite.
Well the bible does say something to the effect of "I will bless he who blesses Israel and curse he who curses Israel".
If you love America, you'll hate Israel.
#100. To: Diana (#96)
If I had lived 300 years ago and believed in the rapture then I would have gone to hell. Huh?
I don't believe in the rapture. I suppose that means I will go to hell.
#101. To: Barak (#76)
Yes but I would allow the government some tax money--very little, however.
Are you with me?
If you love America, you'll hate Israel.
#102. To: wbales (#99)
Hey, Who am I to argue with fundamentalists? ;)
UUUGGGHHH. That sounds terribly indefinite.
#103. To: Barak (#97)
I sent you private mail, but I thought of some questions for you. Is God as you know him partial to a denomination? I presume you know him as the Christian God, since you mentioned that you are a 144 hour creationist. I thought there was a insurmountable chasm between God and man, with Jesus being the bridge. How can you communicate directly if this is the case? Did he mention how other religions will fare in the afterlife? Perhaps you'll understand my curiousity, I mean countless people claim to have a direct line to the creator. For a truth-seeker, It's important to sort out who's legit. Thanks.
I'm personally acquainted with God. As part of a relationship like that, the Scripture takes on a whole different perspective. You might say that it's illuminated, in a way.
#104. To: Dude Lebowski (#103)
Nope. A good example might be what he has to say to the seven churches in Asia in Revelation 2 and 3. He finds both good things and bad things about all of them. I've been in prison with people of lots of different denominations. When you take God into a prison, you tend to see mind-boggling things happen--and happen so reliably and often that you actually develop something of a tolerance for them. I have seen God do these mind-boggling things with all kinds of people: denomination has never seemed to make a difference. In the particular narrow area of prison ministry, I would say that there are churches that actively prepare a congregant for and support him in prison ministry, churches that are essentially indifferent to prison ministry, and churches that actually harm a congregant's prospects for prison ministry and have to be overcome to achieve success. I suspect the same is true for other sorts of ministry as well, but that the distribution of the churches among the categories may well be different. He's the God of the Jews and of the Christians, yes. There are a set of evangelical aids that draw a picture much like the one you're recalling. If that's what you're referring to, then the chasm they refer to is one that inhibits salvation, not communication. The context is different. And Jesus is God. It's probably true that some Christians fight over whether they can talk directly to God the Father, or whether they have to communicate through God the Son; my opinion is that those Christians could probably find something better to do if they looked for it. All I know is that I walk and talk almost every day (should be every day, but I'm not as good a Christian as I ought to be) with the Creator of the Universe. I'm sorry if that doesn't narrow it down for you; but I promise you that the distinction is without practical importance except for theologians. Do you mean the "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh to the Father but by me" stuff? Short answer: gotta say it doesn't look good.
Is God as you know him partial to a denomination?
I presume you know him as the Christian God, since you mentioned that you are a 144 hour creationist.
I thought there was a insurmountable chasm between God and man, with Jesus being the bridge. How can you communicate directly if this is the case?
Did he mention how other religions will fare in the afterlife?
#105. To: Diana (#96)
At some point Christ will return to the earth. If that is called a "rapture" ... so be it ... however, rapture theorists are divided into a variety of groupings ... "pre" - tribulation, "mid" - tribulation, and "post" - tribulation ... Most of the rapture hopefuls think they're gonna avoid some of the distress of end times evil. My own study leads me to believe that God is no respector of persons. Those 1st Century Christians deserved to be "raptured" as much as any later Christians, if not more. I don't debate the rapture because it is something outside of any control that humans possess, and is speculative at best.
I don't believe in the rapture. I suppose that means I will go to hell.
It's gonna get worse before it gets "worser" !
#106. To: noone222 (#105)
Almost. When Messiah returns, that's the Second Coming. The Rapture is a separate event that happens before the Second Coming. Some folks think it's just moments before, some folks think it's 3.5 years before, and some people think it's an indeterminate number of years (but seven or greater) before.
At some point Christ will return to the earth. If that is called a "rapture" ... so be it ...
#107. To: Barak (#106)
And some believe it is one event.. When the Messiah returns then the end will be..
Almost. When Messiah returns, that's the Second Coming. The Rapture is a separate event that happens before the Second Coming. Some folks think it's just moments before, some folks think it's 3.5 years before, and some people think it's an indeterminate number of years (but seven or greater) before.
#108. To: noone222, Zipporah, Barak (#105)
I don't even know what tribulation means. Oh wait! The times of extreme hardship, destruction, suffering and death that is suppose to occur before Jesus comes back? I didn't know they had all these different ideas or forms of tribulation.
At some point Christ will return to the earth. If that is called a "rapture" ... so be it ... however, rapture theorists are divided into a variety of groupings ... "pre" - tribulation, "mid" - tribulation, and "post" - tribulation ...
#109. To: Diana (#108)
Most people don't understand the underlying meaning of "tribulation", even though they think they do. Tribulation is the necessary activity that separates the wheat from the chaff in farming, and is the final act during the "HARVEST". The parable of the wheat and tares in the Bible is explained clearly by Christ. He said, the world is the field, the tares (chaff) were sown by God's enemy (satan), and that first the chaff will be gathered and burned, then the wheat will be harvested and taken to the storehouse. An interesting side note to this is that tares appear just as wheat until just prior to the harvest when "ONLY" the wheat "heads out" ... much like the many Christian denominations appear to be BELIEVERS, but follow liars and thieves to perdition by their participation in pagan rituals such as X-MAS, Easter (Ashtar), Halloween, Sunday (Baal Worship) Church etc., The Bible says that God is the same yesterday, today and forever ... while the priests throughout history have thought to change the days and the times to their own convenience and the destruction of God's people through their lack of knowledge. The Bible states that the priests will "MAKE MERCHANDISE OF YOUR SOULS" ... Examples of priests in the modern world are preachers, priests, judges, rabbis and political leaders that follow the Babylonian Teachings of ancient Babel.
I don't even know what tribulation means.
It's gonna get worse before it gets "worser" !
#110. To: Diana (#108)
There's a sort of overview of the Tribulation in Matthew 24:15-22. The whole deal is explained in ten chapters of detail in Revelation 6-16. But let me reiterate: this is not the place for a Bible beginner to be starting. It's like taking a third-grader out of math class and sticking her in a graduate-level tensor calculus class. God apparently didn't think we needed to know every single detail of the end times, so he didn't give us enough to unequivocally figure them out: thus there's an awful lot of equivocating going on, some of it pretty fierce. If you try to wade into it before you have a vital relationship with God and a solid grounding in Scripture, you'll have a very bad experience.
Oh wait! The times of extreme hardship, destruction, suffering and death that is suppose to occur before Jesus comes back?
#111. To: wbales (#69)
Until Americans seek Truth and Facts without prejudice. Until Americans seek God's discernment to interpret world events. Until Americans have had enough of one-sided propaganda and knee-jerk, simple-minded faith in authority--those masters of manipulation at all levels of our society/institutions. Having said all that i want to record my disgust at all parties in the ME, those insane Palistianians, those secular, arrogant Israelies, the delusional mullahs and Islamists who blindly follow a pedophile false prophet, etc., etc., etc.!
How much longer, how many more years, must America and Americans be required to tithe to Israel?
#112. To: Barak, Diana (#110)
If you try to wade into it before you have a vital relationship with God and a solid grounding in Scripture, you'll have a very bad experience. But by your own multiple admissions, Barak, you seem to have the benefit of these qualifiers. Particularly God's personal cellular number. Is it not presumptuous to casually wield it for the approbation of the Internet-going public? I would view a spiritual graduate degree framed on one's metaphorical vanity wall much the same way as I would look at Badeye of LP fame's "Businessman of the Year" nomination. But that's just me.
But let me reiterate: this is not the place for a Bible beginner to be starting. It's like taking a third-grader out of math class and sticking her in a graduate-level tensor calculus class.
#113. To: Dude Lebowski (#112)
I can glean that you're being heavily sarcastic, but beyond that I'm not sure what your point is. (Probably that's because I don't know "Badeye of LP fame.") Perhaps you could rephrase.
But by your own multiple admissions, Barak, you seem to have the benefit of these qualifiers. Particularly God's personal cellular number. Is it not presumptuous to casually wield it for the approbation of the Internet-going public? I would view a spiritual graduate degree framed on one's metaphorical vanity wall much the same way as I would look at Badeye of LP fame's "Businessman of the Year" nomination. But that's just me.
#114. To: Barak (#113)
It just appeared you derive pleasure from making known your religious authority on account of your divine connections. What would Kierkegaard have to say about that?
I can glean that you're being heavily sarcastic, but beyond that I'm not sure what your point is. (Probably that's because I don't know "Badeye of LP fame.") Perhaps you could rephrase.
#115. To: Dude Lebowski (#114)
Well, then I must apologize profusely for the misunderstanding. I'm laboring to avoid religious authority, not to make it known. I'm only one believer among billions. I certainly have opinions and viewpoints where theology is concerned, but I've been trying to keep to myself anything that I figure could be considered controversial. I think it's important for prospective or new believers to stick to the basics (as Paul said: milk, not meat) until they have a firm grounding, so that a little controversy will not sweep them away in confusion. Nearly every word of Revelation is controversial to somebody; that's why I don't think Revelation is a good place for rookies to start.
It just appeared you derive pleasure from making known your religious authority on account of your divine connections.
#116. To: Barak (#115)
And I likewise must apologize for my misunderstanding, it seemed you were delineating your own spiritual math against the "3rd graders" of the thread by implications toward one's knowledge of scripture and relationship with God (both of which you've appear advanced at), which would have been an appeal to vanity. This, I've experienced is a strong motivator for a vast many who adopt the field of religion, so perhaps I'm a mite overzealous in trying to identify it.
Well, then I must apologize profusely for the misunderstanding. I'm laboring to avoid religious authority, not to make it known.
#117. To: Dude Lebowski (#116)
I see. I understand how the impression was created. I didn't mean to imply that I'm an expert either in tensor calculus or in eschatology: I'm not. The reason I'm not, of course, is that they're hard, a fact of which I have direct experience. And said experience is what I was trying to share with any rookies who, without benefit of it, might be considering taking on Revelation and Daniel.
it seemed you were delineating your own spiritual math against the "3rd graders" of the thread by implications toward one's knowledge of scripture and relationship with God (both of which you've appear advanced at), which would have been an appeal to vanity.
#118. To: Barak (#117)
I didn't mean to imply that I'm an expert either in tensor calculus or in eschatology: I'm not. The reason I'm not, of course, is that they're hard, a fact of which I have direct experience. And said experience is what I was trying to share with any rookies who, without benefit of it, might be considering taking on Revelation and Daniel. I'm not a 'rookie' and I absolutely disagree with your conclusions re eschatology regarding Daniel and Revelation.
I see. I understand how the impression was created.
#119. To: Barak (#117)
And said experience is what I was trying to share with any rookies who, without benefit of it, might be considering taking on Revelation and Daniel. Well again, you contrast yourself to the rookies in no uncertain terms. Much like a veteran ball-player does to show the newbies aren't on equal footing with them. Various levels of scripture scholarship notwithstanding, due to the subjective nature of religion, it's hard (and altogether unnecessary) to say who's got top bunk. Unless one is interested in establishing a spiritual pecking order, which would clearly be in the interest of the self rather than God. I mentioned Kierkegaard, because he implored the religious to determine if they relate to God in self-confidence (wrong) or in repentance (right). I understand how the impression was created. Of course. Because is you don't mind my saying, it was intentional.
is that they're hard, a fact of which I have direct experience.
#120. To: Dude Lebowski (#119)
Look, if you'd like me to just leave you alone so that you can call me names, that's fine. Just let me know. Meanwhile, I'll try one more time. I didn't mean to present myself as an expert, because I'm not: I'm just a simple software developer, not a theologian or any sort of clergyman. But I'm not a rookie, either: I've been at this for 36 years. If you prefer to think that Christianity is so massively complex that decades of study can't qualify one even to begin identifying the hard parts, then that is of course your business. Feel free to dive straight into Revelation and begin arguing hammer-and-tongs with the Internet crowd. Maybe what we've been missing all these centuries is your intellect, and with a few words from you all will become clear. It could happen. But if you do, please let me know. I think I have half a bag of marshmallows around here somewhere.
Well again, you contrast yourself to the rookies in no uncertain terms.
#121. To: Barak (#120)
I've granted that knowledge levels of scripture vary, but you qualified the Celestial All-Star Status as also being pen-pals with God. That credential you shared with the forum and continually pointed to as a legitimizing record. All whilst looking down your nose at "3rd graders" and "rookies". Who are you to be qualifying things so personal and with what motivation, I don't know. But it must be a good feeling, eh?
But I'm not a rookie, either: I've been at this for 36 years. If you prefer to think that Christianity is so massively complex that decades of study can't qualify one even to begin identifying the hard parts, then that is of course your business.
#122. To: Dude Lebowski, Zipporah, Starwind (#121)
That doesn't qualify me as anybody special--just an ordinary everyday run-of-the-mill Christian like Zipporah or Starwind.
you qualified the Celestial All-Star Status as also being pen-pals with God.
#123. To: Barak (#122)
That doesn't qualify me as anybody special--just an ordinary everyday run-of-the-mill Christian like Zipporah or Starwind. I wouldn't know that by what you wrote in your earlier post, it sounded like you were chalk full of special: I don't know that I'd say that. I don't mean to be offensive or presumptuous here, but I'm personally acquainted with God... You might say that it's illuminated, in a way. And you didn't spare making the distinction between a relationship like and what the Spiritual Newbies or Rookies or Second Stringers have. Implicitly, you elevated yourself and basked in the light provided thereby. So in that sense, yes, you are like the ordinary run-of-the-mill Christian where regardless of the indulgence derived from being acquainted with the almighty (and proudly trumpeting the fact) you're still as eligible as St. Peter for the eternal pleasures of the afterlife. Which, as we read in Revelations is only open to 144,000 candidates so you'll need to decide amongst yourselves (seeing as many of you've already excused yourselves from sin) who gets a ticket.
#124. To: Dude Lebowski (#123)
Okay, Dude. This seems no longer to be a situation in which I can learn anything from you; therefore I have better things to do than sit here and argue. You win: congratulations.
#125. To: Barak (#124)
Tough to logically defend the bible, guy. Spirituality is one thing; believing the bible is accurate is quite another, as anyone who has read it knows.
#126. To: Barak (#124)
Not that you were ever in a position to learn from a "rookie"...
This seems no longer to be a situation in which I can learn anything from you
#127. To: Dude Lebowski, Barak, christine, zipporah, mekon delta, starwind, whoever (#126)
Quit being an ass..........and get back to the serious questioning......that is where we all learn.....whether newbie or old-timer! Sheesh
#128. To: Mekons4 (#125)
Please do go on.
Tough to logically defend the bible, guy. Spirituality is one thing; believing the bible is accurate is quite another, as anyone who has read it knows.
#129. To: Dude Lebowski (#126)
One thing I learned from you is that the "Jesus is the bridge across the uncrossable chasm between man and God" analogy is dangerous without sufficient disclaimer because it can be easily misapplied and can mislead people. I hadn't met anyone who had made that particular misapplication before; now I will be clearer whenever I use that analogy. But valuable information like that comes only from serious, civil conversation. Unrelenting sarcasm only teaches me stuff about you that I don't need and would rather not know.
Not that you were ever in a position to learn from a "rookie"...
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest