By Ron Nutter, Ph D
I wear a necklace made of silver created by a craftswoman in Carmel, IN. In my years of teaching philosophy and religion I would on occasion make a rhetorical point about Judaism and Christianity by holding up one side of the necklace, displaying the Christian Cross, and saying, “One cannot possibly understand the full meaning of this without a deep and abiding understanding of this,” whereupon I would flip my necklace and show the Star of David on the other side.
Over the years that little demonstration had greater and greater effect as I developed a course on the Shoah in which the first half of the semester was spent exploring Jewish traditions and beliefs with a guest rabbi, the anti-Jewish rhetoric of the early Church, and the anti-Jewish legislation of early Church councils and secular governments. Over time Jews were restricted in where they could live, how they might make a living, banned from owning land, ordered not to converse with Christians, prohibited from appearing in public during Christian holidays, denied education in the professions, forced to wear distinctive clothing so everyone would know them to be a Jew, and more.
All of this was long, long before Adolf Hitler came on the scene. In fact, with the exception of organized bureaucratic and technology-based extermination, there is hardly anything in the Nuremburg Laws against the Jews that was not passed in an earlier time by a Church council or a Church-influenced state government.
The course would come to the nineteenth century and discuss the progressive and scientific theories of race and eugenics, which were popular at the time. Up to then, the problem with Jews from a Christian perspective was “bad thinking” and “spiritual blindness and stubbornness” which leads to their ongoing rejection of Jesus Christ. Theories of race introduce the notion that it’s not bad thinking, but bad blood. Thus the anti-Jewish rhetoric of the past is transformed into anti-Semitism.
There is a logic – a tragic one – to hatred of Jews. The early Church essentially said, “You shall not live among us as Jews.” Thus the attempts to convert Jews to Christianity, sometimes forcibly. In the medieval period that was transformed to “You shall not live among us.” This was the period of either forced expulsions or the ghettoization of Jews. This was followed logically by the next step: “You shall not live.” Which brings us to Hitler’s attempt to exterminate Jews in the Shoah.
The second half of the course reviewed the rise of Hitler and the mechanics of the Shoah. Most students had some idea, having heard in general terms about the Holocaust, but nearly all were completely dumbfounded to learn of the anti-Jewish activity of the early Church and of the anti-Semitic views which came to influence many Western states and eventually dominate the politics of Nazi Germany.
I am now retired from teaching. I still wear that necklace, and have since the day I was married on August 21, 1982. Curiously, it is only now I am beginning to feel the weight of my necklace. Seeing the emotions unleashed recently during the conflict in Gaza I am fearful of what I once thought could never happen: Anti-Semitism again stalks the land looking for Jewish blood. What I have spent my life trying to expose so that it might never happen again seems to be back, often with a quite sinister and maniacal passion.
It is at this time of increasing anti-Semitic activity that I am compelled to write so that others might be aware of the long tradition of anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic rhetoric and activity. This is needed so that all will realize that the current rise in anti-Semitism is not exclusively caused by Gaza or the Palestinian question or by Israel. Rather, it is simply an extension of what has gone on for 2,000 years.
It was a happier time when I first had the necklace made. I was a student at a Christian seminary at the time. Among classes I had taken was one co-taught by Clark Williamson, a Christian theologian, and Jonathan Stein, a Jewish rabbi. Spending a semester in intensive study of the Jewish religion was eye-opening and led to a great respect for the roots of Jewish beliefs and traditions. That course was followed by another taught by Williamson in which the history of anti-Jewish thought within the Church was exposed. More than eye-opening, it was a shameful legacy that Christians must bear, though I dare say most have no idea of the injustice and violence heaped on Jews through the centuries. It is for good reason that this anti-Jewish sentiment is known as The Longest Hate.
What I have come to learn in subsequent years is that anti-Jewish rhetoric is repeated, and expanded, by nearly all of the Church Fathers. Melito of Sardis, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Augustine, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyprian of Carthage, and Novatian of Rome all expressed contempt of Jews and Judaism. And this is only a partial listing of those engaged in the Adversus Judaeus preaching of the early Church.
One voice of anti-Jewish rhetoric needs to be highlighted. In 1543 a truly malevolent attack on Jews was written by Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation. The title of the pamphlet was On The Jews and Their Lies. In it, using the most risible insults imaginable, Luther lays out what he believes should be done with the Jews. It was a seven-fold plan, including
1) the destruction of synagogues and Jewish schools,
2) that Jewish homes should be razed and destroyed and the Jews forced to live in a communal barn-like structure or barracks,
3) that all prayer books and Talmudic writings should be taken from them,
4) that rabbis should henceforth be forbidden to teach on pain of death,
5) that safe conduct for Jews on the highways of the land should be ended and they should be forced to remain indoors,
6) that usury should be ended for Jews as it is for Christians and that Jewish wealth through money-lending be confiscated, and
7) a recommendation that tools be placed into the hands of Jews and that they be forced to work.
When you look at that list, it kind of looks like a Nazi concentration camp, doesn’t it? Not an extermination camp, but the typical work camp. In fact, one of the defendants at the Nuremburg war crimes trial, Julius Streicher, editor of the notoriously anti-Semitic newspaper Der Stürmer, defended himself at trial by claiming he merely advocated and did what Martin Luther recommended be done.
Luther ended on a flourish, pleading:
[T]hat our rulers. . . . must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, . . . I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his. I am exonerated.
I have to say there is always fallout when one exposes for public view a man who is seen as a paragon of faith and virtue. Teaching my course there was a young woman who was a devout Lutheran. Learning what Luther had to say about Jews in class one day she was literally reduced to tears. There is no joy to be taken in seeing another’s ideals tarnished. I could only hope that in the wisdom of her years she is able to separate what theological wisdom Luther had to offer from his contemptuous disdain of Jews.
Simultaneous to the ravaging of Jews verbally and theologically there was anti-Jewish legislation passed by Church councils and synods as well as secular governments. To name just one, in 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council it was proclaimed that all Jews in all provinces must wear distinctive clothing so that all who see them in public will know them to be Jews. This comes as a shock to those who think Hitler started that policy with his ordering Jews to wear the Star of David in public. Their rights being restricted or outright denied from state to state, region to region, Jews found themselves stateless, with few ways of making a living. The church and the state appeared to be working in concert to make the lives of Jews more and more impossible.
Some felt a justification was needed to attack the Jews, and indeed justifications were found in certain popular charges against Jews. One was the “ritual murder” charge, sometimes known as “blood libel.” The charge is that Jews would kidnap a young Christian boy and drain his blood for the making of matzos for holiday meals. The charge was first made in Norwich, England, in 1144. By the end of that century the charge was being made everywhere Jews lived among Christians. The charge has been made in the twentieth century in Germany, Russia, and even in New York State. Bernard Malamud’s novel The Fixer is based on the famous 1913 trial in Kiev,
Russia, of Mendel Beiliss. He was accused of killing a young boy, and a witness for the prosecution, a Catholic priest, explained the murder in terms of the “blood libel” ritual.
Unfortunately, as chronicled by The Middle East Media Research Institute, the ritual murder charge is still with us as Islamic Imams and Muslim media incessantly claim Arab children are kidnapped and their blood drained for the making of matzos. The Associated Press recently reported a variation of the ritual murder charge when it passed along the charge that Israel’s IDF soldiers were taking body parts from Palestinians killed in the recent Gaza fighting. The AP quickly removed the story, but no doubt it is still preserved in Muslim media archives.
Another popular charge against Jews was “desecration of the Host.” Interestingly, this charge never arises until after the Church establishes its teaching of Transubstantiation, which proffers that during the Eucharist the actual body and blood of Christ are present in the bread and wine. The desecration of the Host charge essentially says Jews would steal into Catholic churches and steal the consecrated Host and then stab it repeatedly, thus killing Christ again.
A third popular charge was that Jews were “poisoning the wells” of Christians. This is associated with the Black Plague of 1347-49. No one at the time understood the epidemiology of the disease, but they did see that Christians were being affected and Jews were not. Thus it was concluded that the Jews must be doing it. There is, however, a simple explanation for why Jews were not affected: they took baths. Personal hygiene among Christians was negligible to non-existent at the time. It is for good reason writers of this period would make much of a young woman with “sweet breath” because it was quite rare.
A critical turn in attitudes toward Jews takes place with the coming of theories of race in the nineteenth century. Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau was an early nineteenth-century French aristocrat who became known for advocating white supremacy and developing a racialist theory of the “Aryan Master Race” in his book An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races. He developed the term “Semite” to refer to Arabs and Jews in the Middle East who represented to him the bottom of the racial ladder. He set the stage for what came to be known as the “Nordic Theory.”
The Nordic Theory, prevalent in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in Western Europe and the United States, was a major influence on Nazi ideology. The theory claims that Nordic peoples constitute a “master race” because of their “innate racial capacity for leadership.” The chief representative of the Nordic Theory in America was Madison Grant, who lived from 1865-1937. He was a eugenicist who employed the Nordic Theory in an effort to restrict entry into the U.S. of Mediterranean peoples. He declared the mixing of the races to be “race suicide.” Unless eugenics was practiced, he claimed, the Nordic race in the U.S. will be supplanted by the “inferior” races.
Grant was very influential among government policy makers and even in popular culture. The character of Tom Buchanan in The Great Gatsby is a clear and outspoken advocate of the racialist positions of Grant. Tom is reading a book titled The Rise of the Colored Empires “by this man Goddard.” This is a combination of Grant’s very popular Passing of the Great Race, written in 1916 and reprinted many times thereafter, and another book written by a close colleague, Lothrup Stoddard, titled The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy. Grant wrote the introduction to that book.
“Everybody ought to read it,” the character of Tom Buchanan explains in The Great Gatsby, “The idea is if we don’t look out the white race will be — will be utterly submerged. It’s all scientific stuff; it’s been proved.”
The Passing of the Great Race, Grant’s very popular book, detailed the “racial history” of the world and affirms the Nordic Theory. It was the first non-German book ordered to be reprinted by the Nazis when they took power in Germany. Adolf Hitler later wrote to Grant personally to say, “The book is my Bible.”
It would be worthwhile to print a little of Grant’s ideas in his own words:
[Eugenics] is a practical, merciful, and inevitable solution of the whole problem, and can be applied to an ever widening circle of social discards, beginning always with the criminal, the diseased, and the insane, and extending gradually to types which may be called weaklings rather than defectives, and perhaps ultimately to worthless race types.
This kind of thinking came to a head in the Supreme Court decision Buck v Bell in 1927. The issue before the court was whether a state had the right to compel sterilizations of those considered unfit “for the health and protection of the state.” The decision was seen as an endorsement of “negative eugenics” in that it allows the state to eliminate from the gene pool those deemed defective or otherwise unsuitable. Oliver Wendell Holmes delivered the majority decision, including the classic line of eugenics: “Three generations of imbeciles is enough.” He couched his decision as a health policy issue, declaring sterilizations were like immunizations against possible contagion.
The Nazis already had a contempt for the Jews. With eugenicist theory and putting it on the basis of health policy, the Nazis began their T4 program of killing the institutionalized feeble-minded and other “life unworthy of life” by gassing them inside compartments of trucks. Eventually, the problem of the Jews was presented by the Nazis as a massive health issue. This is why Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, would produce films comparing Jews to rats. One exterminates rats for health reasons, the argument would go, and so too should the Jews be exterminated.
One more figure in the development of race theory should be mentioned: Houston Stewart Chamberlain. In 1899 he wrote his most important work, The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. The book grouped all European peoples — Celts, Germans, Slavs, Greeks, Latins, et al. — into the “Aryan” race, with the Nordic and Germanic people at the helm. According to Chamberlain, the Germanic people are the heirs of the empires of Greece and Rome. When Germanic tribes sacked and ended the Roman Empire it was already in decline because it was controlled by Jews and other non-Europeans. Thus, according to Chamberlain, the Germanic peoples “saved” western civilization from Semitic domination. The concept of an “Aryan” race was an ideal of a racial elite. Chamberlain’s works had a marked effect upon German nationalist movements, such as the NSDAP (i.e. the Nazis). Hitler was a student of his works, and praised him as “The Prophet of the Third Reich.”
During this modern period the Jew was being rhetorically ravaged on every level. If one was a defender of the capitalist economic system the enemy of all was the Jewish communist or socialist feeding the fire of revolution. If one was a member of the oppressed working class the enemy of all was the Jewish banker or capitalist oppressing the people. No matter where one stood on the political spectrum, the Jew was the universal enemy. There was no escape for Jews.
Even in popular culture Jews could not escape public contempt. Henry Adams, a Harvard historian and grandson and great-grandson of Presidents, was a leading intellectual in America. His Mont Saint Michel and Chartres as well as The Education of Henry Adams, while brilliant and insightful in many ways, also contain dyspeptic anti-Semitic references throughout. Adams felt marginalized in a world of growing industrialization, and preferred a medieval “universe” inspired by the Virgin to a “multiverse” symbolized by the Dynamo. He became particularly virulent toward Jews after the Panic of 1893, seeing the economic calamity as a result of the manipulations of Jewish bankers.
Adams wrote a very popular novel, Democracy, in which one of the main characters was named Hartbeest Schneidekoupon. He is described as familiar with “the mysteries of currency and protection, to both which subjects he was devoted.” He is described as rich, with “a reputation of turning rapid intellectual somersaults.” He is also said to be “descended from all the Kings of Israel, and … prouder than Solomon in his glory.”
Schneidekoupon’s goal is to befriend over dinner Senator Ratcliffe, expected to become the new Secretary of the Treasury, in order “to keep him straight on the currency and the tariff.” He complains when the Senator at first refuses to attend the dinner that Senators are “all like that. They never think of anyone but themselves.” The irony fairly drips from the page.
Adams then introduces what is described as “a much higher type of character” than Schneidekoupon in a Nathan Gore. Gore is then described by Adams as “abominably selfish, colossally egoistic, and not a little vain.” But, in Adams’s view, he is nonetheless “a much higher type of character” than Schneidekoupon.
Adams presents Schneidekoupon as capitalistic, materialistic, self-centered and carnal, whose “rapid intellectual somersaults” suggest a lack of steadfastness when it comes to inner spiritual or ethical principles. The not so subtle message is the anti-Semitic image that these are the intrinsic traits that indicate the nature and character of the Jew. The overall effect is to present the Jew as something less than human.
Here is an interesting little item: Can you figure out what the following list of words have in common – “usurer, extortioner, cunning, heretic, lickpenny, harpy, schemer, crafty, shifty.” They are synonyms for the word Jew listed in Roget’s Thesaurus at the turn of the twentieth century.
So why do I bring up this laundry-list of anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic activity? Because they each, in their own way, played a role in the greatest crime ever perpetrated on humanity, the Shoah. So why did I teach the course? Because I believed – still do – that exposing the truth will prevent it from ever happening again.
There are those, though, who claim the Shoah never happened. And they, unfortunately, are being heard more and more in our irrational age. I am reminded of Yeats’s poem “The Second Coming”:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer,
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
There are anti-Semitic voices currently in the land – not just in the Middle East but in Europe and the U.S. – demanding the blood of Jews. This may be as a result of a misguided support of “the oppressed” against their “oppressors” mixed with a belief in moral equivalency, or it may be the curdling voice of contempt spawned by generation after generation of hatred. Regardless, it is an anti-Semitic appeal to the bestial in the human heart.
Academia plays a role with its attempts to isolate Israel and its Jews though support of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement. George Orwell, in a 1944 letter to John Middleton Murry, wrote that the test for intellectual honesty is a willingness to criticize one’s own position. It is that lack of intellectual honesty that is bothersome with academics pushing the BDS movement. Of course, they will say they are not anti-Jewish, but anti-Zionist. Well, to quote Shirley Temple in the film Fort Apache, “Pishtosh!”
The hypocrisy can be seen in the recent move by the Presbyterian Church USA to divest from companies doing business with Israel. Leading up to the vote by its General Assembly a program was put together titled Zionism Unsettled by a group called the Israel Palestine Mission Network. This “study guide” was written in consultation with various academics and Palestinian groups. Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi, well known spokesmen for the Palestinian cause, are presented as authoritative voices in this document with no attempt to take a critical view of their positions. In fact, despite heavy criticism of Israel there is no criticism of the Palestinians. There isn’t even any condemnation of the terrorist acts against Jews. None. Thus for those Presbyterians who put this study together, as well as those who supported it, they have failed Orwell’s test for intellectual honesty.
Their unwillingness to criticize Palestinian views was replicated in the recent fighting between Israel and Hamas. No criticism of Hamas could be heard from those academics of the BDS movement despite the indiscriminate targeting of Israeli civilians with thousands of rockets and mortars. Indeed, all the criticism was directed only toward the Israelis.
This uncritical acceptance of the views and actions of Hamas while rejecting as genocidal the actions of Israel is documented in an August 31, 2014, American Thinker article by Cinnamon Stillwell. After noting various Hamas supporters among the professoriate, mostly in Middle East Studies departments, she writes that “such cheerleading for Palestinian terrorism and willful disregard of historical facts discredits the individuals who advance it and the academic culture of Middle East studies that rewards it. It is politicized rather than objective, propagandistic rather than principled. American interests at home and abroad are ill-served by these apologists for terrorists.” But what is truth, when anti-Semites are motivated and justified by centuries of hatred?
Speaking of Said, he is perhaps best known for his book Orientalism, in which he criticizes and condemns Westerners for unthinkingly adopting a “discourse” about the Middle East established by “experts” and reified in the scholarly tomes of Western libraries. According to Said, such discourse has marginalized the peoples of the Middle East, including the Palestinians, making them less than human in the eyes of Westerners. There may be something to that argument. All I would say is that there is a 2,000-year-old anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic “discourse” that has marginalized Jews through the centuries and made them something less than human. The current anti-Israel voices, whether knowingly or not, are drawing from that discourse of prejudice and hatred in their condemnation of Jews. They simply echo what has been with us from generation to generation.
I firmly believe the situation is better now than it was before World War II. Many have come to recognize how Jews have been victimized through the ages and have worked to make amends. But then I was brought up short one day by Yale professor and one-time diplomat Charles Hill. Reading about his experience in Asia during China’s Cultural Revolution it was demonstrated that whatever cultural strides are made can be undone in a generation.
That is my concern today. A new outbreak of anti-Semitism, having no knowledge of anti-Jewish thought and action through the centuries, and having no desire to know, is propagating a renewal of anti-Semitic discourse that will propel us to ever more tragic consequences if we are not mindful. One sees the evidence all around us, with reports world-wide of rising attacks on Jews and Synagogues in Europe and even in the U.S. The Guardian on August 7, 2014, published a lengthy article on the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe that is making Jews in Europe fearful of a re-play of their Nazi experience. On August 20 of this year the New York Times published a column by Deborah Lipstadt noting the acts against Jews in Europe.
The war in Gaza no doubt acts as a spark. But it also occasions a renewed use of long-time canards used against Jews, as when a Hamas spokesman again raised the specter of “ritual murder.” Even an established hoax like the pamphlet The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, a forgery put out by Russian agents to support the Czar against what were perceived as Jewish revolutionaries, is a staple of booksellers in the Islamic world. In that work one “learns” how the economic and political systems of the world are manipulated by secret Jewish cabals.
So I am concerned, and I feel the weight of my necklace around my neck. I know there are places in the world where wearing my necklace could cost me my life. Is that overwrought? I recall an interview of the novelist Mary Doria Russell in which she spoke of her conversion to Judaism. In it she remarked that her conversion was such that it could get her killed. I thought that was overwrought at the time. Now I am not so sure. Because I feel the weight of my necklace.
Ben Stein in a recent American Spectator article sums it up about as well as anyone. He comments how much we’ve learned this past summer: “We learned this summer that when terrorists kill Jews, that’s legitimate anger and frustration. When Jews defend themselves, that’s genocide. We learned that Europe, which Henry Ford called ‘that slaughterhouse of nations’ or something similar, is still chock a block with anti-Semites who are wildly happy to join hands with the emerging Muslim majority in Europe to torture the Jews. We learned that the elite media, especially the New York Times, will turn on Israel and the Jews and seek to curry favor with the enemies of Jews and of America in any way they can.”
God only knows what will come. I comfort myself by saying I am old and will soon depart this world, but then I think about my son. What kind of world will he have to negotiate and still maintain his integrity and a willingness to speak out against those who would do violence against Jews? I have tried to speak out in the classes I have taught, and can only hope my students are able to take what they learned and with integrity speak out on their own against those who would do violence against Jews. And I write because I want to continue to educate and do whatever I can to prevent unjust violence against Jews. I still believe that knowledge can be a balm to hatred.
We appear to be in a kind of limbo now that a ceasefire in Gaza has taken. Reports are that the West Bank and the Golan Heights are restive, contemplating open hostilities against Israel after seeing the Gaza fighting as inconclusive. Should such fighting break out, no doubt Israel will again be subject to worldwide condemnation as it yet again fights for its very life.
Israel will be subject to the new tropes of anti-Semitism extending 2,000 years of lies and hatred of Jews. It will be claimed that Jews are the “new Nazis” and that Gaza or the West Bank is the “new Auschwitz” and that Palestinians are the “new victims.” When that happens I shall again stand with Jews and Israel against the 2,000-year-old forces of darkness and hate, all the while feeling the weight of my necklace. It is what I must do.
yamit82 Said:
Yamit82,
The request for MBTI was to Bernard, and I left him th echoice of contacting my privetly via email. I didn’t insist on this, but would appreciate it as it offers a faster way to understand an individual, saving much time and misunderstanding.
I used to be INTJ, but have consciously changed to being on the cusp of (I)ENTJ(P) after almost 15 years.
In my ‘travels’ I had ocasions to test MBTI on people I came to know quite well, including myself, and found to be only a little in error, but adequatelly consistent.
And where do you get your answer to who the ‘paupers’ are?
Its not really your fault because everyone does it, but Torah is a very finely collibrated data structure where preserving data relationships is more important than ‘knowledge’. Yes, this means that people whi learn DafYomi have virtually no idea what they are ‘studying’.
Every word, adn sometimes parts of words has meaning, but this meaning may well be located elsewhere because of the way Torah was transmitted. Worse, usualyly the required point is made only once. Miss the connection, and one is permanently stuck until th enext time.
For this reason much of responsa is a wasted effort, and also answers Bernard’s question how there can be some many diverse interpretations that lead in so many diverse directions of thought.
Imagine a structure consisting of metal framework in which tension that keeps the framework together is retained by multifillament cables. If the cable is sheared, the filaments flail in the space, and reconnecting them is a huge job. What I describe thoug is a thre (really a four) dimantional structure. But what if thsi structure was flattened under a weight, into a two-dimentional shape, with all the cables breaking?
THis questiion of who are the ‘paupers’ is just one of th ebroken fillaments of just one of the tension cables out of tens of thousands. Its ‘connection’ is way over in Berakhot, and where almost nonone looks. Cerainly the first seven rabbis, three of them teaching, and two community dayanim, didn’t ever look at the other ‘fillament’ connector.
Could be someone ather than myself noticed, but the ‘orthodox’ are so bad at adopting information technology that its very difficult to identify this individual, or any other.
And yes, its a massive job fixing the structure. Not a one-man-job for sure.
And NO, ‘paupers’ are not “Am Yisrael in a spiritually degraded state.”
Want to try again, or do you want me to tell you?
dweller Said:
If yamit82’s English usage is not Churchillan, then I would say Lincolnist.
mrg3105 Said:
mrg3105 Said:
Are we not special !!
mrg3105 Said:
mrg3105 Said:
What’s your “MBTI”???? If you know it?
What kind of question is that to ask anyone on a public forum assuming anyone knows what you are talking about?
“Myers-Briggs Type Indicator”????? First of all it’s a load of crap.
“The statistical validity of the MBTI as a psychometric instrument has been the subject of criticism. It has been argued that this reflects a lack of critical scrutiny…Many of the studies that endorse MBTI are methodologically weak.”
“MBTI does not use validity scales to assess exaggerated or socially desirable responses”!!!
Read More
mrg3105 Said:
He asked you not me. Your criticism your response! If think you should get more acquainted with dweller off line of course. Fist ask him what his “MBTI” is? 😛
Can you release the post of mine you have in moderation, Ted? Thank you.
This could be such a great blog, Ted, if it wasn’t for this one disruptive and hateful idiot.
I’ve put Dweller back in his padded cell. I’ve thrown away the key. I am no longer corresponding to this hateful neurotic. I apologize for falling off the wagon, Ted. Will not happen again. Ever.
“You ARE being hateful — but not because of any failure to “give the guy another chance at being amiable.”
“The guy” doesn’t need another such ‘chance.’
“And why in blue blazes DO you crave that superficial, jive-assed crap anyway?
“You need people to be “amiable” with you so you can therefore like yourself; and when you don’t get it — or when you perceive that you’re not getting it the way you think you should — you become hateful, nasty.”
Look at this shit. This guy is off his chunk. He’s gone so freakin’ far out there that he’s now lost out there. And it’s easy to play on his insecurities, simply point out his false humility and he takes off on yet again telling us this is this and that is that simply because he said so. He’s a lot like Quigley that way: pronoid and helplessly egocentric. Idiots both. So full of themselves, their heads so far up their respective asses they cannot see how utterly crazy (and insecure) they sound. Wow.
“jive-assed” ??? LOLOL I haven’t heard that since Atomic Rooster and Uriah Heep. LOL The dragons are guarding the refrigerator. LOLOL
Bernard, aside from myself, are you angry at someone?
I had time to think about this discussion over Shabbat
You are not going to like this, but I think your participation is more entertainment for you than an actual search for answers that you seek
Because the answers you seek require considerable depth to receive them, and I don’t know anything about you, in the first place it would be good to start there. Ted can provide you with my email address.
Mostly I’m interested in what ‘Jewish’ education you have and your MBTI type if you know it
I’m not going to provide answers in public.
In the first place the discussion will close sometime, and it would be off topic even more so than it already is.
The answers may take some time to obtain since I’m only relatively ‘free’ for another two weeks.
This is the only ‘deal’ I can offer.
You can huff and puff and hurl insults and accusations, but I would suggest a little meditation
You shouldn’t assume anything about me
I’m a lot more open than you are, but like to keep that private
Tomorrow I will take a look at what other questions I can address relatively quickly
Keelie, you wanted to know why I said “That’s wrong” to Yamit82’s quote from Sanhedrin 98a?
Ask Yamit82 to explain who the ‘paupers’ are.
@ M Devolin:
Everybody gets moderated around here. (Spammed too.)
Even ‘lunatics.’
Get over it.
Bury your dead.
@ M Devolin:
That’s your first mistake.
You assume the only choices you have, in the matter of “getting along w/ everyone,” are
A. ‘nice,’ and
B. nasty.
But this is a false dichotomy.
The two ‘options’ are opposite sides of the same coin.
Doesn’t matter which side is up when you flip the sucker
— because the whole coin is counterfeit.
Not just the “heads” or just the “tails.”
“Nice” is just a substitute for Good
— protective coloration, camouflage.
Good does not need ‘nice’ to run interference for it. It contains within itself the strength, the energy, to sustain itself even in the face of pressure, stress, travail & hate.
You alternate between nice & nasty when the truth is that neither of them is you.
“False humility”? — nonsense; where man is concerned, I have no humility of ANY sort. (You read that right; you betcha.)
But no “innate hatred” either.
Humility isn’t about one’s relationship to other men.
Humility is about one’s relationship to God.
Anybody who isn’t clear on the distinction is already in trouble deep
— because he’s confusing man w/ God; effectively making other men, other persons, his ‘god.’
ANY ‘humility’ which parades itself to man is, in its nature, false.
You were right, but not in the way you think. You were wasting your time in a false quest.
The feeling you had — that you were wasting your time — was your conscience trying to alert you that you were angling for advantage. That is, that your show of ‘humility’ was intended to get something BACK for you in the way of regard, esteem, etc.
You were INDEED wasting your time in the effort, because that kind of stuff doesn’t impress me (and on some level, you KNEW it) ; it’s true — I’ve no use for anybody’s show of ‘humility’ toward me. I’m the same person: WITH the song-&-dance and the kissing-up, or WITHOUT it. I don’t need it
— and YOU shouldn’t need it either, Michael.
You ARE being hateful — but not because of any failure to “give the guy another chance at being amiable.”
“The guy” doesn’t need another such ‘chance.’
And why in blue blazes DO you crave that superficial, jive-assed crap anyway?
You need people to be “amiable” with you so you can therefore like yourself; and when you don’t get it — or when you perceive that you’re not getting it the way you think you should — you become hateful, nasty.
— That’s what’s TRULY crazy.
Ted, why am I being moderated? You have a lunatic on the loose in here (Dweller) and you moderate me?
I’m in moderation!
And write the hateful and malefic junk he writes above and then turn around and post, insouciantly and shamelessly, his opinions on Israel and Judaism and the Jewish people, as if anyone with powers of perception could ever regard him as anything but a lunatic. Wow. You can’t make this shit up. Ted should really consider banning him (or me) from this blog. He’s a blot on an otherwise great blog (well, except for that antisemite CA and that other lunatic I just corresponded with, Teshuvah). I’m trying to imagine this guy with any friends at all. What a sad life he must live. And then he trudges home from the library to his house of mourning.
I actually think he’s jealous of my intellect, Yamit. An intellect I’ve built all on my own. From a farm boy to a thinking and generous human being. Maybe it’s my natural goodness he envies of me. Maybe it’s natural goodness he envies of all the good people he comes into contact with. Perhaps my goodness (your goodness, Mr. Ross’s goodness, etc.) is too much a contradistinction to his abscessed inner self that he cannot bear it. I’m only guessing. I’m not Freud after all. Or Jung. Or Dweller. One can only guess what’s going on in his bell tower. It’s surely not the liberation of Paris. He definitely needs some walls to come down.
@ yamit82:
How do you know? What means of measurement — apart from a nonexistent sun and an earth that was still void and without form — could it be measured by?
Irrelevant. There is nothing about symbolic text that necessarily keeps it from being also literal. As I’ve said elsewhere, truth can express itself on a MULTIPLICITY of levels without doing any injustice to any of them.
Fine. Produce the discussion. Schroeder has not.
“You play off of his insecurities…”
Perhaps you’re right after all, Yamit. I try to be nice to him, try to be nice to you too, try to get along with everyone (including him), and now all I get for my trouble is this totally egocentric and self-applied haughty estimation of himself. Really sad. Such a smart guy and yet such a victim of his own innate hatred of everyone who has perceived of him his false humility. Funny thing is, I knew I was wasting my time humbling myself (I remember reading somewhere a commentary on the Proverbs where it pointed out that humbling ourselves to strangers proves either their worthiness or unworthiness of our humility), but I thought: maybe I’m wrong; maybe I’M being hateful if I don’t give the guy another chance at being amiable. I guess the commentator knew what he was talking about.
“Michael IS lighter with those he perceives to be women — but he may not always know when he’s dealing with a woman. Not the first time somebody here took Teshuvah for a guy.”
Look at this. He’s got me hooked! I cannot help but climb aboard his crazy train and begin to exculpate myself from his fiendish accusations. NOT. I rest my case. You’re right, Yamit. This guy really is insane. Maybe even dangerously so. Only fault I see here with you and Mr. Ross, Yamit, is that you carry on any kind of a conversation with this total lunatic. I would leave off that adventure immediately. Otherwise, you’re on a sort of intellectual Franklin Expedition into his warped universe. This is where Teshuvah is hiding, whatever she is, female, male, or alien visitor to the planet Earth. One thing for sure is, Dweller is nuttier than a squirrel’s nest.
Again, thanks for the heads up, Yamit.
@ mrg3105:
Well, Darwin did. With macroevolution anyway.
He admitted during his lifetime that the intermediary life forms which he believed were the linchpin of his theory, altho nowhere to be found when he was writing, would eventually be discovered within 75 years of publication of Origin of Species [1859]. That if they weren’t found by then, his theory should be discarded.
That was 155 years ago. And still no transitional species.
@ mrg3105:
Her BP.
Repeat: Teshuvah is a woman.
Not really.
He who laughs last
— didn’t get the joke.
@ yamit82:
Didn’t go back at all. Nor do I keep a record. Don’t need to. I know what I see; the general impression is hard to miss, and harder to forget.
Michael IS lighter with those he perceives to be women — but he may not always know when he’s dealing with a woman. Not the first time somebody here took Teshuvah for a guy.
Is that what you do, Huff’n’puff?
Frankly, the idea of ‘tracking’ ANYBODY on this site had absolutely never entered my mind till I read these words of yours; as God is my witness. . . . .
“Pa-ra-noi-a strikes deep; into your heart it will creep. . . .”
Once again, you are NOT “just sayin.”
Au contraire, you are stirring the pot, to keep another of the troops in line by exploiting his emotional insecurities.
Ultimately, one of two things is gonna happen here, Yamit:
EITHER, A: You’ll clean up your act & quit exploiting people’s weaknesses and using them as you do.
OR, B: It will eventually begin to dawn on the others here, one by one, as to what you’re about, and the clique/posse will shrink down to just one Huffing. . . and Puffing. . . bag of wind.
@ yamit82:
“Just saying”?
Like hell you were.
You were shoring up your flank.
That was an order.
You play off of his insecurities to keep him dependent and in line, just as you do with the insecurities of everybody else in the clique.
First instincts & perceptions are INDEED “usually correct”
— but only if arrived at unemotionally.
That one of Michael’s had NOT been.
You’re transparent, Huffy.
@ honeybee:
Pushing your luck w/ the bones, Twinkie.
@ yamit82:
You can find it without my help. Frankly I was surprised that it wasn’t included in the site you linked to. Then when I saw it for ESL students, I realized they were just giving the bare rudiments. Poke around a little more; I’m sure you’ll find it.
I quoted it back to you so you could see WHY it lacked what I was talking about; it was a bare intro.
I don’t necessarily ‘disagree’ with the word creation/created. I used it while putting it in single quotes to show that I didn’t mean “creation” in the sense that we typically use it here: i.e., literally, God’s creation.
A faygele is “…’created’ b’tzelem eisha” by a WOMAN/WOMEN — ‘created,’ SO TO SPEAK. Created in the image of woman (inadvertently) BY the most dominant woman in his life during his formative years (thru the absence — physical OR emotional — of the father). In a very real sense, WOMAN is a male homosexual’s ‘god.’
(I’ve talked about this before, and your response was typically, “Bullshit!” Dunno why it should freak you out that way. I mean, you could agree or disagree as a matter of course, but why the sturm-und-drang, beats hell outa me.)
At the UCLA film dept, during the 1960’s, the entire division was initially housed in bungalows on a hill on campus. The Men’s & Women’s “Rest Rooms” were notorious for some of the most thought provoking & inventive graffiti anywhere to be found.
Over the Men’s Room urinal, some guy had written, “My mother made me a homosexual.” Immediately under it, somebody else had scrawled, “If I gave her enough silly putty, would she make me one too?”
Only in very specialized circumstances. (For example: when introducing an unusual word or a term-of-art for the first time, etc.) Not in this instance.
This wasn’t about grammar, but correct punctuation. It has a place; it’s not just a needless formality.
Why would I give a shit either?
There would have been no occasion of my even alluding to your error if you had not taken my meaning LITERALLY despite my using the word created the way I did (in single quotes). When you did mistake it, I had no choice BUT to show how & why you’d mistaken it.
What was I supposed to DO: let you think I’d meant that Adonoi creates homosexuals??? khas v’khalila. . . .
Yeah, had no idea what he was driving at with the women/men thing and I really don’t care. I sensed some incitation there, but I let it go. I apologized because I just want to get along. If he wants to quarrel with me, he will have to do so alone, because I see that all his arguments go nowhere. Been there, done that. Not going there again. It’s much easier to tell man or women to f*** off and fly away and never a word again than to waste precious time in fiendish exchanges and insults.
Did the police get the guy(s) who threw the firebombs?
@ yamit82:
You’d like that, wouldn’t you?
Gotta problem with hearing how the cow ate the cabbage? get used to it, Shmendrick. She’s been warned.
Not at all.
— Where are they?
Did I indeed?
— Show me where that happened. Let’s see the post where I ‘wilted.’ (This should be good.)
Still cussin’ out the man in the mirror, I see.
@ M Devolin:
He used his ” very limited time to go back what 2-3 years and check your posting record? Or he keeps a posting record on file to use against them when he need recall quickly?
I don’t know if what he says is true or not but if true without supplying those quotes of yours in specific context it’s meaningless.
By the very nature he is tracking you should void any inclination to giving him the benefit of anything. Just sayin!!
Thanks for your thoughts re the terror attack yesterday.
M Devolin Said:
He used his ” very limited time to go back what 2-3 years and check your posting record? Or he keeps a posting record on file on you and others to use against them when he needs recall quickly?
I don’t know if what he says is true or not but if true without supplying those quotes of yours in specific context it’s meaningless.
By the very nature he is tracking you should void any inclination to giving him the benefit of anything. Just sayin!!
Thanks for your thoughts re the terror attack yesterday.
bernard ross Said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzetqYev_AI
bernard ross Said:
Jews do not seek to know G-d. It’s a-given.
Moses last speech to the Hebrew People before he died and before the conquest of the land under Joshua
23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of HaShem your G-d, which He made with you, and make you a graven image, even the likeness of any thing which HaShem thy G-d hath forbidden thee.
24 For HaShem thy G-d is a devouring fire, a jealous G-d.
25 When thou shalt beget children, and children’s children, and ye shall have been long in the land, and shall deal corruptly, and make a graven image, even the form of any thing, and shall do that which is evil in the sight of HaShem thy G-d, to provoke Him;
26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over the Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.
28 And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.
30 In thy distress, when all these things are come upon thee, in the end of days, thou wilt return to HaShem thy G-d, and hearken unto His voice;
31 for HaShem thy G-d is a merciful G-d; He will not fail thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which He swore unto them.
35 Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightiest know that HaShem, He is G-d; there is none else beside Him.
36 Out of heaven He made thee to hear His voice, that He might instruct thee; and upon earth He made thee to see His great fire; and thou didst hear His words out of the midst of the fire.
37 And because He loved thy fathers, and chose their seed after them, and brought thee out with His presence, with His great power, out of Egypt,
39 know this day, and lay it to thy heart, that HaShem, He is G-d in heaven above and upon the earth beneath; there is none else.
40 And thou shalt keep His statutes, and His commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the land, which HaShem thy G-d giveth thee, for ever.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Deuter4.html
Now I see how the “reply to this comment” works. LOL Thanks, Dweller. Really.
@ yamit82:
Well, I gave him the benefit of the doubt, Yamit. And I appreciate your concern for me. The balls in his court, as they say. We shall see what we shall see.
Sorry about the bad news in Israel (the family attacked with a firebomb). These savages are never going to stop until someone stops them.
@ M Devolin:
Don’t apologize to the cretin he did mean to put you down to support his crazy friend. He plays it both ways. Stop apologizing period. Your first instincts and pereptions are usually correct except the cretin who just addressed you here you have made a grave error but that’s your business. Just saying.
“Does your online set-up not permit you to reference a post to an earlier one by clicking the “Reply to this comment” box just below the referenced post’s date?”
I just noticed that now. Thank you. I’ve never actually used it. LOL I’m a senior now, eh.
“There was no such intent. Just the simple observation.”
OK. Then I apologize for my misinterpretation. Like I said, I’m a senior now.
@ dweller:
Yamit82 English is beautiful, quite on the par with Winston Churchill.
@ dweller:
So quote me the part that supports you contention. I know the site I gave it to you… All you did was to quote back to me what I gave you with no corroboration to support you.
If you didn’t agree with the word “creation” then why did you use it. It could also be used for emphasis.
Now I freely admit I am weak in grammar but who besides you gives a shit?? I am sure you do comprehend my current use of the fucking English language and those who make a Fucking fetish out of every misused dangling participle, like yourself. If I wanted a tutor unlike you I can afford to pay one. Fegele Bum !!! Hows that for grammar AH?
@ yamit82:
More of the standard, Huff’n’puff psychobabble — from a psycho babbler.
Oh, yes, it DO, putzele. What you offered was strictly an intro to the use of quote marks, for ESL types unfamiliar w/ English. (Note the bolded words below.)
“Quotation Marks: When to Use Double or Single Quotation Marks
An introduction to the usage of double and single quotation marks for ESL writers”
It’s standard usage, however, to put something in quote marks when you want to show that you aren’t necessarily agreeing with want somebody called something, but that this is the term THEY usede. For example, in referring to the heartland provinces, a pro-Israel journalist might say the so-called “West Bank.” The mainstream media typically do this all the time — only they would put Judea & Samaria in quotes, etc.
And when one wishes to cast doubt on the seriousness, or the literalness, or even the actuality of something asserted — or to pose it as a hypothetical proposition — it’s common in American English usage to put the term in single-quotes. I’ve done it for seven years or longer on this board. The fact that you seem to have noticed it only now speaks VOLUMES.
Back to the drawing board for you. If you must go googling, find something above 7th grade level, and perhaps you’ll be able to spare yourself this kind of embarrassment in the future.
Either that or get yourself a tutor in English comp. There are likely to be plenty of them in Israel.
@ dweller:
Mr self control seems to be losing it again and as usual picking on women what’s the matter fegele??? Fraid to pick on real men? You threatened Bernard but wilted under his hair dryer…. You are a real sick perverted slime Fege’
You and your insane friend from NZ make a good pair. Why don’t you join her??? 😛
dweller Said:
I’m soooo scared !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mrg3105 Said:
mrg3105 Said:
mrg3105 Said:
NK or Satmar?
mrg3105 Said:
Karaite?
http://peshat.com/index.php?itemid=5
mrg3105 Said:
Looking at those “Torah True folks” perhaps the right answer is yes to all.
@ honeybee:
That wouldn’t explain his comment to Teshuvah, then, unless he thought her a man. Which is what I said.
In any case, Twinkie, it’s clear that you’re still tossing bones out into the field, hoping to start something. So I’m going to warn you. . . just this once:
If you keep it up, then at least where YOU specifically are concerned, I just may give you good reason to BELIEVE what you said about me not being ‘familiar’ w/ the concept of being a ‘Gentleman.’
‘Nuff said?
dweller Said:
Devlin is a Gentleman, a concept unfamiliar to you.
mrg3105 Said:
what about the followers who depend on the leaders. The very existence of opposite interpretations of the Torah should make one wonder. For me it points out the infallibility and vanity of man. The absurdity of the naturei Karta cavorting with jew killers and using torah to aid Jew killers kill Jews shows that the same Torah can be twisted by those who profess to be Torah True. Similarly for the Teitlebam True Torah followers. We are being shown how Torah can be twisted to evil. For the sick of heart and mind they can see anything in the Torah and the Torah can be used to justify the foulest of thoughts and behaviors by such men. Even the Karaiites can get on the bandwagon.
mrg3105 Said:
Yes, but what about you are you Jewish or are you naturei Karta, Teitlebaum True torah Satmar or Karaite?
You haven’t told us yet?
remember:
here is his Teitelbaum true torah truth:
G_d saved Teitelbaum and took him to eretz Yisroel but then Teitelbaum decided that he knew better and went to New York. LOL.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3939094,00.html
or is this your perspective?
http://peshat.com/index.php?itemid=5
@ M Devolin:
Perhaps you mean it OUGHT not matter, male or female.
I just got the idea, however, from your posting history here (w/ women as compared to it w/ men), that your replies have generally seemed somewhat less rough-edged w/ the women than w/ the men.
But the comment to Teshuvah seemed more of the latter sort than the former. So it occurred to me that, at least until then, you’d assumed she was a guy. Hence, my comment.
Dunno why you should see my comment to her as ‘turning on you.’ There was no such intent. Just the simple observation.
BTW:
Does your online set-up not permit you to reference a post to an earlier one by clicking the “Reply to this comment” box just below the referenced post’s date?
mrg3105 Said:
the structure of nature and the universe reflect the existence of laws guiding them hence: the laws of nature. Why shouldnt Torah contain the scientific laws of the universe… it’s the same thing if you know how to look. Science is about discovering the laws of the universe and using those laws to predict events. Laws, rules, are also the language of programming. DNA is a program, a set of laws and rules which both create and predict the future according to the Laws of Nature which is created by G_D. When Eintein passed he was seeking the Unified field theory. Of course, we should expect to find it in Torah, but the minds of men then and now are not up to the task. Minds change, perhaps this is why oral law was not intended to be written.
mrg3105 Said:
NO, they weren’t seeking to find or prove G-d and they did not have the knowledge base to reconcile science with the Torah. before Einstein and relativity the 6 days of genesis was ASSUMED to be six man days by most. Therefore, mens minds were not up to thinking outside the box.mrg3105 Said:
http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhrdtTG0nTw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRxEeHFHc-Y
mrg3105 Said:
I dont presume to know what the evidence will show. I expect it will be Godly in substance AND in form. I see evidence in every moment. I see evidence in natures form and natural law. I see no conflict at all between science and G_D, an apparent conflict is likely to mean that we do not know something, or we assumed incorrectly in science(newtons physics, Einsteins physics, quantum physics).
mrg3105 Said:
the mind of men, including Rabbis, of 1500 years ago is not up to the task of fully comprehending Torah.
mrg3105 Said:
the ability to grow and think out of the box. The ability to know that you dont know everything. The ability to avoid trying to limit G_D by presuming to define his intentions and to elevate the judgments of men to the level of G_D. Men limit G_D to their own imagination and knowledge base, this is vanity.
Rabbis of today should be able to think like this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/does-the-past-exist-yet-e_b_683103.html
mrg3105 Said:
Does your Shabbat begin on Thursday?
I “quipped a few words” to give you enough info from my memory to start you off on your search of your own posts. I did not want to do the work for you because I wanted to see how you dealt with the situation. I assumed that a person interested in following Torah would be interested in repairing defects or errors in his character and behavior. I felt that someone who wont spend the little time to see what 3 people mentioned about his character was not a follower of Torah but instead might be a vain blowhard who simply wants a pulpit for the preaching of his “religion”.
Here is what I said, and your response is exactly what I thought you would reply:
bernard ross Said:
mrg3105 Said:
He nor anyone else in their texts is quoted as defecating. What should we conclude according to your logic?
mrg3105 Said:
Generally murderers also omit to say they committed murder but luckily the police don’t follow your logic and don’t accept their omission as evidence of fact.
Mr. Ross is probably referring to my being offended at what you said about my Cohen friend, mrg3105. OK, I’m not offended anymore. Please answer Mr. Ross’s questions. I would like to read your answers too. And could you answer my question? Are you a Zionist (and I mean in the mere sense of the word)? If you’re a Zionist like I hope you’re a Zionist, your answer will be short and sweet. If you don’t mind.
Bernard, I will try to address your questions after Shabbat.
However, since you alleged that I insulted someone, you need to show where.
You quipped a few words from my posts, which are not contextualised by the entirety of what I said. I’m not going to go back and look for these.
Ted earlier asked me to keep replies short and not quote everything
mrg3105 Said:
I am not familiar with the request
mrg3105 Said:
that makes both of us
mrg3105 Said:
Perhaps rather than preaching and pontificating you could contribute what you believe to be links between the torah and current events, with support. I think people here would be interested. but you must expect disagreements, challenges to your assertions, etc. from various perspectives including the secular and scientific. If you are not prepared to support your assertions it would be better left unsaid as it would devolve into soapbox preaching.
mrg3105 Said:
I beleive he made arguments to which you chose not to respond.
mrg3105 Said:
I am not going to waste my time to go back to that now. I have already in past posts pointed out your insults and so have others. If you are not wiling to go back over your own posts and see what various posters are saying then all your Torah talk is baloney, a pontificating windbag blowing hot air. On the other hand if you are sincere you will go back on your own, find them and then perform a mea culpa… you may do it in Hebrew.
mrg3105 Said:
Wrong… replies of more declarations without support are not replies of substance.
mrg3105 Said:
how convenient for one who NEVER gives support for their assertions. I gather that you are rarely challenged as giving support appears to be alien to you… perhaps you lecture in an online class?
mrg3105 Said:
have no idea what this means
mrg3105 Said:
Often complex “answers” are offered by the disingenuous to obfuscate their lack of support. Those who spend their lives counting how many angels dance on the head of a pin tend to exaggerate simplicity into complexity.
mrg3105 Said:
unsatisfactorily. Those who rejected cannot be considered to have accepted Tanakh.
mrg3105 Said:
Perhaps Hashem intended the persecution and the loss, or perhaps it demonstrated a lack of faith that if Hashem did not want its loss that there was an other avenue for its preservation outside of changing HIS will. Were they saying that G_D was incapable of preserving that which he wanted preserved? Perhaps whatever the outcome was HIS will. those who wrote it down appeared to have presumed that their will was more efficacious.
mrg3105 Said:
not intended by whom? If Hashem then HIS intentions were circumvented and HIS intended outcome was obstructed. Perhaps those who wrote it down thought they knew better?
mrg3105 Said:
perhaps the current interpretation of the “true” meaning was not meant to be frozen in time or to be static? Perhaps Hashem intended a dynamic and changing meaning? A “true” meaning interpreted today might be a different “true” meaning tomorrow from a different set of human sages. Perhaps Hashem knew that and it was part of his plan, perhaps men cannot comprehend relative and dynamic “truth”.
mrg3105 Said:
Men who control truth tend to arrange it in their favor and to change it according to their needs. They will decide who is worthy.
mrg3105 Said:
It is less living and dynamic after being frozen and used as a prime determinant of the “true” meaning. I assume that Hashem was aware of the imperfection of man when he gave the law as oral.
mrg3105 Said:
Hashem would have known this and the outcome must be his intent.
mrg3105 Said:
dont beat around the bush, make your point
mrg3105 Said:
Who is peter, is he a character from the Jewish bible? What is your evidence or support for his existence?
mrg3105 Said:
Stated in what? Are you citing specific documents? The statement makes little sense even as a generalization: medical documents might not discuss ham eating or non eating habits. Food documents might not discuss moles on right cheeks. If venus went unmentioned did it exist. its an illogical statement AND assumption.
mrg3105 Said:
do you believe that apostolic texts are statements of fact, if so please give evidence. Are Jesus and peter characters in the Hebrew bible, I dont remember reading of them? where did you get your evidence from of their existence? I assume you can cite the contemporary Jewish sources of evidence for their existence as that is what you require? Why would we be discussing the eating habits of mythological characters? It appears to be an absurd discussion.
Do you use apostolic texts to arrive at many of your facts?
mrg3105 Said:
make your point clearly
mrg3105 Said:
thats what the christian authorities say but they also say the jews killed their mythical christ. a ford focus is not a mercedes benz.. there are similarities but the differences are striking. sometimes one brand of car uses the same engine or other parts as another brand, but they are not the same in there essence or de facto. Perhaps you need to assert that they accepted tanakh in order to say that they accepted Kashrut, but a better yardstick is that they did not accept shabbat or circumcision and other accessories. you can say that they assert that they accepted tanakh, but as a chinese menu.
mrg3105 Said:
what they accepted is NOT tanakh, it is an unreasonable facsimile thereof. the question is why do YOU need to assert their acceptance?
Bernard, desperate times called for desperate measures.To someone that understands the oral Torah the effort is awe-inspiring.
However, if it bothers you so much, just don’t talk about it.
If you look at the beginnings of modern Science, you will notice that it deals, and still does, with observable phenomena. Early, and most current scientists therefore have failed to ‘find’ God because they made the assumption that the proof would be obvious.
Moreover, they critiqued Torah for not offering this proof, yet the Torah (i.e. TaNaKh & HaZaL) are a cultural depository with a significant legal content. One may as well have tried to ‘find’ God in the tomes of British Common Law.
Never the less the proof is there though even most rabbis don’t know it. Just keep in mind that if you seek evidence of God, it is Godly in substance. So now you are going to demand EVIDENCE, right? 🙂 But handing stuff over on a platter is not our way 😉
Yes, I have to be consistently cryptic 🙂
I wonder what other abusive words you know. I was hoping that Mr Devolin would call me an unctuous ass because I have a great respect for talking donkeys, alas 🙂
‘minuscule minds’? Yet we nearly made the elephants extinct…a hard pil to swallow
BR – Are rabbis of a higher quality a thousand years ago than today?
A – Today they are not even rabbis.
BR – Was understanding frozen to that time?
A – Yes
BR – I see lots of low quality rabbi’s today, were they the same then?
A – Its not just ‘rabbis’. Today the World fairly well knows only three types of mentalities (predominantly): Greco-Latin (say Greek), Hindu and Chinese. Greeks though come from somewhere in modern India.
Yisrael was another. ‘Jews’ used to think differently.
I’m interested how you define the quality of thought.
BR – How can the same Torah lead jews in opposite directions and perhaps that leading is intentional like the Tower of Babel.
A – but that is the problem; the people that THINK they are leaders, don’t lead or even understand leadership. Moreover, because there is no leadership, ANY direction will do, and so that is what it is. So on this you are correct.
BR – Is G_D confusing us, making us clowns?
A – not at all
Why ‘us’? You are not ‘Jewish’, are you?
BR – Did He send all these Torah babblers as punishment?
A – no.
BR – If the galut was a punishment, was everything born in the galut also a punishment sent as confusion?
A – no. Its called trauma
bernard ross Said:
So don’t believe
Of course its absurd since the first Christians had already abandoned their culture for the Greek one. Never the less one may suppose that this was a process that was not complete at the time
Its a trick question; angels have only one leg, so can’t dance
not at all
Never assume the obvious is true (William Safire)