or
Join Now!
|
|
These are answers that curious98 has provided in Religion
| Question/Answer | | tony052071 asked on 07/11/07 - ERNEST B. ROCKSTAD I have been looking for books by Ernest B. Rockstad. I don't know what church he went to, but he preached on demons. Amazon.com's books on him are out of print. Does anyone know if he is still alive. I have some cassette tapes he made in 1972. I think he was from Kansas. curious98 answered on 07/11/07:In
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:l7xzbBUyZosJ:www.amazon.com/s%3Fie%3DUTF8%26search-type%3Dss%26index%3Dbooks%26field-author%3DB.%2520B.%2520Jordan%26page%3D1+*Ernest+B.+Rockstad*&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2
You can see that Amazon.com has, at least, one book where this Mr. Rockstad participates: From the snare of the fowler.
Other than that, I've copied this article for you:
"Identifying the Demonized: The Occult Subjection Syndrome
by K. Neill Foster, Ph. D.
©2004
How does one know if an individual is demonized or “demon possessed?” Careful reading of this brief essay is could be helpful–that at least is my intention.
Discernment
Discernment is a significant--even necessary--part of the Christian life. By the word “discernment,” I am not referring to the gift of discerning of spirits but to the broad-based discernment that is both available and obligatory in the life of a mature Christian.
In this article am accenting the validity of the authority of the believer and urging that all believers should have familiarity with both supernatural and non-supernatural phenomena. Recognition of the symptoms of spirit-invasion is a vital aspect of discernment as is the gift of the discerning of spirits, the special charism of the Holy Spirit. I am also introducing a special term made up of three well-known words, “occult,” “subjection” and “syndrome.”
Occult Subjection Syndrome Defined
The term “occult subjection syndrome,” refers to symptoms of a condition (not a disease) which is affected by greater or lesser satanic intrusion into the life of an individual. Intrusion of this kind may characterized by such things as ancestral occult bondage, spiritism, overwhelming terror, fear, obsessive sexual practices or perversions, religious heresies, pseudo-glossolalia, psychic ability, mind alteration through drug dependence, enchantment with certain types of music, tendencies toward suicide or self-destruction, uncleanness, inexplicable physical infirmities, uncontrollable impulses, blasphemous thoughts, intellectual ideas that entrap the human mind in unbelief, etc.
This term reflects an occult penetration, superficial or massive, of dark powers into the life of a human being. Such demonization/subjection is as varied as the people involved.
Forbidden Practices
The Old Testament provides a catalog of forbidden practices known to lead to the occult subjection syndrome. They are as follows: sacrificing a son or daughter in fire, divination or sorcery, interpretation of omens, practice of witchcraft, casting of spells, mediumship/spiritism, consulting with the dead and false religious expressions (Deuteronomy 18:10, 22).
In the New Testament the Gadarene demoniac (Matthew 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-8) was fully demonized and totally controlled by Satan. The various symptoms of his case may be used to assemble yet another catalog of the occult subjection syndrome: the demoniac was suicidal, had superhuman strength, cried out ferociously, cut himself with stones and posed a physical threat to others.
Indicators of Demonization
Many centuries ago the Roman Catholic Church set four criteria for this human condition: (1)
knowledge of a language previously unknown; (2) knowledge of hidden or secret things; (3) demonstration of superhuman strength; (4) an aversion to the things of God (Koch 1973:141).
Kurt Koch himself offers eight indications of possible occult subjection based on Luke 8:26-39: another personality seems resident; unusual strength; inner conflict; resistance/opposition to the things of God; clairvoyance; ability to speak with voices not one’s own; sudden deliverance possible; and finally, transference of demons to people or animals (1973:136-141).
Of the modern writers, Ernest B. Rockstad lists a somewhat larger catalog of symptoms: incapacity for normal living, violence and superhuman strength; personality and behavior problems; restlessness and insomnia; terrible inner anguish; self-inflicted injury; functional illness; reliance on prescription drugs; an abnormal sex life; defeat and failure in the Christian life; obsessive thinking; unbreakable habits; nameless fears (1985:22-30).
Mark Bubeck seems to be influenced both by Rockstad and his own counseling ministry. His list of symptoms is prefaced with this warning: “These are not meant to be conclusive evidence of demonic affliction but are merely indicative of the enemy’s work” (1975:144). His list of symptoms follows: a compulsive desire to curse God; a revulsion against the Bible; compulsive suicidal or murderous thoughts; deep feelings of bitterness and hatred; compulsive desires to tear other people down; terrifying feelings of guilt and worthlessness; physical symptoms which have no medical basis; deep depression and despondency; terrifying seizures of panic and abnormal fears; dreams and nightmares of a horrific recurring nature; sudden surges of violent rage and uncontrollable anger; and terrifying doubt of one’s salvation (1975:144-145).
Conrad Murrell’s list of demonization symptoms is similar, though at some points it could be condensed. It includes unnatural fear; deep depression; confusion of the mind; restlessness; obscenities and profanities; inexplicable sleepiness; uncontrollable and unreasonable rage; sudden suicidal and murderous urges; schizophrenia; recurring headaches, physical symptoms without apparent cause; urges to alcohol, tobacco, drugs, pornography, violence and bloodshed; inexplicable rebellion; sexual perversion; aversion to marital sex; clairvoyance; and uncontrollable urges (1973:60).
L. David Mitchell suggests that unsuspecting persons can open themselves to occult subjection by
inviting seemingly “good” but obviously strange spirit manifestations (2 Corinthians 11:14); being at the receiving end of a curse; practicing Eastern-style or New Age mediation; using drugs; playing spirit “games”; being involved in abortion or incest; having a dependency of any kind, including rock music (1988:8).
Psychologist Marguerite Schuster, with limited deliverance experience by her own admission, has likewise established an extensive list which describes demonization: a new personality; new intellectual power; extraordinary bodily strength; change of moral character; strange physical ailments; self-destructive impulses, poltergeist phenomena; animalistic possession; quick relief with exorcism; and a distinctive stench (1977:94-95).
Ten Symptoms of Demonization
Because these symptoms exhibit themselves in various ways in different people, and because the Christian counselor is called upon to effect useful ministry, I shall attempt to condense these summations into ten key criteria which refer to the Occult Subjection Syndrome (OSS):
1. Terrorizing fear
2. Unbelief, often associated with intellectual concepts, aversion to divine things
3. Obsessive sexual problems
4. Pseudo-charismata, heresies and other religious beliefs/aberrations
5. Compulsive behavior
6. Ancestral occult bondage
7. Inexplicable illness
8. Suicidal/murderous intent
9. Spiritism, clairvoyance and witchcraft
10. Inner voices
If these are the symptoms of occult invasion, how does one tell if the person exhibiting one or more of these phenomena is actually demonized?
Identifying the Occult Subjection Syndrome
In answering this question, we remind ourselves that some Christians who have developed general discernment as defined earlier may arrive at a decision regarding demonization through a process of diagnosis. However, those who are especially gifted with the discerning of spirits or other revelational gifts may be able to identify the spirit(s) intuitively and sometimes immediately, by name, without the diagnostic process.
In our counseling ministry, we have recognized that the OSS need not necessarily imply demonic invasion. Conceivably a person might exhibit all the symptoms of the OSS and not be truly demonized. There is always the possibility that the psyche/ego/self-life can and will imitate these symptoms. Sinful human beings are capable of such things alone.
There are also physical conditions which resemble demonization. Further, there are various degrees of invasion ranging from minimal to massive. When the invasion is massive, the demonization may become total dominance and possession. (A diagnosis of total demonization should be the alternative of last resort.)
The Authority of the Believer
When the counselor has sufficiently discerned the evident nature and extent of the bondage and the probability of its occult identity, the authority of the believer may then be brought to bear upon the manifestation i.e. verbally and directly addressing the spirit that is manifesting. The “trying of the spirits” may occur, and release from occult subjection may be expected following repetitious exit commands. Ultimately, true exorcism is the final proof of authentic demonization.
The occult subjection syndrome is exhibited in a person manifesting a list of symptoms which likely, but not necessarily, betray a condition of demonization. In many cases, providing the victim is a Christian believer and understands the basic principles of authority, he/she can, by audible verbal repudiations and renunciations in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, escape his or her occult subjection. Such deliverances utilize the faith and belief of the person that has been victimized and has been described by Neil Anderson as “auto-deliverance.”
In more extreme cases, where the OSS leads to a diagnosis of extensive demonization, the authoritative community involving other Christians will become necessary to effect the deliverance. Jesus sent the disciples out two by two to do this kind of ministry. This pattern of team ministry is ignored with peril. (For an elaboration on this material, and other related subjects as well, see www.kneillfoster.com/spiritual warfare.)
Finally, let this incident be a warning.
Rev. Bill McLeod, well-known from Saskatoon (Caanada) revival days, was facing the concluding meeting of a multi-church ministry series when he was accosted on the final Sunday afternoon by a man purporting to be demon possessed. Since the man sought deliverance, McLeod and his song-leader attempted to help. At the end of a long and exhausting afternoon replete with spectacular manifestations and multiplied exit phenomena, the man suddenly stood up and said, “I sure fooled you, didn’t I?”
With that, he was gone. Two seasoned Christian workers had been deceived. Probably. the man was not demonized at all. Incidents such as these should produce great caution among discerning believers. There can be no substitute for the wisdom and insight of the Holy Spirit and the safety that comes from a multitude of counselors. To diagnose anyone as demonized is a decision that must be made with great caution.
Nevertheless, the occultly subjected are out there. The help they need is best delivered by discerning and mature Christian workers. Only discerning believers can really help them. The more experience these workers have in these matters, the better.
Endnotes
Anderson, Neil,The Bondage Breaker, 1993 Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers
Bubeck, Mark, The Adversary, 1975 Chicago: Moody Press
Koch, Kurt, Demonology, Past and Present, 1973 Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications
Mitchell, L. David, "Deliver Us from Evil", 1988 The Alliance Life, pp. 6-9
Murrell, Conrad, Practical Demonology, 1973 Pineville, LA: Sabre Publications
Rockstad, Ernest B, Papers on Speaking in Other Tongues, 1986 Andover, KS: Faith and Life Publications
Schuster, Marguerite, "Power, Pathology and Paradox", 1977 Ph.D. dissertation since published. Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA"
Personally, I'm not interested in this type of ñiterature and I do not have information as to the whereabouts of this writer.
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 03/01/07 - What is monoethism? Is Hebrew/Christian belief monotheistic? How do you define the belief in "One God"? And is the hebrew God, Christian God such a monotheistic faith?
I ask because in the bible, people believed in multiple gods, even the Hebrew writers acknowledged that other gods were believed in or existed (depending on your interpretation of the works). However, they believed that their God was above all others. In order to be "above all others", you must believe in others, correct? If you had the only painting of a train in the world, would you believe it was better than every other painting of a train? Or would you not even recognize that other paintings might exist to be compared against?
secondly, God is "quoted" in the bible speaking in plural, and speaking of other "gods". Does this imply pluralism? or simply God speaking of other beliefs, and raising them to a godhood level?
Your thoughts? curious98 answered on 03/02/07:According to the dictionary monotheism is the belief in the oneness of God. In our Western world, this concept is integrated by the Christianity, the Islam and the Judaism, i.e. the so-called Abrahamic religions.
Believing in the oneness of God means believing there is only a one and only God, creator of everything in the Universe, who has ever existed and will ever exist, for whom time and space has no meaning at all.
What you call the Hebrew God –Yahweh – is, of course, the same as the Christian God and the Islamic Allah (which only means God in Arabic).
Initially, some Jews did worship several pagan gods which belonged to previous Mesopotamian cultures. These gods were the consequence of long established myths and traditions, for man has always felt – from the very oldest civilizations - the need to explain who has created him. Some of these traditions were probably absorbed by the primitive writers of the Old Testament books.
But, believing there is only one God had to mean also that all other conceptions of gods had to be false, for if there is one God, this God –our creator- IS NOT only the creator of a given part of human beings but of the entire mankind, whether part of it does not even believe in this monotheism concept.
What I mean is that if we accept the concept of one single God – who else but an Almighty form of energy or “God” could be responsible of the creation of the Universe? - All other ideas of gods do not really matter.
They can –to a certain extent- be considered as minor gods, angels, or saints of some kind. Hence, the idea of "above all others"
To start talking about GOD –in capital letters- just forget about preconceived ideas of a long white bearded man sitting in a throne somewhere in Paradise, like the Greek Zeus, in the Mount Olympus.
This idea comes from the fact that human mind cannot conceive concepts like Almighty, Eternal, Omniscient, etc.
If the Universe –with its zillions of stars and worlds and its infinite size- is the end result of some sort creative Will (which we call GOD), it goes without saying we cannot start imagining the kind of power this Will or GOD, may have.
According to the Christian Bible God has appeared in the form of a bush in the desert, or in the Mount Sinai, or incarnated as a man, in the person of Jesus. But this is just the prove that GOD’s power is infinite, as everything else about GOD.
When Yahweh or, later on, Jesus refer to other gods, they are just referring to the pagan gods some worshipped at a given time, as I already mentioned.
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | _JacquelineA asked on 02/24/07 - knowledge and sensation..
I propose that all knowledge is derived from sensory input; touch, smell, taste, sight and sound. Without sensation, there would be nothing.
To illustrate my point, understand that the qualities we describe of visible reality are also merely subjective; qualities such as color, taste, texture, sound and so on. These secondary qualities do not exist unless there is a point of reference into which is being received. A blind man will never witness color. A dead man will never experience sound. A dumb man will never grasp language, and so on likewise. Perception, a distinctly human quality, is the ability to rationalize the sensations we take into ourselves. The sensations of color and taste and so on, upon being recognized by the memory gland, are given qualities of sense. For example, I touch an orange basketball. The ball has all of the properties that I can sense; orange, an awkward texture, size, and its extension, the bouncing sound it makes, and so on. Now although a blind man can feel and sense the presence of the ball, his basketball will always differ from mine. He cannot experience the same ball, as it is not “orange”. A deaf man will feel and see the properties of the ball, but will never hear the reaction it makes upon striking the pavement. The qualities we attribute to certain objects are nothing more but our abilities to perceive them.
We can see how the attributes of the basketball change depending on the level of perception to which the individual is capable. The example of the basketball can be amplified to include daily life. Every individual person has unique perception, therefore exists in a completely separate reality as the next individual. The basketball will be described differently by every person who senses its properties. Life, in turn, will be perceived differently on an individual basis, varying based of sensory input. I conclude that there is no true world, only perceptions of a seemingly unconscious one
curious98 answered on 02/26/07:
You raise a very interesting point of debate although totally philosophical.
I do not agree, however, with the corollary.
As far as we are sitting on this world of ours, our perception of it may be subjective –depending on the person and its mood- but it can hardly be unconscious.
Although I do not know what you are driving at with your thought, just in case you are wondering about God, let me say that, even assuming that this world is not a true one but the perception of a seemingly unconscious one, there should be no doubt that you exist as a living human being, with feelings and senses and instincts, and you must have been created by your parents following a very natural process. But the very initial sign of life appearing on this “non-existing world” that lead to what we are now “theoretically” is the consequence of the Will of a Creator, some of us call GOD.
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Ethmer asked on 01/05/07 - WHY did God create that that is?
Assuming that you believe in a God that created everything, whether specifically or through evolution, my question is WHY did God create that that is?
Why so many stars?
Why animals and other creatures?
Why man?
curious98 answered on 01/07/07:
What you propose in your question is extremely pretentious, if you allow me to say so.
You are asking for nothing else but to determine GOD’s plans for Its Creation, which implies GOD’s plans are for us to discuss.
We are nothing but a combination of atoms, the smallest thing to be imagined in comparison to the size of the Universe, and we are not to question GOD’s purpose in creating our Universe as it did. We can only accept it as a Wonder Master Work and be grateful we are allowed to share it.
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | maranel asked on 12/04/06 - ANTICHRIST DEAR CURIOUS
NO THERE IS A VILE MAN COMING IN THE TIME WHEN KNOWLEDGE WILL BE INCREASED. WE CAN BOAST THAT THERE HAS BEEN MUCH MORE KNOWLEDGE IN THIS CENTURY THAN ANY CENTURY PAST THIS MAN IS GOING TO RECEIVE A DEADLY WOUND REV 13 AND IS GOING TO DRAMATICALLY COME BACK FROM THIS WOUND SO THAT ALL THE WORLD WILL SAY HOW DID HE COME BACK FROM THAT. WHO CAN MAKE WAR WITH THIS MAN. HE IS SUPPOSED TO BE A WESTERN MAN AND IT LOOKS LIKE A JEW SO FAR THE LEADERS ARE PROBABLY HERE RIGHT NOW YOU COULDNT SAY THAT LAST CENTURY AND THE ONES BEFORE BECAUSE FIRST ISRAEL HAD TO RETURN TO THEIR HOME COUNTRY(WHICH THEY DID IN 1948) THAT IT WOULD BE SOON RIGHT AFTER THAT NOW SOON DOESNT NECCESARILY MEAN IN 10 YEARS MAYBE ANYWHERE FROM 50 TO 100 YEARS. WHOSE WORRIED ABOUT IT ITS JUST INTERESTING AND WITH ALL THESE BOMBS THE LORD SAID IF HE DIDNT RETURN MAN WOULD HAVE DESTROYED THEMSELVES. HE IS GOING TO SIT ON THE THRONE FROM BABYLON(IRAQ) REV 17 :18 WHERE IT SAYS THAT GREAT CITY THAT REIGNS OVER THE KINGS OF THE EARTH I WAS THINKING IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN SADAAM BUT HE DONT COME IN PEACE NEITHER DOES BIN LADEN POSIBILITY IT IS A LEADER OF IRAQ DOWN THROUGH THE AGES THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES SENSE IS A WESTERN LEADER(US OR COMMON MARKET) WITH JEWISH NATIONALITY PROBABLY FROM THE US AND AND PRESIDENT OF THE UN LOOK OUT FOR WHO EVER GETS IN THE UN IF HE IS JEWISH THE ONLY ONE WHO SEEMS TO FIT THAT BILL IS BILL IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN curious98 answered on 12/08/06:
You are, of course, entitled to your own version of St. Johns prophecies.
In the version I read (the New American Bible) chapter 13:3 reads:
I saw that one of its heads seemed to have been mortally wounded, but this mortal wound was healed. 3 Fascinated, the whole world followed after the beast.
And it is interpreted as follows:
[3] This may be a reference to the popular legend that Nero would come back to life and rule again after his death (which occurred in A.D. 68 from a self-inflicted stab wound in the throat); cf Rev 13:14; Rev 17:8. Domitian (A.D. 81-96) embodied all the cruelty and impiety of Nero. Cf Introduction.
18] The second beast is described in terms of the false prophets (cf Rev 16:13; 19:20; 20:10) who accompany the false messiahs (the first beast); cf Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:22; 2 Thes 2:9; cf also Deut 13:2-4. Christians had either to worship the emperor and his image or to suffer martyrdom.
All throughout last centuries there have been many who have prophesied the end of the world, the coming of the antichrist and all kind of disasters for Mankind.
In my humble opinion, this is like prophesying that one of these days is going to rain. We can be almost assured that we will guess it right. For we are in winter. At least, we are, here, in the Northern Hemisphere.
On the other hand, in the present state of things in our world there is always a chance that some crazy decision of our politics may involve us in a nuclear war that destroys our civilization, as we know it.
But, as you say, this may happen now, 50 years from now, or 1000 years from now.
So, if I were you, I would not torment myself with this kind of nightmare of the antichrist.
In any case, whatever has to happen according to Gods plans for us, will happen anyhow, and neither your worrying about it nor anything else may contribute to change the.
So the only thing we all can do is to try to be always on the ready, should, after all, you turned out to be right and does start raining one of these days
Other than that, all the worries in the world will not prevent from happening what must happen. As the song goes what will be, will be
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | maranel asked on 12/01/06 - ASSYRIAN CURIOUS
FIRST TELL ME IF WRITING IN CAPITOLS BOTHERS YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWER ON THE NATIONALITY OF THE ASSYRIANS. YOU MIGHT BE A LITTLE CURIOUS AS TO WHY I WANT TO KNOW THE NATIONALITY OF THE ASSYRIANS.
I AM STUDYING THE BEAST OF REVELATIONS I ASSUME HE IS HERE RIGHT NOW AND HAVE A GOOD IDEA WHO IT IS BUT NOT READY TO ASSUME IDENTITY. I HAVE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA HE IS A JEW FROM THE BIBLE. I AM NOT TRYING TO DOWNGRADE THE JEWS I ACTUALLY LIKE THE JEWS ALTHOUGH I AM NOT JEWISH I FIGURE YOU ARE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH IF I GIVE YOU SOME SCRIPTURES YOU CAN GIVE ME YOUR OPIONON YOU MIGHT HAVE TO USE THE KING JAMES VERSION. WELL IN THIS SCRIPTURE DAN11 37 YOU CAN SEE IF YOU READ ON THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ONE WORLD LEADER WITH HIS GREAT ARMY(HE GOAT OF THE WEST) WHO SHOULD BE HERE NOW WHO WOULD HAVE DEVOURED THE EARTH HAD NOT JESUS CHRIST STOPPED HIM. WELL HERE IS THE QUESTION I WANTED TO ASK YOU BACK TO THE SCRIPTURE IT SAYS THAT THIS MAN HAS NO REGARD FOR THE GOD OF HIS FATHERS. WELL IN OTHER SCRIPTURES WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT THE FATHERS IN ALL CASES DO THEY MEAN THE JEWISH FATHERS WELL IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME THAT ITS SAYING THIS MAN IS JEWISH IF HE HAS NO REGARD FOR HIS FATHERS ALSO CHECK THIS SCRIPTURE OUT Gen 48:15 And he blessed Joseph , and said , God , before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk , the God which fed me all my life long unto this day , ALSO THIS SCRIPTURE Exd 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses , Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel , The LORD God of your fathers , the God of Abraham , the God of Isaac , and the God of Jacob , hath sent 0 me unto you: this [is] my name for ever , and this [is] my memorial unto all generations . ALSO I READ SOMEWHERE THAT THE ASSYRIANS KINGS WERE JEWISH OR SOME OF THEM IN THIS SCRIPTURE ISAIAH 10:12 ITS OBVIOUS THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE BEAST BECAUSE IT SAYS WHEN THE LORD DOES HIS COMPLETE WORK ON MT ZION(LAST DAYS) I WILL PUNISH THE FRUIT(ANCESTOR)OF THIS ASSYRIAN KING )Sennacherib WHO COULD HAVE HAD QUITE A BIT OF JEWISH BLOOD IN HIM. SO IF THE LORD IS PUNISHING HIS FRUIT THEN HE MUST BE JEWISH YOU KNOW WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY WHAT DO YOU THINK IT WAS THESE BREED OF MOSTLY JEWISH BLOOD(PHARISEES) THAT HAD THEIR OWN KIND KILLED AS WELL AS JESUS WHEN THEY TURNED THEM OVER TO THE ROMANS. SO WHY NOT HAVE A JEWISH ANTICHRIST curious98 answered on 12/02/06:Dear Maranel,
No, it does not bother me if you use capital letters to write. Suit yourself.
I am afraid I am going to be a little disappointing in my answer.
You say you are studying the beast of Revelation and you assume he is right here now. You conclude that this antichrist should be a Jew.
Well. If the beast really exists, i.e. Satan, you can be assured that he has been with us all the time throughout history. We only have to look at how beastly man has behaved all along, through countless wars, massacres, murders, etc.
From the very beginning (the Ubaid period of Sumer, 5.500 BC, the oldest civilization we know of),
men have delighted in killing each other, because of greed, ambition, cruelty, sex, you name it
This is undoubtedly a consequence of Satans activities and professionalism by taking advantage of mans superb capacity to sin.
Consequently, we are no worse (no better either) than we use to be 7000 years ago. If anything, because of our improved technology, we have become more sophisticated and now, we can kill more people in less time.
So, if I were you, I would not be too much concerned about the beast and what he may be doing right now.
Men, throughout history, have been worried about the arrival of the Antichrist, and about the end of the world.
The actual truth is that nobody knows or can tell anything about the Antichrist of sorts. Just in my lifetime span, I have known at least 3 guys who could have easily been the antichrist, i.e. Stalin, Hitler and Mao Zedong. But, somehow, they were not bad enough.
Right now, though there are several world leaders that might eventually aim to the title of antichrist, I cannot see anyone of them having what it takes to deserve the name.
On the other hand, you should read the Scriptures with a grain of salt, i.e. bearing in mind that those who wrote it were, undoubtedly, underlining situations and events of their time meant to be read by people of their time.
If I were you I would concentrate on the Gospels which are Jesus true word and carry a clear message for all of us.
And forget about the Jews. If one day they get involved in a world conflict Im sure they will not be the first ones
to trigger it.
And Im not a Jew either, but a Spanish Roman Catholic
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | fabian asked on 04/12/05 - what does this mean? Question/Answer
Choux asked on 03/03/05 - Harm or Good
Do you think that religion does more harm or more good? Give supportive opinions, if you will.
zimbob_88 answered on 03/19/05:
Hello,
It does much more harm to people who are psychotic or with mental illness...Just look at them in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Libya, etc etc etc ........
z
Can someone tell me what the meaning is of an answer like this? The "expert" humors the person asking the question. The person asking gets nothing out of it. And from what I can see by the one star ratings, the expert gets nothing out of it either. What is the point? Why can't experts just be honest?
curious98 answered on 04/13/05:I do not think anybody is trying to humor anybody in this board. In fact, quite often it is the other way round
What happens is that each one of us, so-called experts I actually think this is an overstatement- has an opinion of his/her own, and simply expresses it.
The person asking as in your case- gets the satisfaction of an answer, he/she may be, or may not be, in agreement with.
And the expert gets the satisfaction of expressing his viewpoint over a certain subject.
Or what did you expect? An economic compensation?
These Q&A boards are spreading like oil all over the world and, by using this wonderful tool which is called Internet, allow thousands of people from different countries to interchange opinions over different matters, while helping them realize there are not necessarily as many differences as we are led to think between someone from Washington, DC., and another one from Barcelona (Spain), or from Melbourne (Australia) and Stockholm (Sweden).
And, you know something, if through the Net we all contribute to know each other better, perhaps we shall avoid, in future the tremendous blunders Mankind has made in the not so remote past.
As for Zimbob88s particular answer, I think he is absolutely right.
Religion, per se, is encouraging us to behave according to moral with the promise of an everlasting Heaven or Paradise, if we fulfill our duties
But, unfortunately, man has used, and is using (and probably will go on using) Religion for his own selfish, ambitious and totally different reasons.
And this has proven to be terrible for Mankind and have cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives throughout History.
So while Religion is certainly good for Mankind, it can also be, certainly, very bad
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Choux asked on 03/03/05 - Harm or Good Do you think that religion does more harm or more good? Give supportive opinions, if you will. curious98 answered on 03/04/05:Religion, much like science in some regards, is an attempt to gain a further understanding of an objective, universal truth that is beyond us, and is unattainable by our intellect. Granted, it can be used poorly, as science can with biological warfare and nuclear weapons, but to dismiss it completely on such grounds would be ignorant.
There are many positive aspects to religion. Believers all over the world have done, do and will always do, a lot of good in the name of their respective beliefs and this should not be forgotten.
Unfortunately, throughout history, this good seem to have been outweighed by the harm such beliefs have caused, when religion is mishandled and botched. We must admit that, normally, in our times, more attention and emphasis is given to bad news than to the good ones. Good news do not sell!
We tend to say I do that too- that our present world is lacking morals and ethics, that our youngsters seem to be having no interest in their future or that crime rate is increasing everywhere. In short, that our world is going apieces
But while these considerations are certainly valid and true, they only refer to a fractional part of mankind. For, despite everything, there are still more good people than bad people, more youngsters that are working for their future than irresponsible ones and we still can take a walk in our cities without being afraid of being shot around the first corner.
The same happens with religions. Whereas plenty of harm has been done in the name of God, much more good has been done in its name, which is unaccounted for, because thats not a piece of news.
An example: When I lived in the States I met a great amount of people who called themselves Christians, but could hardly accept black people were human beings. Other Christians claimed Jews were responsible for all the troubles in our world. In Europe is pretty much the same. And now, additionally, we tend to blame all Muslims for what a few fundamentalists bigots can do. Most people would say that to persecute someone because of the amount of pigment in their skin is certainly not in line with Jesus' message, and would probably remind us that Jesus was a Jew himself. And the Islam is not certainly responsible if some of their Imams and Ulemas are crazy and hate mankind. Racists and bigots are just like that and they hate whatever and whoever does not believe what they do. But if they had no religion, these people would probably still do the same thing although they would have to find a different way to justify their actions. Hitler had no religious principles or beliefs, and he did find plenty of reasons to indiscriminately murder non Aryans and Jews by millions, and the same happened with Stalin, who was a confirmed atheist
But is it that simple? One problem is that religion is often inherited - you grow up following the same religion as your parents (if your parents are Christian, it is highly unlikely that you would be Muslim and your sister Hindu). Children often grow up and adopt radically different views on many other subjects, but the religion is right there at the start and it sinks in at an early age - few parents teach their three-year-olds about conservatism and socialism, but they will take them along to church every Sunday. Religions usually encourage parents to raise their children as followers of that religion. Few other types of belief or philosophy (e.g. politics) do this.
Religion is not necessarily directly responsible for racism. It is hard to imagine anyone reading the Bible and suddenly concluding that whites are superior to blacks. But if a person is a bigot already they will use their religion as one additional excuse to oppress and mislead people. The problem is that this same religion will also encourage them to impose those beliefs on their children, raising them as bigots and making them think that God is on their side and that scripture supports this view.
You find that right now in your country. Mr. Bush jr., is considering himself an envoy from God to fight evil, and therefore, no matter who he may be fighting against, God will take sides with the USA.
Obviously, God cannot take sides now as It did not do in the Middle Ages, when the crusaders fought in the name of God the Turks who were also fighting in the name of Allah, i.e. God in Arab.
In both cases, these are clear instances of religious manipulation, which, of course, does not exclude the possibilitiy that the Crusaders, the Turks and Mr. Bush, were all convinced that God was indeed on their side.
For they would very likely have been imposed these views by their parents and their respective priesthoods when they were children, simply by raising them in a racist and intolerant or narrow-minded environment. However, the use (or abuse) of religion can actively reinforce these views and help to nationalize them and propagate them down through the generations.
That is one specific example of the sort of harm that religion can do to society and individuals (teaching children to hate is nothing less than child abuse).
But, throughout the years, since man started to rationalize and wonder what he was doing here or why was he here, in the first place, man has felt the need to believe in God, whether it may have been the Sun, the great Manitou, Allah or Jesus.
But, as I said at the beginning of this post, religion can be, is and will still be mishandled, like everything else where man is involved.
But we should not blame Religion or Science for our own incapacity to use them ONLY profitably and in favor of mankind.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Raiden936 asked on 02/26/05 - please help with homework 5.The woman at the well is commonly used as a model for counseling and teaching, give supporting details.
3.From the story of woman at the well, point out the elements related to rituals. curious98 answered on 02/27/05:This is a duplicate question, which I have already answered before
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | Raiden936 asked on 02/26/05 - please help with homework 5.The woman at the well is commonly used as a model for counseling and teaching, give supporting details.
3.From the story of woman at the well, point out the elements related to rituals. curious98 answered on 02/27/05:Hi there,
Jesus encounter with the woman at the well (John 4:1-42), is one of the most beloved stories in the gospels. Many have turned to this well-crafted narrative as a prime example of evangelism and outreach.
The one, who through his incarnation breaks down the barriers
between God and man, now begins to bridge the gaps which separate fallen humanity.
Missiologists commonly observe that in this story Jesus crosses over a number of cultural bridges: the holy, Jewish man reaches out to a sinful, Samaritan woman.
Along the way, he breaks down barriers of holiness, ethnicity, gender, and religion. Moreover, by offering the gift of salvation to the fallen Samaritan woman, the Lord shows that there is hope for all of us. He is indeed the Savior of the World.
Less frequently commented upon, however, is the fact that this text also offers a beautiful picture of the intersection between mission and worship. Christ, as Gods best missionary, at once reaches out to the Samaritan woman, but he also draws her in. Rather than leaving her in the purgatorial limbo of the seeker-service, he draws her to himself, into a place from which living waters flow, and true bread is discovered. In short, he draws her into his church, where alone there is worship of the Father, marked by Spirit and Truth.
If John the Divine describes heaven as a wedding feast at which Christ is the groom and the church is his bride, we should not be surprised that in his gospel he depicts evangelism as a type of courtship which leads to marriage.
In the long dialog which ensues a beautiful instance of inductive teaching- we see the woman coming to faith in Jesus, and acknowledging that he is the Messiah.
As an additional interesting piece, I enclose some comments on the subject from a Bible scholar:
.When this story is reduced to its essential components, two interesting details are left reguarding time. The first is that it was about the "sixth hour"John 4:6 and second, that Jesus decides to spend time, specifically, two days, John 4:40 in the town that this woman is from.
As with many of Jesus' stories there is both a personal meaning to this story and a national one. The personal one is the saving faith that this woman, and the people of her town, have from this visit of Jesus. When we finally meet Jesus for the first time we often respond about like this woman, running off to share with others. The human heart knows that it needs Jesus, and it responds like we see here. Some, though, do not respond this way, and a hard heart is revealed.
We were told early in the story that this was not just any plot of ground, but Joseph's. The key to understanding this passage is to understand that Samaria was the capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, and that the 30 pieces of silver eventually paid as the price on Jesus' head would break the staff of union between the house of Judah and the house of Israel. The Northern Kingdom was capitaled here near this well in Samaria.
What Jesus was telling us is that the other house, the non-Jewish house of Israel would disagree with the Jews over the identity of the Messiah. This other house, the Samaritan house, headed by Joseph, would listen, which is what this woman and her town is depicting for us. Who did this woman represent?
Chronologically, the woman started to listen at the "sixth hour". What is an hour worth if a day is 1000 years? It is worth either 50 years, a Jubilee or it is worth 100 years. In this case we can see from history that the Gentile World, capitaled at Rome, would listen to Jesus' message. When, exactly? The Edict of Milan, issued in the year 313 AD made Christianity legal throughout the Roman Empire. This is also when Christianity became the state religion of Rome. This is when the "woman at the well" situated at the "other capital" started to listen.
The year 313 AD is almost exactly 6 Jubilees from Jesus' first visit to the Temple at the age of 12 in the year 12. Rome was the first government to adopt Christianity in an important way. Rome is what this woman depicts. She listened at the sixth hour.
Jesus spends two days in this town. How long is that? With the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, or 2000 years in this story. Jesus will rest with the Roman, pagan world, the Gentile world, Joseph's world, for two days on God's calendar. Then, as the story concludes, Jesus will get up and continue his journey.
When are those two days up? Here we have something we did not have before. Triangulation. We found that if the woman turns out to be Rome, or the Roman or Gentile world, then we will have a triple set of dates that all align. Jesus' visit at the start of a day, the woman starting to listen 6 hours later, the finish of his journey two days later. This aligns with two of God's days specficially, 11,001 through 13,000 from Adam, or through the year 2009, when Jesus can then get up in the morning of God's 14th day and finish his journey. He can do that any time after the spring of 2010.
This story does not show that he will move this soon in God's 14th day, only that he can. We need more evidence in order to figure out when he will so move.
Last but not least, see this beautiful thought from Hanna Cheryan Varghese, famous Malaysian artists.
"Viewing each one [Woman at the well] has been a meditative experience for me just now. There are so many variations and as many colours, styles and forms and cultures! The most important meaning is the same - no cultural, racial, gender or religious inclination will bar us from receiving the 'living' water from the God of love and compassion." --.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Choux asked on 02/16/05 - Found in Kansas, USA The bones of two mammoths and one camel have been unearthed in Kansas. The archaeologists via Carbon-14 dating dated the boned back 12,200 years. Some of the bones were broken in such a way that the archaeologists believe that nomadic peoples shared this site with the animals and used the bones to make primitive weapons. [Other weapons found elsewhere are made of similar bones]
This site is one of the most important archaelogical sites in North America. The find is exciting because it rewrites history. Additional tests will be done.
Does the potential fact that human beings occupy the American Great Plaines 12,200(10,200 BCE) years ago impact in any way your Biblical beliefs? curious98 answered on 02/17/05:Dear Choux,
Certainly not to me. Why should they impact?
It is believed that the first Native Americans arrived during the last ice-age, approximately 20,000 - 30,000 years ago, through a land-bridge across the Behring Sound, from northeastern Siberia into Alaska. The oldest documented Indian cultures in North America are Sandia (15000 BC), Clovis (12000 BC) and Folsom (8000 BC).
But, in actual paleontological time, these findings in Kansas you are referring to, are practically newborn babies. In central Spain, in an area in the mountains, some years ago, it was discovered the oldest paleontological site ever, which is called Atapuerca. There, they unearthed some skeletons of human beings, which were named Homo Antecessor, and their age was estimated in a million years!! Some 500.000 years older than the Homo Heidelbergensis, who, until then, was supposed to be the oldest one!!
I think most Christians are convinced, by now, that the Genesis description of our Creation is just a legend adapted to what people was able to understand and assimilate some 4/5.000 years ago.
It has nothing to do with actual science discoveries such as, for instance, that our Earth is probably 4 billion years old and that the first human beings were probably dancing around, somewhere in Kenya, 1.200.000 years ago.
As you can see, the 10000/12000 years of Adam and Eve, as per our Bible estimates, fall a little short of that 1.2 million years...
But that does not mean the Bible lies. It just means that when it was written people didnt know any better, and they wrote what they thought to be the truth!
Our Biblical beliefs should concentrate on the fact there is a Creator of the Universe, and of everything it contains, us included. How or when he did it is relatively unimportant, and what the Bible says in that respect is just another version of the many existing ones in this respect.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | loneranger asked on 02/07/05 - peace with your God I have an interest in studying world religions. A few months ago I was asked this question, " What do each of the major world religions have to do to have peace with their God or gods?" I could use some help from any group,sect,religion,denomination, etc.
I am wondering what you would have to do to make things right, so that you know that your God is pleased with you.
signed
loneranger curious98 answered on 02/09/05:
Dear Loneranger,
As a Roman Catholic (therefore, a Christian) it is very simple What we are supposed to do to make things right, so that we know we are abiding by our Gods commands, is to just follow Jesus Christ last command He added to the 10 previous Commands Moses received from GOD in mount Sinai..
Such 11th commandment is this, and it summarizes all the others: we should believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another just as he commanded us.
1 John 3:23
For your additional information, these 11 commandments, including in the first place, the last addition by Jesus, are as follows:
1. And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Deut. 6:5.
2. ...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Leviticus 19:18.
3. I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exodus 20:2-3 (Worship and serve the one true God only, and his Son Jesus Christ)
4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
Exodus 20:4 (This refers to items made for religious purposes and includes statues you see in churches and peoples yards)
5. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Exodus 20:7
6. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Exodus 20:12
7. Thou shalt not kill.
Exodus 20:13
8. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Exodus 20:14
9. Thou shalt not steal.
Exodus 20:15
10. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Exodus 20:16 (This is the commandment against lying. God promised to put the people who tell lies in hell. Revelation 21:8)
11. Thou shalt not covet anything... that is thy neighbours.
Exodus 20:17 (This is the commandment against being covetous and greedy)
However, no matter how simple it may look to follow these precepts, which naturally enough, coincide with what we know as natural law, in actual fact, they are very difficult to follow.
Most Christians fail to follow these simple guidelines, or prefer to interpret them to suit our own particular whims.
Yet, I am of the opinion that whoever follows these rules, irrespective of his/her beliefs, will eventually get GODs reward, for one thing Im sure of.
There is only a One and Only GOD, who may receive different names and be the object of different cults and rites, depending upon countries, etnias and religions, who has created our Universe and, therefore, if the GOD of all of us.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | stiamo_bene_insieme asked on 01/31/05 - teach religion to children is it important or how is important to teach religion to children.
thanks curious98 answered on 02/01/05:In my opinion, children should start their religious formation at their own home, Parents should teach children authentic spirituality. Genuine spirituality is based on practical teachings that lead to demonstrable results--to the direct experience of the Supreme Being. Instead of teaching children mental and emotional gymnastics of religious dogmas that create an illusion of spirituality, they should be shown and inspired to follow an approach to the spiritual path that actually works. Through the example of their own parents they should be learning the basis of ethics and moral.
Genuine spiritual teachings with their orientation toward a rational approach to living, authentic spiritual practice, love and service should be the basic lines children should be learning at home.
The best way to encourage genuine spirituality in children is for the parents themselves to cultivate their own spiritual practice. Parents must become role models for their children, because children do not listen to the words of their parents, but are inspired by their behavior. Parents should create a pure environment at home, begin meditating, find a competent teacher, and under his or her direction, start moving on their own spiritual path. Parents cannot convey to children something that they only vaguely understand themselves. There is not need to pressure childrenthey will follow your lead according to their natures.
Spiritual topics could be discussed with children, such as: What is ethics? Is morality something fixed? What is the goal of human life and how may one reach it?
Then, once the children have absorbed this spiritual teachings, they can start studying their own parents religion, along with comparative religion for, eventually, they will have to make up their minds regarding the confession they intend to follow. Consequently, the more fluent they are in the History of Religions, the better prepared they will be to take that decision that will suit them better, that will make them happier.
As a Roman Catholic I should say that the basics of my religion (the Bible, the Gospels) should be emphasized to Catholic children as soon as possible. However, if they are formed as I point out above, they will have plenty of time to plunge into the Catholicism rules and regulations when they are mentally prepared to accept them or discuss them.
And the same approach should be followed by children of all the other confessions.
Hammering in their little heads, at an early stage of their lives, complicated rules and dogmas will most likely produce a sort of allergic reaction, very much similar to what the majority of children feel towards Maths.
In any case, I have no doubt in my mind that the best way is to preach with the example, for children, one way or other, remain, when grown up, heavily influenced all their lives by what they have experienced at home as children.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | jocase asked on 01/17/05 - Classical Proofs of Existence of God When I was In high school we studied the classicial proofs of the existance of God.
The order of the universe
First Cause
Desire for moral order??
I can find info on this but am looking for a simplified list like the one I started above.
Can anyone provide such a list?
By the way, I am not looking for a discussion on Answerway as to the validity of the proofs, just need the list. Thanks!
John
curious98 answered on 01/17/05:Dear John
One of the most far-reaching consequences of the rationalism of the Enlightenment was the undermining of basic Christian faith among the educated classes. The effect was unintended because the project of many Enlightenment philosophers was to prove the existence of GOD using reason: Descartes and Leibniz assumed that GODs existence could be rationally proved, for GOD was indeed a necessary part of their philosophy.
There are, however, many traditional "proofs" trying to explain the existence of GOD. Ill choose the 3 main arguments my Encyclopaedia mentions: the argument from design, the ontological argument and the cosmological argument.
1) The argument from Design.
If you found a clock and examined the mechanism within it, you would probably think that this intricate mechanism was not the outcome of mere chance, that it had been designed.
Now look at the universe; is it possible that such an intricate mechanism, from the orbits of planets round the sun to the cells in your fingernails could all have happened by chance? Surely, this enormously complex mechanism has been designed, and the being that designed it must be just GOD, or something we have decided to call GOD.
2) The ontological argument
GOD must be the perfect being. As IT is most perfect, IT must have all perfections. If GOD lacked existence IT would not be perfect, as IT is perfect he must exist.
3) The cosmological argument (GOD as "First cause")
Everything that exists has a cause. However, there must at some time have been a cause prior to all other causes. This 'prime mover' or first cause is necessary to explain existence. This first cause is GOD.
Pascal's Wager
The French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-62) put forward an argument that would appeal to agnostics.
His argument goes something like this: GOD either exists or IT does not. If we believe in GOD and IT exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If we believe in GOD and IT does not exist then, at worst, all we have forgone is a few sinful pleasures.
If we do not believe in GOD and IT does exist we may enjoy a few sinful pleasures, but we may face eternal damnation. If we do not believe in GOD and IT does not exist then our sins will not be punished.
Would any rational gambler think that the experience of a few sinful pleasures is worth the risk of eternal damnation? Most likely the answer would be, NO!
Kant
Kant attempted to show how philosophy could prove the existence of GOD. Unfortunately, for him his previous work showed that we could not know reality directly as thing-in-itself. What is real in itself is beyond our experience. Even if GOD exists, we cannot know GOD as he really is.
For Kant the Christian could have faith in GOD, and this faith would be consonant with reason and the categorical imperative. Given that human beings have the autonomy to create moral values, it would not be irrational to believe in a GOD who gives purpose to the moral realm.
Hegel
Hegel thought that the GOD of religion was an intuition of Absolute Spirit or Geist. Hegel's Geist is not like the transcendent (outside of our consciousness) GOD of traditional Christianity, for instance. For Hegel GOD is immanent and when we have understood that history is the process of Geist coming to know itself it appears that we are all part of Geist, or GOD.
Feuerbach and Marx
For Feuerbach and Marx religion is seen as the projection of the human essence onto an ideal: GOD does not make man. Rather "GOD" is the invention of human consciousness. Marx also sees that religion is part of an ideological view that encourages the oppressed to accept their fate. As he says: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men is a demand for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions."
However, if man should abandon all illusions about a supernatural life, can our passage over here be explained?
Sren Kierkegaard
Sren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) agreed with Kant that the existence of GOD could not be proven by reason. However Kierkegaard did not think that it was rational to believe in GOD, rather one should have faith in GOD even if this seems to reason to be absurd. To put it another way reason has no place in faith. GOD is beyond reason.
Kierkegaard is regarded as the first existentialist.
Nietzsche: The Death of God
"Have you not heard the madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place and cried incessantly, 'I seek GOD!, I seek GOD!' ... Why, did he get lost? Said one. Did he lose his way like a child? Said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? Or emigrated?... The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his glances.
"'Whither is GOD? He cried. 'I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. All of us are his murderers...'"
"...the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke and went out. 'I came too early,' he said then; 'my time has not come yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering -it has not yet reached the ears of man."
In these passages Nietzsche is showing the inevitable unfolding anthropocentrism (lit. putting man at the centre of the world) implicit in philosophy since Kant. If we should view our existence through human categories, then our concept of GOD would certainly be a human creation.
Nietzsche is not simply asserting his atheism; he is suggesting that once we are aware that the concept of GOD is our own creation we can no longer base our religious and moral beliefs on any notion of a divine external reality.
In the period that Nietzsche was writing, the death of GOD was just beginning. Western thought was starting to face the prospect of a radical change in its orientation, and it wasn't quite ready to own up to it yet.
Kierkegaard and Nietzsche represent opposite reactions to the inability of rationality to give a rock solid theoretical proof of GODs existence. Kierkegaard calls for us to embrace GOD even if it seems an absurdity, while Nietzsche says it is time for us to create a new mode of being, with human creativity at its centre.
The atheist existentialist Sartre accepted GODs death and much of his writing is an attempt to look at the human condition in a world that is without a prime mover who could have provided a basis and structure for the understanding of being.
The twentieth century
Anglo American analytic philosophers of the twentieth century have tended to agree that philosophy may help us clarify religious concepts, without giving us a secure foundation for religious belief.
Many people claim to have had a religious experience, to experience the divine directly. This experience is direct and is of a different quality to sensory experience or intellectual discovery, and therefore outside of the scope of philosophy.
The view that the existence of GOD cannot be proved or disproved by philosophy has not stopped developments in modern theology. Theologians are attempting to balance the anthropocentric view of GOD presented by philosophers since the Enlightenment with the need to provide a spiritual path and a guide to an ethical and meaningful way of life.
Be what it may, the amazing thing in my opinion is that everybody feels the need to discuss GOD. To me the fact that such bright persons as Nietzsche feel the need to explain their confirmed atheism in front of the others, is the evidence they want NOT TO BELIEVE, but they cannot take the concept of GOD away from their minds.
To me, a true atheist should not even get down to discussing GOD at all. He/she would simply ignore IT and be totally unconcerned.
So, in conclusion, I feel that GOD must exist to explain the Universe and us. Once this concept accepted we could proceed a step further to determine which way shall we choose to worship GOD. Christianism, Islam, Judaism, etc. But, let us first be convinced there must exist a GOD responsible for the Creation.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | paraclete asked on 01/10/05 - The Ten Commandments in Cajun
1. God is number one... and das' All.
2. Don't pray to nuttin' or nobody... jus' God.
3. Don't cuss nobody... 'specially da Good Lord.
4. When it be Sunday... pass yo'self by God's House.
5. Yo mama an' yo daddy dun did it all... lissen to dem.
6. Killin' duck an' fish, das' OK... people - No!
7. God done give you a wife... sleep wit' jus' her.
8. Don't take nobody's boat... or nuttin' else.
9. Don't go wantin' somebody's stuff.
10. Stop lyin'... yo tongue gonna fall out yo mouf!
curious98 answered on 01/10/05:J hate to say so, but these commandments of the Cajun people just prove they have much more common sense than most of us, sophisticated and civilized guys.
We do not have to memorize the entire Bible or debate for years Theological problems to achieve our salvation.
All we have to so is simply follow these Cajun Commandments, i.e. the Natural Law, i.e. the Commandments GOD gave us to follow.
And that is that!
Regards
Claude | | Question/Answer | | Choux asked on 01/06/05 - Tsunami Speculation Since the tsunami killed tens of thousands of people outright, I have heard different explanations from GoidAlmighty/Allah believers about why God brought this horrible disaster upon all those children and adults. From a Muslim cleric telling a gathering at a mosque that it was a warning to the people to be more humble, to Muslims saying it is a punishment for allowing foreigners in a Muslim land(Indonesia)
And, Christians speculating all kinds of scenarios about "what god thinks". I haven't heardany Jewish speculation.
So, my question is, Isn't it about time for humanity to start letting go of GodAlmighty? (Christianity, Judaism, Islam)
Is a god who intentionally reins(sp) down destruction and mayhem worthy of the thoughts and love of children and adults??
Isn't it time to upgrade our understanding of God??
Thanks for answers in advance.
Choux--Religious myths are lies we agree to tell our children. curious98 answered on 01/08/05:
Yes, I think it is about time we start upgrading our understanding of GOD, which has been explained in many ways leading to confusion into our minds.
It is about time we understand that we should not pretend to make GOD responsible for our unconscious behavior or for completely natural disasters, no matter how terrible they may be.
It has been explained that this Tsunami might have been, if not avoided, foretold with time enough to save thousands of lives, had they had, for instance, the warning systems there are in the Pacific Ocean. But these systems are expensive, and the wealthy nations of the world (the 1st world countries) did not deem it convenient to go into the necessary expenditure, probably thinking that a Tsunami like this one was a far remote possibility to even consider it. Very much like what is going on regarding the heating of our planet. Our rulers, wise guys all of them, consider all those who really worry about this problem as hysterical young girls who do not know any better than being afraid of science-fiction tales that will never happen. But what if they would happen once. Should we blame GOD for them or should we blame the incensed stupidity of man?
For years in the past, atomic and hydrogen bombs have been exploded in our earth with unknown repercussions that may have been slowly distorting the earth underneath our feet. But there are other reasons: The tectonic plates which support our continents and land masses consist of an outer layer of the Earth, the lithosphere, which is cool enough to behave as a more or less rigid shell. Occasionally the hot asthenosphere of the Earth finds a weak place in the lithosphere to rise buoyantly as a plume, or hotspot.
In cross-section, the Earth releases its internal heat by convecting, or boiling much like a pot of pudding on the stove. Hot asthenospheric mantle rises to the surface and spreads laterally, transporting oceans and continents as on a slow conveyor belt. The speed of this motion is a few centimeters per year, about as fast as our fingernails grow. The new lithosphere, created at the ocean spreading centers, cools as it ages and eventually becomes dense enough to sink back into the mantle. The sub ducted crust releases water to form volcanic island chains above, and after a few hundred million years will be heated and recycled back to the spreading centers. But eventually these tectonic plates move a little bit too fast or too much thus provoking earthquakes. Earthquakes, in turn, when happening in the middle of the ocean, may provoke Tsunamis. The bigger the Earthquake the bigger the Tsunami.
GOD has nothing to do with thisa natural process.
We may as well imagine a big meteorite falling upon our planet and destroying half of the world. Would that be an act of GODs revenge or simply the consequence of the eventual remote possibility of our planet colliding with another astral body?
GOD created the Universe and established the rules controlling it. We are included in these rules. I do not think we are so special to deserve GODs permanent attention. Most of us would not probably have a fit if we would see some heavy rains flooding an anthill and drowning thousands of ants. It is just a natural hazard.
But the proportion between ants and mankind is, no doubt, infinitely bigger than the proportion between GOD and us, if we can speak of proportions with our Creator.
So, yes, I think it is about time we start trying to understand what GOD actually should mean to us, and perhaps, paying more attention to the rules GOD set up for us, which, most of the time, we so happily ignore.
I have recently read that a suspected killer and unrepentant Ku Klux Klan leader, Edgar Ray Killen, the Preacher, has been arrested a couple of days ago by the FBI. Apparently, he is a pastor of some Christian denomination. Can you imagine any Christian denomination patronizing the superiority of the white race over all the rest? Well, I cant and yet many Christians are convinced of it
After the Tsunami disaster I would not be surprised to hear all kind of reactions coming from all religious sources, each one trying to explain it to better suit their interests.
It would be funny, had it not been for the more than 150.000 victims of this horrible disgrace.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Choux asked on 01/07/05 - Update God I saw a television program on the Discovery Channel that was about the "History of God". It was shown that the Israeli's understanding and definitions of G_d evolved through pronouncements of prophets. Even more so then for Christians who follow the Jewish prophet Joshua who is an addition to their underatanding of G_d. And then, an Arab hears the voice of God and again, we see God evolving.
Why not now when we really need it?? curious98 answered on 01/08/05:Dear Choux,
In its supreme ignorance man has always been puzzled by the abstraction of GOD and has, therefore, always been trying to define IT one way or other.
But, I think, that not matter how difficult to understand it may be, we all agree at least all of us who believe in one ONLY GOD ALMIGHTY- that GOD is eternal, i.e. with no beginning and no end.
As such, I cannot conceive how IT can evolve, being eternal!
On the other hand, you say now that we really need it.
Mankind has always needed GOD and will always need it!
Times are difficult for us now. But no more difficult than they were for those living before us.
Since the fall of the Western Roman Empire, there have been three major bubonic plague epidemics, which afflicted large segments of the population in the continuous Eurasian landmass and North Africa. Death quickly followed the trade routes of the times. The death toll is almost incomprehensible. The Plague of Justinian (6th Century A.D.), the Black Death (14th Century A.D.), and the Bubonic Plague (1665-1666, which coincided with the Great Fire of London) caused an estimated 137 million dead in a world much more sparsely populated than it is today.
To make matters even worse, one must also remember that these pestilences assailed and ravaged mankind at a time when the average life span was short --- less than two decades during the Middle Ages. Survival to age five was a miracle not only because of endemic disease, dirt and filth, concomitant poor hygiene and sanitation, but also because of the primitive state of medical knowledge. Pestilential disease thrived under such conditions. Moreover, during the Middle Ages, bathing and cleanliness, even in the upper classes, was a rarity, being viewed as unhealthy as well as irreverent --- acts of vanity in the face of GOD..
They also needed GOD in those days, didnt they?
But GOD made us free to chose our destiny. GOD also gave us some rules to live by, and most of the time we have chosen to ignore them. If you do not take care of your car as you should and you do not drive it as you have been taughtm and you have an accident, I do not think you can put the blame on anyone but you!
Certainly not on the car maker
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 12/25/04 - How many sons did Jesse have? Seven or eight? How many sons did Jesse have? The Bible contradicts itself on the number, what do the experts or oral laws say is the correct number? curious98 answered on 12/26/04:In the Scriptures you can find scores of apparent contradictions which are used by non believers against the Bible, and who keep many believers absolutely puzzled.
Yet, we keep on forgetting all the time the many authors that contributed to write the Holy Bible, the many years elapsed, and the many translations and versions you can find of these Books.
Thus, in the King James Version, you can indeed read:
1 Samuel 16:10-11
"Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are these all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest [David]."
and
1 Chronicles 2:13
And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third,
2:14
Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth,
2:15
Ozem the sixth, David the seventh:
In this case, it is possible that 7 of these sons were from one woman and David from another.
At any rate, it is -in my opinion- of little importance to determine the exact number of sons.
As I say, the writer of the Chronicles was different, assuredly, than the writer of Samuel, and consequently his source of information may have omitted some details re. Jesse, who, most probably, did have 8 sons, including David.
Best regards
Claude | | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 12/10/04 - Males and Females except for Man? God, during creation, created males and females of all living species. God knew that every species needed a gamete donor and gamete acceptor to live, reproduce, and be fruitful.
Why then did He create Adam, His greatest creation, as a single sex creature? How did God expect Adam to live without a female to reproduce with? Why was it later in creation when God realized that Adam was lonely that the thought finally came to Him that maybe He should have made both sexes in this Human animal too? curious98 answered on 12/11/04:Dear friend,
What you are actually asking is why the Book of Genesis was written as it was?
In the first place, you say, God knew that every species needed a gamete.
If you think of it calmly, you will understand that it is not that God knew about our sexual reproduction. It is simply that Gods will was to make almost all animal life on earth bisexual (there is some unisexual life, too).
Consequently, man and female were also created according to this bisexual law. God might, of course, just as easily decided to create only one sex. Perhaps, God wanted to make our life more difficult but also more amusing
The story of Adam in my humble opinion- only reflects the little consideration men felt for women in those days. Obviously, it made much more sense and it was enhancing much more mans arrogance, to claim that woman had been made out of a mans rib, than to pretend both were made at the same time, or evolved from whatever life form we came from, as male and female.
Let us not forget that Palaeontology has already found human life dated as far back as almost one million years. Right here in Spain, in Atapuerca, palaeontologists are working on human life going back 460.000 years.
This is way before Adams time, if we follow the same Scriptures.
The story of Adam and Eve is a beautiful tale as it is the story of creation in 6 days and the 7th to rest.
And even accepting the theory of some biblical scholars that the Genesis was dictated by God to Moses, I think again my opinion- that God chose to explain Creation in such a way that could be understood by Moses coeval people without any difficulty.
Regards
Claude
| | Question/Answer | | abirl asked on 12/02/04 - Bible Questions 4: Exodus Hi.
More questions:
1. 2:18 says that Moses married the daughter of a man called Reuel but 3:1 says that his father-in-law was Jethro. Which is it?
2. 4:24-26 Please explain.
3. 6:12 What is meant by "uncircumcised lips"?
4. 8:26 What is meant by "sacrificing the abomination of the Egyptians"?
Thank you.
Regards,
Abir curious98 answered on 12/06/04:Hi,
2:18: Same person anyway. Some modern scholars, hold that his name was "Reuel," and that "Jethro" was a title, "his Excellency"). According to Simeon b. Yoḥai, he had two names, "Hobab" and "Jethro" (Sifre, Num. 78). It is, however, generallyaccepted that he had seven names: "Reuel," "Jether," "Jethro," "Hobab," "Heber," "Keni" (comp. Judges i. 16, iv. 11), and "Putiel" Eleazar's father-in-law (Ex. vi. 25) being identified with Jethro by interpreting his name either as "he who abandoned idolatry" or as "who fattened calves for the sake of sacrifices to the idol" (Ex. R. xxvii. 7; Mek., Yitro, 'Amaleḳ, 1; Tan., Shemot, 11; comp. Targ. pseudo-Jonathan to Ex. vi. 25 and Soṭah 44a).
4:24-26 Please explain.
And it came to pass in the way, in the inn, that Jehovah met him, and sought to kill him. And Zipporah took a stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and made it touch his feet; and she said, Because a bridegroom of bloods art thou to me. And He ceased from him. Then she said, A bridegroom of bloods as to circumcisions. "And it came to pass in the way, in the inn," signifies that the posterity of Jacob were in externals without an internal; "that Jehovah met him," signifies opposition; "and sought to kill him," signifies that a representative church could not be instituted with that posterity; "and Zipporah took a stone," signifies the quality shown by the representative church by means of truth; "and cut off the foreskin of her son," signifies the removal of filthy loves, and thereby the laying bare of the internal; "and made it touch his feet," signifies that the quality of the natural was then shown; "and she said, Because a bridegroom of bloods art thou to me," signifies that it was full of all violence and hostility against truth and good; "and He ceased from him," signifies that it was permitted that they should represent; "then she said, A bridegroom of bloods as to circumcisions," signifies that although the internal was full of violence and hostility against truth and good, still circumcision was to be received as a sign representative of purification from filthy loves.
Of course, this is just one of the different interpretations given by some scholars.
6:12 This phrase "uncircumcised lips" seems to be a red flag, given the pivotal importance of circumcision in Jewish tradition. What is Moses really concerned about here? Rashi explains that the Hebrew 'aral ("uncircumcised") simply means "obstructed" and gives a variety of examples of its use in other parts of scripture. Therefore 'orlah (foreskin) is simply an obstruction over the head of the penis, and Moses' 'aral s'fatayim - "obstructed lips" - simply refers to the physical deformity of his lips, causing a speech impediment.
But "uncircumcised" is also a clear sign of inappropriateness. When Jacob's daughter Dinah is defiled by Shechem, who then wants to marry her, her brothers object saying, "we cannot give our sister to a man who is uncircumcised, for that is a disgrace to us" (Genesis 34:14). Moses, then, seems to be implying that he is not only unable, but somehow unfit or impure for this important task, to serve as God's messenger
8:26 Some Bibles translate this passage you are referring to as follows:
And Moses said, It is not right to do so; for we make our offerings of that to which the Egyptians give worship; and if we do so before their eyes, certainly we will be stoned
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 11/30/04 - WHY NOW?
When God decreed that marriage was indissoluble, it was because He, the Author of nature, knew the weakness, the selfishness and fickleness of human nature. In former years people were content and happy with all their marriage ills. Why, then, are there so many divorces now? Have people changed that much?
HANK
curious98 answered on 12/06/04:Hi,
When God decreed that marriage was indissoluble, it was because He, the Author of nature, knew the weakness, the selfishness and fickleness of human nature. In former years people were content and happy with all their marriage ills. Why, then, are there so many divorces now? Have people changed that much?
If we are to explain the reason of the frailness of present marriages from a religious point of view, the explanation should be in my opinion, at least- quite simple.
Materialism and sexuality have invaded our present society since the mid nineties. At the same time, the old moral values we used to live by seem to be no longer valid.
Sexual instincts have no restrictions whatsoever (whether men or women, is the same) and moral barriers (that prevented us to a certain extent to behave as we wished) have practically disappeared.
So if I happen to have a crush for a nice girl (well, not me anymore, though I do like to look at them) and she finds me acceptable (certainly, a total utopia), the next question is: your place or mine? The end result, if one of those two, or both, were married, would logically be divorce.
Sociologically speaking, though, there is another strong consideration to bear in mind:
Women are more independent than ever before, and they do not have to put up anymore with the selfish whims of their husbands, so they are running very short of patience.
Still, Im glad I am not to worry about this after 55 years of happy marriage, with ups and downs, but happy after all!
Regards
Claude
| | Question/Answer | | abirl asked on 11/27/04 - Bible Questions 3 (Genesis) Hello.
Some more questions.
1. 42:8 What is meant by the "nakedness of the land"?
2. 45:8 What is meant by "a father to Pharaoh"?
3. 45:10 Why is Egypt called the "land of Goshen"?
4. 47:15-21 Why would Joseph cause so much power to be collected in Pharaoh's hands by making all livestock and land his property? Why did he move all the people into the cities?
5. 49:10 Who is Shiloh?
6. Part 49 Does the meaning of Jacob's predictions for each of his sons' tribes become clearer elsewhere in the Bible?
Thank you for your help.
Regards,
Abir curious98 answered on 12/06/04:Hi, once more
42:8. In some Bibles instead of nakedness it is mentioned undefended parts
The key to Josephs actions is found in the next two verses. Here we gain an appreciation for Josephs motives and methods in dealing with his brothers:
But Joseph had recognized his brothers, although they did not recognize him. And Joseph remembered the dreams which he had about them, and said to them, You are spies; you have come to look at the undefended parts of our land (Genesis 42:8-9).
Far more is meant by verse 9 than that Joseph merely remembered his dreams about his brothers and recognized their fulfillment in their bowing down to him. All this would have done would have been to puff up his pride. Joseph not only realized the fulfillment of his dreams but also the reason for them. He saw that God had a purpose for placing him in his position of power, and this purpose was for him to function as the family head, protecting and preserving his family. He had great power and prestige, but God had given these to him for a purpose much greater than merely to seek revenge. He saw that leadership involved power, but that it also brought upon him the weight of responsibility. At times the greatest need is not to be aware of the power at our disposal, but of the purpose for which this power has been given.
It has been observed by saints and sinners for centuries that you can make the Bible say anything you want. Like it or not, this is true. Think of what Joseph could have made of his dream. This was a message from God! If he had been dominated by bitterness and hatred, Joseph could have viewed his vision as a mandate from God to make life miserable for his brothers. Hadnt God revealed to him that his brothers would bow down to him? He could have rubbed their proverbial noses in the dirt and given them a proof text for it, had he wished. It is alarmingly possible for us to justify sinful actions with biblical texts if we choose to, but this will always be at the expense of other clear passages which we have chosen to ignore.
And Joseph remembered the dreams which he had about them, and said to them, You are spies; you have come to look at the undefended parts of our land. Then they said to him, No, my lord, but your servants have come to buy food. We are all sons of one man; we are honest men, your servants are not spies. Yet he said to them, No, but you have come to look at the undefended parts of our land! But they said, Your servants are twelve brothers in all, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan; and behold, the youngest is with our father today, and one is no more (Genesis 42:9-13).
45:8 What is meant by "a father to Pharaoh"? Actually, this should be interpreted, in my opinion, as advisor to Pharaoh
45:10 Why is Egypt called the "land of Goshen"?
The region of Goshen is located in northeastern Egypt, in the The Delta of the Nile River, where it empties into the Mediterranean Sea. The Sinai Peninsula is just to the east. To the south are the famous Pyramids, and the Valley of The Kings, where many Mummies have been discovered.
47:15-21 With or without Josephs help. The Pharaoh (as a living god, for the Egyptians) gathered all the power there was. He had authority over everything that lived in his dominion. So I guess, Joseph did nothing but to follow his sound advice and behave as he felt would be more pleasing to the Pharah.
49:10 Who is Shiloh?
About 12 miles from Ramallah is the town of Bir Zeit, then around another 8 miles northeast of Bir Zeit is the Arab village of Seilun, the site of Biblical Shiloh:
Part 49 As far as I can remember I think the Genesis is the only place where Jacobs predictions to his sons are mentioned.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 11/25/04 - The Bible, a written and oral tradition. It is often said on these boards and by Biblical experts and scholars that the Bible is more than a collection of scrolls and writings, that there is a second, very integral part of the "word of God" that is oral in tradition, having been recorded by ancient Hebrews and passed down alongside the Bible. To understand the words of the one, we must seek guidance in the words of the other.
If this belief is true, then can we safely discount the words of those who only quote the Bible itself, and not the historical rich tradition of oral beliefs and text that accompany it? When a Jimmy Swaggart extolls us to follow the words of John, Job, Isaiah, Moses, etc. as written in the Bible, can we discount his voice because he has not a belief in the other tradition? Does lack of belief in the extra biblical material mean we should discount the opinions of those who preach of God through only one set of words?
curious98 answered on 12/06/04:Hi,
Ive always been under the impression that the Bible itself is a recompilation of many oral traditions collected by ancient Hebrews and later on put into writing by a number or writers who wanted to be sure they would not be lost. Of course, this is my belief, nothing more.
But, at the same time, it is very similar, if not identical, to what happened with the N.T.
The Gospels, the Facts of the Apostles, etc. are written testimonies of something that happened a few years before or even, close to one century before.
They were not written on the spot while they were happening, nor were they dictated by Jesus himself.
But the message is there, all the same, and it is up to us to take advantage of it.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | abirl asked on 11/22/04 - Bible Questions 2 (Genesis) Hello again.
More questions:
1. 20:7 When Abimelech took Abraham's wife Sara, why did God tell him that "if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you and all who are yours"? Why would God punish Abimelech's people for something that Abimelech did?
2. 20:12 How could Abraham marry his half-sister? Had incest not yet been forbidden at that time?
3. 20:16 Why was Sara rebuked? Did she do something wrong?
4. 21:21 Where is the wilderness of Paran?
5. 22:2 Why is Isaac called Abraham's only son in this and several other verses when he had another son?
6. 24:50-51 It is clear from these and other verses that Laban believes in Abrahams God. How can he also have other gods.
29:19 As Jacobs wife, doesnt Rebekah herself believe in Abrahams God? Why then would she steal Laban's idols?
7. In part 27, Jacob gains Isaac's blessing through deception but neither his father nor God rebuke Him in any way and indeed God blesses him and makes him a great man. How do you explain this?
8. 32:28 How can a man prevail against God?
Thank you for your help.
Best Regards,
Abir curious98 answered on 12/06/04:Hi again,
1. Gen 20:7: The official explanation would imply that now restore the mans wife," signifies that he should render up the spiritual truth of doctrine without taint from the rational; "for he is a prophet," signifies that thus it should be taught; "and he shall pray for you," signifies that it will thus be revealed; "and you shalt live," signifies that thus doctrine will have life; "and if you restore her not," signifies here as before that if he should not render up the spiritual truth of doctrine without taint from the rational; "know thou that dying you shalt die," signifies there will be no doctrine of truth and good; "and all that are thine," signifies all things that belong to it together.
It was said above that although the doctrine of faith is in itself Divine, and therefore above all human and even angelic comprehension, it has nevertheless been dictated in the Word according to mans comprehension, in a rational manner. The case herein is the same as it is with a parent who is teaching his little boys and girls: when he is teaching, he sets forth everything in accordance with their genius, although he himself thinks from what is more interior or higher; otherwise it would be teaching without their learning, or like casting seed upon a rock. The case is also the same with the angels who in the other life instruct the simple in heart: although these angels are in celestial and spiritual wisdom, yet they do not hold themselves above the comprehension of those whom they teach, but speak in simplicity with them, yet rising by degrees as these are instructed. The case would be the same if the Lord had not taught in the Word in accordance with mans comprehension, in a rational manner.
Mans vocabulary is certainly totally unable to clearly identify GOD.
2. 20:12 SHE REALLY IS MY SISTER = Here Abraham probably turns to a legal technicality in order to justify his deception. The trouble brought upon Abimelech underscores that God does not accept legal technicalities as a justification for intentional deception.
3. 20:16: The official version goes:
And unto Sarah he said, Behold I have given thy brother a thousand of silver; behold it is unto thee a covering of the eyes to all that are with thee, and with all; and she was vindicated. "And unto Sarah he said," signifies perception from spiritual truth; "behold I have given thy brother a thousand of silver," signifies an abundance of rational truth adjoined to celestial good; "behold it is unto thee a covering of the eyes to all that are with thee," signifies that rational truths are like a covering or clothing to spiritual truths; "and with all," signifies that so also are the derivative truths; "and she was vindicated," signifies that thus there was no fault and no harm.
21:21 Where is the wilderness of Paran? Paran is a desert area located in the north-eastern section of the Sinai peninsulaIn. The Paran plateau contains a lot of gravel because with a lack of rain, there is no soil formation. If any soil is formed the wind blows it off.
Hagar and Ishmael came to this region after leaving Abraham and Sarah. Genesis 21:20-21 (KJV) And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer. And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.
22:2 This is an interesting comment on this passage by Bishop Warburton. "The order in which the words are placed in the original gradually increases the sense, and raises the passions higher and higher: Take now thy son, (rather, take I beseech thee na,) thine only son whom thou lovest, even Isaac. Jarchi imagines this minuteness was to preclude any doubt in Abraham. Abraham desired earnestly to be let into the mystery of redemption; and God, to instruct him in the infinite extent of the Divine goodness to mankind, who spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, let Abraham feel by experience what it was to lose a beloved son, the son born miraculously when Sarah was past child-bearing, as Jesus was miraculously born of a virgin. The duration, too, of the action, Genesis 22:4, was the same as that between Christ's death and resurrection, both which are designed to be represented in it; and still farther not only the final archetypical sacrifice of the Son of God was figured in the command to offer Isaac, but the intermediate typical sacrifice in the Mosaic economy was represented by the permitted sacrifice of the ram offered up, Genesis
24:50-51. He was not probably the best man around. Read this:
He worshipped other gods and had a superstitious dependence on them:
Gen. 31:19 And Laban went to shear his sheep: and Rachel had stolen the images that were her father's.
Gen. 31:30 And now, though thou wouldest needs be gone, because thou sore longedst after thy father's house, yet wherefore hast thou stolen my gods?
3) He was a cheater--
Gen. 29:23 And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her. 24 And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for an handmaid. 25 And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me? 26 And Laban said, It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn. 27 Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years.
Gen. 31:7 And your father hath deceived me, and changed my wages ten times; but God suffered him not to hurt me.
--as well as an ingrate--
Gen. 31:41 Thus have I been twenty years in thy house; I served thee fourteen years for thy two daughters, and six years for thy cattle: and thou hast changed my wages ten times. 42 Except the God of my father, the God of Abraham, and the fear of Isaac, had been with me, surely thou hadst sent me away now empty. God hath seen mine affliction and the labour of my hands, and rebuked thee yesternight. 43 And Laban answered and said unto Jacob, These daughters are my daughters, and these children are my children, and these cattle are my cattle, and all that thou seest is mine: and what can I do this day unto these my daughters, or unto their children which they have born?
--who was unkind even to his own children:
Gen. 31:15 Are we not counted of him strangers? for he hath sold us, and hath quite devoured also our money.
[Cf. 1 Tim. 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.]
As I have told you man was created free. Right now, there are many who also believe in GOD, but at the same time, they adore other gods, like money, for one!
29:19: Do not try to always look for a reasonable explanation when reading the Bible. It is better to accept it for his face value. Otherwise, it would be like asking why Snowwhite had to eat the red apple, or little red riding hood had to go that particular day to visit het granny!
In part 27, Jacob gains Isaac's blessing through deception but neither his father nor God rebuke Him in any way and indeed God blesses him and makes him a great man. How do you explain this?
GODs designs are not for us to understand. You have rather got to consider the moral of the story.
32:28: The actual text is this one:
And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
It does not say Jacob has prevailed over God, but over men.
No man can prevail over GOD!
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | abirl asked on 11/21/04 - Reading the Bible Hello.
I am reading the Bible for the first time and I would like to post any questions that I may have as I go along.
I am using the New King James version. I am currently reading the Book of Genesis. These are the questions I have so far:
1. In 2:17, God says to Adam "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" but Adam does not die in the day that he eats of the tree. Since God said this, why did it not come to pass?
2. In 6:2, why are men referred to as the "sons of God" while women are referred to as the "daughters of men"?
3. 6:3 says "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever for he is indeed flesh". What is meant by the striving of God's spirit with man? Why and when did (or will) this striving stop?
4. In 6:5, how could God not know in advance that man's wickedness would be great but only discover this after the fact? Is God not all-knowing? Same question for 18:21 where God appears to learn from others that there is wickedness in Sodom and Gomorrah so He comes down to check for Himself if the outcry against them is true.
5. In 6:6-7, how could God make a mistake and later regret it and feel sorry? Can God be fallible?
I appreciate any help you may give me to further my understanding.
Regards,
Abir curious98 answered on 12/06/04:Hi,
Im sorry for answering so late but Ive been enjoying a short holiday with my wife.
Am glad you have decided to read the Scriptures. They are, unquestionably, and irrespective of anybodys beliefs, the greatest set of books ever written.
The evidence lies in the way they have influenced the history of mankind.
Ill try to refer to your questions by trying to avoid complicated explanations. You must bear in mind that whatever significance we wish to give to any Biblical passages is basically the product of mans interpretation, for there is no direct GODs message telling us that this or that means precisely what we say it does.
The New King James version is, substantially, identical, except that it can probably be better understood, to the Old King James version or the Catholic version, which I use.
1. In 2:17. You must bear in mind there is a lot of symbology involved in many of the passages of the Bible. In this one, Gods words to Adam, most probably, refer to Adams spiritual death, not to his physical death. By contravening Gods instructions Adam commits a mortal sin. Thus, he is spiritually dead the very moment he commits that sin.
2. In 6:2. You should remember that men have written the Scriptures, though they may have eventually inspired by GOD.
When these texts were written and for many centuries to come women were, in general, 2nd class citizens, although many religions were placing the mother earth, as a top-level goddess. Consequently, it was logical to assume in mans fantastic arrogance- that only we were "sons of God"
3. 6:3. The idea or concept of God is merely spiritual. Hence, totally alien to the physical concepts that surround us. On the day of the final judgment those who will deserve it will eternally enjoy GODs spiritual glory. Of course, this is very simply put. Plus the fact that you may or may not believe in eternal life after death.
4. In 6:5: Of course, in GOD all the capacities we know of MUST be given in total fullness. Therefore, GOD must know the past, the present and the future, as we describe them; otherwise, IT would not be GOD. At the same time, GOD created man free to choose his destiny. Man's wickedness is his own option. Which does not imply that GOD must police us all the time. Same answer for 18:21. IT must certainly know what is going on in Sodom and Gomorrah and IT decides to punish them, as they deserve.
This, again, assuming that this is what actually happened, for there are other versions.
Youll realize a refer to GOD as IT, not He. The He pronoun, in my opinion, also comes from mans arrogance, when we decide GOD must have a gender and it has to be masculine.
5. In 6:6-7: The theological explanation would be that when God says that He does not change, He is speaking about His nature and character. But this does not mean that He cannot change how He works with people throughout history.
And when we see God changing His mind, we are seeing it from a human perspective. Since God knows all things from all eternity, He as always known the ultimate plan that He would carry out; even the plan to "change His mind." As we have seen in Jonah's account of Nineveh. They repented and God relented from the destruction that was to come upon the inhabitants. Of course, God knew this would happen and instituted the warning to them in order to bring about their repentance. There is no mystery here.
Again, always accepting the fact that GOD actually said those words to someone who, later on, put them in writing.
Regards,
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 11/06/04 - Moral Values:? Curious98 mentioned in his recent post the worldwide "loss of moral values", and it made me wonder: Does anyone have any data that truly shows there has been a decline in morals over the past century, millennia, etc.? How does one measure and quantify a moral value, and how do we decide that this is a value that we do not want to decrease, or that this other one is?
Your thoughts and opinions? curious98 answered on 11/09/04:I do not think that to properly answer your question we must have recourse to a course in theology or in statistics.
I guess just some drops of plain common sense (which, incidentally, it is also becoming rarer) might suffice to justify my assert.
To the best of my recollections, way back there in the early 30s, when a man gave his word of honor it was sacred; when one owed any amount of money to somebody he did not need to sign any document to guarantee the payment. He just said Ill pay you within this or that date , they shook hands, and only death could force the debtor to break his promise; you could wander at night practically anywhere, or leave the door of your home unlocked, without any fear of being assaulted or, even worse, just killed; to hold hands with the girl you were in love with was really something; to kiss her was paradise! It took me close to six months for my first kiss to my present and only, wife. Ive been successfully married for the last 54 years plus another 5 engaged, i.e. 59 years of my happy life! When we got married, we were both; of course, virgins, and we had never gone beyond some petting!
We lived in a small apartment, with no car, no TV (there was none), little money, lots of love and, later on, the blessing of four children.
No drugs, no marihuana, no porno magazines, no fighting in the streets, and the end result, these four children are successfully married, and have children of their own. No divorce, no abortions, no sadomasoquist methods, no gay tendencies anywhere at sight
In short, what many would qualify as a boring life ; boring, perhaps, but happy, definitely.
People did not lie as a principle; politicians, with a few exceptions, were sincere and honest. They were not interested in their own enrichment, at least, not only. They were also true patriots.
Of course, there was crime, and some rules were eventually broken.
But the situation was more or less under control until after WWII was over.
And then, bingo! Everybody, everywhere were striving to live as intensely as possible, as fast as possible, and owning as many things as possible as quickly as possible.
For these and many other reasons, God started to fade away in peoples list of priorities until we have got to the present situation, when to make love means to have plain sex , when the chairman of the board steals as much as he can, not giving a damn for his shareholders, when politicians cannot say a true word anymore, when you risk your life in certain city areas, when drug traffic means billions of dollars, when the gap between rich and poor is widening all the time and when the real McCoy is to work as little as possible but trying to make as much as possible, no matter how !
How would you depict this picture with other words, than debasement of morals?
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Saladin asked on 10/09/04 - Atheists
What are the atheist organisations doing to help relieve the suffering in Florida and the other hurrican hit states?
How much have they contributed in manpower, goods, services, etc?
Saladin
curious98 answered on 10/10/04:Saladin,
To the best of my knowledge, there are a number of non-governmental organizations (Red Cross. Doctors without frontiers, etc.) which are non-confessional and which are full of volunteers performing a wonderful job, irrespective of their beliefs or non-beliefs.
In addition to that, I would say that Im somewhat surprised to see that you are only considering Florida as needing charity and support from religious or non-religious organizations while you completely ignore a much more dramatic situation, consequence of the same hurricanes, and where dead and disappeared are counted by thousands.
Im, of course, referring to Haiti, one of the poorest countries in the world.
Im not going to dispute the convenience of helping Florida and any other State that may have suffered as a consequence of these last hurricanes. But Im sure you will agree with me that you can hardly compare Florida (or any other US State, for what matters) with Haiti as far as capacity of recuperation is concerned.
I do not know how many homes have been destroyed in Fla. But, Im willing to bet what you want that in less than a year they will all be rebuilt.
In Haiti, more than 20000 families have lost whatever little they had! The floods have destroyed even the huts they were living in
I think they more in urgent need of international help from all kind of organizations than anybody else.
For your information I will say that from Spain a number of planes left immediately for Port au Prince with help from our Government (Socialist aconfessional) along with teams of Doctors without frontiers, Red Cross, and several tons of equipment gathered by the Catholic organization of the Spanish Caritas.
Im a Roman Catholic, but Im sure that when it comes to helping others an Atheist can be just as good as a Catholic, and some times, much to my regret, even better!
Let us not despise Atheists just because they are, in our opinion, wrong. They have always the possibility to modify their way of thinking
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | tomder55 asked on 10/08/04 - ET phone home has anyone heard from Elliot ? curious98 answered on 10/09/04:I haven't, and I also hope all is well with him.
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | freethinker asked on 10/04/04 - Who wrote the Bible (2) : can I have this time an anwer to my questions, please? On my previous question "Who wrote the Bible" I received many replies and "clarifications", almost none of which had any reference to what I asked.
So I ask it again, to see if I get this time a reply to what I asked.
And please - if not all too inconveniant : keep to replies, and leave the clarifications : my questions are clear enough!
.
Introduction : Origins of religion
.
It's easy to imagine that 50.000 years ago humans - failing much scientific knowledge - tried to find alternative explanations for normal natural occurances.
So we got the god of the vulcano, the god of the earthquakes, the god for the sea, the god for harvest, the god for fertility, etc. etc.
But today - 3 October 2004 - we have explanations for nearly all these natural events, from here on earth to deep into space, and from the beginning of times till somewhere in the future.
.
QUESTION 1
.
But still the majority of people feel the need for god or gods.
What do you think is causing that need?
Fear for the unknown?
Fear for the future?
Fear for death?
The hope to see loved-ones back who passed away?
.
QUESTION 2
.
And why do people who do not believe in god or gods do not set themselves apart in any other way from humanity, f.i. in crime, in morals, and in social behaviour?
Afteral, I don't get the impression that theists lead "better" lives than atheists.
How could that be, as theists often refer to that "extra" they claim to get out of religion?
.
Please : just answer to what I ask. Thank you!
.
curious98 answered on 10/08/04:Question 1 - Fear of the unknown, i.e. GOD
Question 2 - From a material point of view Theists do not live better lives than Atheists.
From a spiritual point of view, we definitely live better lives, for we have some to hope for, whereas atheists can hope for nothing at all, which is actually very sad...
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | freethinker asked on 10/03/04 - Who wrote the Bible? There are many questions that handle the origins of the Bible, but non of them contains the following question :
.
Suppose that God indeed exists.
Suppose that God indeed is a supra-natural, supra-powerful, all-knowing entity.
Suppose that God indeed created the universe in 6 "days".
.
Than why should such an entity not have thought-up, written, printed, and distributed the Bible him/her/itself?
It would have been so simple for such a powerful entity, isn't it?
.
Do you have any serious explanation why God allowed the Christian religion to be based on a "handbook" that is full of mistakes, full of contradictions, full of illogical and unsupported claims, full of unscientific nonsense, etc. etc. etc. ?
.
Please no biblical quotes or dogmatic claims : just a serious and - if possible - logical explanation!
.
curious98 answered on 10/04/04:The existence of a supra-natural, supra-powerful, all-knowing entity is a matter of common logical sense. Unless you can come out with a supra-natural, supra-logical explanation to explain our Universe, and in case you propose the Big Bang, please add how and where from this Big Bang crop up. I wont accept that it created itself of then the Big Bang will be GOD.
We are already beyond the 6 days creation This and others parts of the Bible (Adam and Eve, for instance) have actually nothing to do with GODs existence.
We are totally unable to comprehend or even anticipate GODs plan or designs in our connection, in connection with the Bible nor in connection with anything else, for what matters.
Im not using any dogmatic nor Biblical quotes, just common sense.
If we were able to have only a clue of GODs intentions we should be at GODs level, in other words, we should have to be something like lesser Gods.
Even if you do not believe in GOD (which is your own privilege), you may understand that SHOULD THERE BE ONE (you may at least, grant us the possibility) there is no way how we can place ourselves at the level of who HAS MANAGED TO CREATE THE UNIVERSE.
A new born baby looking at his/her mother can hardly tell her mothers plans in his connection. All he knows is that he/she feels good when she holds him/her in her arms.
A bacteria inside us carries on with its life disregarding and ignoring whether we intend to inoculate some antibiotic to kill it.
All living beings just go by some implanted instructions in their AND and that is that.
But the difference between the smallest living being and ourselves
is nothing compared with the difference there must be between us and GOD.
The Scriptures were written by men like you and me. Probably inspired by God. And if they were so, they were written bearing in mind the mental development and know-how of people 6 or 7000 years ago. When reading them, now a days, we should try to bear in mind their age and not wonder how the authors did not refer to the Gravitation force or to the fact that our Earth is 4.5 billion years old?
Would have that meant anything for them, 7000 years ago?
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | freethinker asked on 10/03/04 - Origins of religion It's easy to imagine that 50.000 years ago humans - failing much scientific knowledge - tried to find alternative explanations for normal natural occurances.
So we got the god of the vulcano, the god of the earthquakes, the god for the sea, the god for harvest, the god for fertility, etc. etc.
But today - 3 October 2004 - we have explanations for nearly all these natural events, from here on earth to deep into space, and from the beginning of times till somewhere in the future.
.
But still the majority of people feel the need for god or gods.
What do you think is causing that need? Fear for the unknown? Fear for the future? Fear for death? The hope to see loved-ones back who passed away?
.
And why do people who do not believe in god or gods do not set themselves apart in any other way from humanity, f.i. in crime, in morals, and in social behaviour? Afteral, I don't get the impression that theists lead "better" lives than atheists. How could that be, as theists often refer to that "extra" they claim to get out of religion?
.
curious98 answered on 10/03/04:Im of the opinion that man was created by instilling in him a need to explain his creation. This need was gradually satisfied through religions, which, to the extent man was growing in mental capacity, become more sophisticated. Jews, and later on Christians, were responsible for the most important religion of them all. At least, from our viewpoint.
It is true that, today - 3 October 2004 we have explanations for nearly all natural events, from here on earth to deep into space, and from the beginning of times till somewhere in the future
At least, some believe so. I do not.
We know nothing re. the creation of Universe. We have some theories going on. But nothing for sure.
Biogenetics seem to be able to create animal life, even human life. But we still need the basic ingredients (feminine and masculine) to create it. I do not think we have succeeded in creating something so simple as sperm or an ovum.
We know there are forces like magnetism, electricity, gravitation, light speed, etc. But do we know where did they come from, or who created them?
Our past history is full of mysteries which historians, when totally unable to explain them, prefer either to ignore them or simply shrug their shoulders.
So, its only normal that the majority feels the need for god. Because, the majority cannot explain the unexplainable!
The funny think is that the minority (a tremendous minority, at that) cannot explain it either. Yet, they prefer to shrug their shoulders and pretend it is not important to know.
And the big question remains unanswered for them.
The big question of where are we coming from, what are we doing here, and where are we going to from here? Religion, somehow, tries to answer these questions, and this is enough for billions of people.
Atheists, however, are human beings too, and as such they have been created just the same as the rest. Whether they like it or not (and even if they will not admit it), they are subject to the same laws as the others. They are free to choose their way of life. They are free to claim the do not believe in GOD (though they do not seem to be able to ignore GOD completely, for they keep on talking about GOD all the time) and they are even free to eventually convert, as many have done so far.
Being a theist as you call us- does not guarantee being able to lead "better" lives than atheists. The latter can live like saints all their lives without believing in GOD. And so can the former.
Religion has only relevance for our future life. Those of us who believe in another life try to behave here to gain Paradise and at the same time, that helps us feeling good with ourselves.
Those who do not believe in another life may also behave well according to Natural Law- and they will also feel good while here. Later on, nobody knows!
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | FormerJesusHelper76 asked on 09/30/04 - Please Pray For My wife and her challenges in life with her decisions in career, and family. Her challenges with her very controlling family. My challenges in dealing with this crazyness. Please pray for me to have patience even though i know the control and interfering ways will always be there. Please pray for peace and understanding and for Gods will to be done in all situations. God bless!
JH
curious98 answered on 10/01/04:Dear JH,
Whatever the nature of your problem, which is none of our business, I shall keep you in mind when praying.
God Bless
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | paraclete asked on 10/01/04 - An Interesting Theory? The temperature of heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority is the Bible, Isaiah 30:26 reads, Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days. Thus, heaven receives from the moon as much radiation as the earth does from the sun, and in addition seven times seven (forty nine) times as much as the earth does from the sun, or fifty times in all. The light we receive from the moon is one ten-thousandth of the light we receive from the sun, so we can ignore that. With these data we can compute the temperature of heaven: The radiation falling on heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation. In other words, heaven loses fifty times as much heat as the earth by radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth power law for radiation
(H/E)4 = 50
where E is the absolute temperature of the earth, 300K (273+27). This gives H the absolute temperature of heaven, as 798 absolute (525C).
The exact temperature of hell cannot be computed but it must be less than 444.6C, the temperature at which brimstone or sulfur changes from a liquid to a gas. Revelations 21:8: But the fearful and unbelieving... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." A lake of molten brimstone [sulfur] means that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, which is 444.6C. (Above that point, it would be a vapor, not a lake.)
We have then, temperature of heaven, 525C (977F). Temperature of hell, less than 445F). Therefore heaven is hotter than hell.
curious98 answered on 10/01/04:
Dear friend,
It is Isaiah 30:26, not 30:25. Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be seven-fold, as the
light of seven days, in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound.
I do not want to sound too disappointing, but I suppose what you say is actually a joke, is not it?
For if it is not, my first question is, where do you manage to place Heaven as regards to our Solar system? As you, our own system forms a small very small part of a small galaxy The Milky Way - , which, in turn, is only one of the millions of galaxies and the billions of solar systems in the Universe.
This is precisely why our GODs Creation is so magnificent!
Anyway. You seem to anticipate, according to your formula, that the Heaven should not be too far away from the Sun, in order to receive its radiation. In that case, it is sort of strange that it has not been detected by any of the many observatories inspecting the outer space, dont you think so?
It seems like we could somehow define Heaven according to earthen metrical system, in terms of square meters, or in terms of so large, so wide, so high, so close or so far away. Same with Hell.
So when we speak of Heaven we look upwards and when we speak of Hell we look downwards, so for us living in the Northern Hemisphere Hell would be more or less in New Zealand, but for Aussies Hell must be close to France
I think we should start thinking of Heaven, Hell and or GOD as abstractions, totally incomprehensible for our limited mind. We simply cannot apply to them our adjectives, which were only invented to qualify earthly things.
It is to attempt to describe the indescribable with words which cannot come close to expressing the glory of heaven. Paul wrote these words: "Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and which have not entered the heart of man, all that God has prepared for those who love Him" (I Corinthians 2:9). Some question whether these words directly refer to heaven: they may not, but from all that we do know, they are certainly true of heaven and of the indescribable nature of that glorious place. Things which eye has not seen: can you imagine it? Men's eyes have seen abundant treasures upon the earth. Men have seen golden thrones, palaces, exquisite diamonds, rubies, and pearls. Men can conceive of handfuls of diamonds, fields of jewels, and buildings of gold, glittering in the noonday sun, but men cannot imagine the glory of heaven. It is beyond our imagination. Such is the task before us: to speak of the glory of heaven using words that cannot describe it; to try to picture for you that which cannot even be conceived by your heart.
SP much to my regret your otherwise well conceived formula is totally useless in this case.
Incidentally, concepts like hot or cold are also earthly concepts. I doubt they can be applied to Heaven or Hell.
Regards
Claude
| | Question/Answer | | freethinker asked on 09/29/04 - Church of Scientology - 01 Challenged to bring the CofS up to debate here, and with the CofS forum as dead as a doodoo, I hereby post the first of a long list of CofS questions :
.
The C of CofS stands for CHURCH. What's your opinion on a MONEY SPINNING BUSINESS like the CofS calling itself a CHURCH?
Are the chimeras by Ron L Hubbard (RIP) a proper (enough) basis to describe scientology as a church? Why?
curious98 answered on 09/29/04:
According to the Oxford Universal Dictionary Illustrated, the word Church means:
Generally: the House of the Lord
I a.: A building for public Christian worship
II: The Christian community, collectively.
III: A congregation of Christians locally organized, and so on and so forth, for over 1 full page.
However, it has always a Christian connotation as a place for Christians to pray, etc.
It also points out that some do incorrectly use the word when speaking of a Synagogue, a Mosque, or some other temple belonging to other religions.
Consequently, as the CofS does not appear (or I havent found it) in the list of Christian Denominations existing at present, I should conclude they have no right whatsoever to usurp the name of Church. They might as well call themselves the Mosque or the Synagogue of Scientology.
According to the same dictionary,
Scientology is a new religion founded by L. Ron Hubbard in 1955 and characterized by a belief in the power of a person's spirit to clear itself of past painful experiences through self-knowledge and spiritual fulfillment [syn: Scientology, Church of Scientology]
The whole schemer seems to have started with Rons invention
of the Dianetics when, by using the trick of self-suggestion and a high cognitive process, plus a considerable amount of gullible customers in urgent need of consolation, Ron managed to persuade them of his miraculous power.
From there to come out with a brand new religion, there is only a short step.
And from a brand new religion to a money making business there is even less distance.
Irrespective of the fact of the religion we may believe in, Mankind
has always felt the need to answer the famous questions: where do we come from? What are we doing here? Where are we due from here? These questions have been answered in different ways by different religions ever since Man exists.
However, it is true that some of these religions have lately managed to disappoint their followers.
On the one hand, the growing materialism which we are submerged in, the change in moral and ethic values suffered basically by the western world, our increasing selfishness, the widening gap between the 1st and the 3rd world, all of them are contributing to create an uneasiness and a feeling at a global scale of where are we leading our world to
On the other hand, the different religions do not seem to fully realize the danger of the present situation and, though there are large quantities of people consecrated to the meritorious task of helping the needy, even at the risk of their lives, the higher authorities of these religious entities are not effectively tackling some of these problems.
The end result. Many are open to embrace any new philosophy promising them undivided happiness and justice down here, even if they have (as it is always the case) to pay for this happiness, which is nothing but wishful thinking and beautifully spoken words
While they lose sight of the fact that the speaker is driving a golden limousine and lives in an ivory castle
I feel sorry for them But they deserve what they get.
The daughter of a friend of mine (35 years), a successful lawyer in Barcelona, decided sometime ago that she was not happy making a lot of money of making love to a different guy every two years.
So, on good day, she disappeared and, a few months later, she showed up in India as the humblest collaborator of the Theresas, founded by Mother Theresa of Calcutta.
My friend went to see her last year and, when he came back, he told me he had never seen her daughter so happy before.
Non tam praesse quam prodesse; not so much to command but to serve, being useful.
If we are not satisfied with how the religion we believe in is tackling todays problems, we can always resort to action. There is so much to do right in the place where we live, that we should not have to waste our precious time listening to any bright guy who comes out from the blue to tell us he is in direct connection with God Almighty and he knows how to make us happy.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | freethinker asked on 09/28/04 - What's going on here? I look at the title here : it reads "Religion forum."
Still I note that half of the questions are of a christian nature, about christian issues.
Also I note that traffic at the "Christianity forum" is - to say it nicely - "slow".
Why are christians not posting their christian questions on the christianity forum?
This forum is about questions on religion in general, isn't it?
What is going on here? curious98 answered on 09/28/04:
To the best of my knowledge, when we refer to Religion we are basically referring to a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that supposedly control the human destiny. The majority of the world population shares one religion or other.
Im of the opinion that Christianity is a religion. In fact, this opinion is also shared by 1.5 billion (25% of present world population) people.
Discussing Christianity subjects in the religion forum opens up the possibility of having other points of view from other persons who may go from atheists like yourself to followers of other important Religions like Judaism or Islam (Islam, for one, represents another 20% of global population).
On the other hand, the Christianity forum is probably (I dont know for sure) attended only by Christians.
Furthermore, so far nobody has ever complained about Christians participating in this Religion Forum, and we have so far had some quite interesting discussions on general religious matters.
However, and curiously enough, the first person who is questioning this Forum is a person who does not share ANY religion!
Why dont you participate in the Forum about Atheism?
The same freedom you have to participate in our Religion Forum being an Atheist, we Christians have even more rightly so- to be here.
SO nothing is going on here, at least, nothing extraordinary, as you seem to imply!
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 09/24/04 - What would happen if? What would the world be like if all Christians actually acted like Christ? If they lived like Christ did, and tried to really behave and live in his manner and under his teaching? Modern stuff is still fine, they can drive cars instead of camels, etc., but what would the world be like? curious98 answered on 09/25/04:From what we are told by the Gospels, Jesus Christ spend his public life spreading love all over the place, and his maximum act of love was to give his life for the salvation of mankind.
Consequently, if we would all act like He did we should live in a world of peace and love.
However, this should imply a few changes in our so-called modern civilization.
For instance, 1st world governments, Arab tycoons, religious leaders, multinational corporations and, in general, all those of us who have more than what we may need to comfortably live, should start seriously thinking about the persons that die of starvation (one every 4 seconds!) in the rest of the globe, and, after getting rid of the whole bunch of corrupt leaders ruling in 3rd world countries (they would never behave like Christ, anyway) begin to consider the people from these countries irrespective of color, race, religion, educational level, social position, etc.- as our own true brothers and, therefore, help them as much as needed.
No more weapons, no more wars, no more injustice, no more whites are better than blacks or vice versa.
I start dreaming and get carried away
But now Im fully awake once more, and I tell you: if Jesus Christ would come to this earth of ours again, not only would we spit in his face but we would probably crucify him once more,
The charges being: Living danger for mankind!
Best regards
Claude
| | Question/Answer | | tomder55 asked on 09/24/04 - Yom Kippur To all my Jewish friends : Have an easy fast . curious98 answered on 09/24/04:I would like to endorse Tomder's best wishes for a nice and peaceful celebration of Yom Kippur, especially for those living in Israel.
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | brmohammad asked on 09/18/04 - Jesus Was jesus the son of the God phyisically or not ?
In my opinion Jesus was a craeture and the prophit of God. curious98 answered on 09/18/04:
In very much the same way as Shia Muslims believe Ali (Muhammads son in love) as Muhammads legal successor, Christians consider Jesus the Son of God incarnated in a Virgin so that He could also become a man and eventually die in a Cross to redeem Mankind of its sins. Together with his Father and the Holy Spirit they form the Holy and Undivided Trinity, i.e. Christianity God.
It is a matter of faith.
For your further information, and considering you as a Shia Muslim as you consider yourself, please note the following:
Islam's prophet, Muhammad, believed Jesus was the Messiah, Allah's anointed messenger. Allah's people (Muslims) are told to listen to Allah's messengers (Koran/Quram, IV.171; V. 111*).
The Prophet's revelations about Jesus contained in the Koran should be read by his followers, all Muslims, as the Koran/Quram requires.
Muhammad, Islam's Prophet, believed Jesus was sent by Allah to be the Messiah, miraculously born of the Virgin Mary, who brought the Gospel, who died, was raised from the dead, then ascended into heaven to be with Allah. Jesus would become an everlasting blessing to all mankind!
The Koran tells how Allah anointed Jesus, through a virgin birth to be the Messiah - Savior of the world, nearly five hundred and fifty years before Muhammad was born.
Muslims believe the Koran was written by God and is God's message to all people.
So, if this is true, according to your Koran/Quram, Jesus was the Messiah, and you should believe it.
Jesus did the Messiah's work (opening heaven) 550 years before Islam's Prophet was born.
As God's messenger, Jesus explained, simplified, and demonstrated God's will and message, although the Jews did not believe in him. Jesus' "Good News" - the Gospel - is about God's love and forgiveness for all mankind. Muhammad's revelations, recorded in the Koran/Qur'an teach that:
Jesus was sent by Allah, who supported him with the Holy Spirit, to tell the world Allah's will (II, 87; V. 110-117*).
Consequently, just as you are to believe in what the Koran/Quram says, we are to believe in what the Bible, Christians Holy Book, says re. Jesus.
Hope to have helped
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Pamela asked on 09/16/04 - Acts of God There was a recent Australian movie - The Man Who Sued God.
He sued the churches because the insurance company he was with refused to payout on what they said was an act of God ( lightening)
Do you believe that all natural disasters are acts of God, or are they the result of God allowing satan to rule? 2 Cor 4:4 Not that satan causes every natural disaster, but just that he does not control the weather as Jesus did when he calmed the storm. curious98 answered on 09/17/04:
God is the responsible party for the Creation of the Universe. Which means that, at the same time, He created the set of rules and regulations running this Universe. I have no doubt about that.
But, in my humble opinion, these set of Universal physical and chemical Laws control what happens in out Universe in general and in our Earth in particular.
Natural disasters are mostly a direct consequence of natural and/or periodical physical phenomena, as for instance, the periodical floods in Bangla Desh, and consequence of the annual Monsoon.
Earthquakes or volcanic eruptions are consequence of tectonic movements
In some cases, though, some disasters may be the direct consequence of man decisions, like some wood fires.
But I believe that in no case we are to put the blame on God for whatever is going on down here, which we may not like
I think we ALL tend to either take the name of GOD too lightly or to pretend that IT must be helping us to get out of all the problems we run into.
The majority of us remember GOD when we need IT and the rest of the time we behave as we deem it more convenient.
And we are constantly fighting amongst ourselves over irrelevant questions such as God said this; no, God said that, instead; God wants this; no, God meant, that
Gods rules are quite clear. All we have to do is to follow them. And when natural disasters hit us, like lightning, maybe we should be more careful instead of suing God for our own stupidity
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Pamela asked on 09/16/04 - Anomalies in the theory of Evolution Ever heard of Basilosarus, the so called lizard(saurus) whale? Even evolutionists dont believe that whales evolved from reptiles. Yet a famous paleontologist called this Indian fossil ( which is better described as a seal) as a Basilosaurus.
Anyone know of any others? curious98 answered on 09/17/04:In this Religion section we propose mostly religious subjects, though sometimes some political matters are brought here, but because they may be connected with Religion or Morals, in general.
So far I have not seen any question dealing in Zoology!
Or are we to consider your post as a religious question of some kind?
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | Pamela asked on 09/15/04 - I escaped - from the Christianity Board As with We Tell You that Board has degenerated into a total fiasco, with users claiming that I dont have a husband ( how could they know) and me being slandered - " she massages perverts"
Check it out.
Datheus must be on vacation because my husband and I have both reported abuse and no action has been taken.
I hope the serial pests dont follow me here. I look forward to answering and learning from you. curious98 answered on 09/16/04:To FormerJesusHelper76 I would invite to participate, if he does not mind, in our recent dialogue between Paraclete and I, where I'm precisely emphasizing that Jesus' message is, in the end, a message of love for Mankind.
As for PAMELA, I can only say that tolerance is not exactly abounding in our today's world.
This is the reason that, more often than not, even in these Q&A forums, some people cannot help exhibit their bigotry by speaking out of term.
This is the more extraordinary when we take into consideration that cultural level of participating people in these forums seems to be rather high.
But, as I keep on stressing here, we, humans, are so arrogant that, no matter how much we try to conceal this fact, we always end up by showing our slip
But we enjoy our debates, so I hope you will, too.
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 09/11/04 - Sisera's death: awake or asleep? was Sisera asleep when Jael killed him, as described in Judges 4:21 or awake and standing when Jael killed him, as described in Judges 5:25-27?
curious98 answered on 09/14/04:Here is an interesting text from the Good News Bible, American Bible Society, 1982:
From the story, it seems that Sisera was sleep when Jael killed him. But againt, this is immaterial, for the fact is that Sisera was killed alright, which, once more, shows how much they resembled us.
Quote: The first and most remarkable thing about the story of Deborah is that a woman is a prophet, judge and leader of Israel. Judges chapter 4 opens as she is sitting under a palm tree judging disputes and making decisions for the people. The previous judge, Ehud, had died and Deborah had assumed the vacancy in local politics and spiritual life.
Its remarkable because women didnt have a voice in Biblical times. Although we know about Eve, Sarah and Rachel, women were usually referred to as the wife, the daughter, the mother or the harlot. If a couple was childless it was because the woman was barren. We know about Noah and his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, but we never get the names of the wives.
After Joshuas stellar leadership comes to an end with his death, the twelve tribes of Israel each settle on their own parcel of land. There is no national leader to replace him but God raises judges from time to time to deal with problems. As this story will show, Deborah probably fills a role that either no one wants or no one is courageous enough to play.
The judges were national heroes who came to the forefront whenever Israel was threatened by an armed force. The lead-in was always the same: The people of Israel sinned against the Lord. (Judges 4: 1) God protected them as long as they were faithful to Him. But the people were having a hard time ignoring the pagan gods around them in Canaan. When their worship of these gods became accepted practice, an enemy would appear to conquer them.
The people would return to YHWH and pray for help when things got really bad. A judge would rise up (Ehud, Deborah or Samson) and lead the defense of Israel. Worship of YHWH would return for a while and there would be peace. Then the cycle would repeat itself. This went on for a century or so between Joshua and the first king, Saul.
In defense of the people of Israel, scattered throughout Palestine, the pagan gods must have offered something that was hard to resist. Lets not forget that the children of Israel had been slaves in Egypt for a few hundred years. Then they were nomadic wanderers in the deserts of the Sinai. They probably werent great farmers or ranchers. The Canaanites had been settled there for maybe a thousand years prior. They no doubt had successful harvests and great flocks of sheep.
To the poor Israelite, this must have been a cause of great distress and envy. It must have seemed as if their gods were doing a great job. Maybe YHWH wasnt such a great god for farmers and if they prayed to another god and got results, Amen! Im sure there was a lot of mixing and matching of deities in an effort to secure a good crop. But YHWH proves what He said. He is a jealous God and demands fidelity to him only. Especially from His own chosen people.
Deborah, as prophet, receives a revelation. She summons Barak from the city of Kadesh. She instructs him to take an army of 10,000 men from the tribes of Naphtali and Zebulun and take them to Mount Tabor. A Canaanite king had conquered the land and Barak was to lead an army against this intruder. The Bible says that Jabin, the Canaanite king ruled the people of Israel with cruelty and violence for twenty years. (Judges 4: 3)
Not only was his rule ruthless, the Canaanites had 900 iron chariots. Chariots were the new thing in the Iron Age and knowing how to make them gave an army great superiority. After twenty years of this the people of Israel cried out to the Lord for help. (Judges 4: 3) The commander of King Jabins army was Sisera. This was the force that Deborah called Barak to challenge.
Deborah tells Barak that she will summon Sisera to fight him at the Kishon River. She says to him, He will have his chariots and soldiers, but I will give you victory over him. (Judges 4: 7) Barak is not too sure and tells her that he will only go if she goes with him. She answers, All right, I will go with you, but you wont get any credit for the victory, because the Lord will hand Sisera over to a woman. (Judges 4: 9)
When Siseras nine hundred chariots were near, Deborah gave the command to Barak and he led his 10,000 Israelite soldiers against them. The Lord threw the Canaanite army into confusion. It seems that a pouring rain had rendered the heavy iron chariots useless. They were trapped in the mud and all fled on foot. The whole army was killed by Baraks troops and Sisera himself ran away.
In the meantime, Heber the Kenite had set up his tent nearby and his wife Jael also had a tent there. Sisera ran into Jaels tent asking for her protection. She hid him behind some curtains. When he asked her for water, she gave him milk. He fell asleep and Jael took a tent peg and a hammer and drove the peg through Siseras head. Jael proudly displayed the corpse to Barak when he came looking for him. And so it happened just as Deborah had prophesied. A woman had executed Sisera. The army marched right on to Hazor, the kings city, and destroyed him too.
Chapter 5 is The Song of Deborah and Barak and gives more details of the struggle. It talks of Gods power in helping win the battle; of the rains that fell; how The stars fought from the sky. (Judges 5: 20) She also heaps scorn on those tribes of Israel that did not come to the aid of Israel. Zebulun and Naphtali are praised as heroes and the other tribes are listed with their excuses.
There was peace in the land for forty years and then the whole process will repeat as once again the people will become guilty and sin against the Lord. The mantle will fall on Gideon next.
regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 09/10/04 - King Baasha an the attack of the living dead. How did King Baasha rise up ten years after his demise and attack Asa of Judah?
Elah became king upon the death of his father, Baasha in the 26th year of Asas reign as king of Judah.
1 Kings 16:8
In the twenty and sixth year of Asa king of Judah began Elah the son of Baasha to reign over Israel in Tirzah, two years.
However, in 2nd Chronicles, 16:1, Baasha lead an army against Asa in the 36th year of his reign.
In the six and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah, and built Ramah, to the intent that he might let none go out or come in to Asa king of Judah
that's ten years after he died. How did Baasha manage that neat trick? curious98 answered on 09/14/04:
You are citing 2 different sources, i.e. 1 Kings 15:16 - 16:13 and 2 Chronicles 16:1- Therefore, 2 different authors and consequently, some discrepancies in dates, which are totally unimportant.
The history, according to the Encyclopedia, goes:
Little is known about Baasha's background. He was of the tribe of Issachar, of humble origin, and was probably a military commander, since he was with King Nadab in war. While at war, Baasha murdered Nadab and proclaimed himself king. He also murdered all Nadab's relatives, whom he considered rivals to the throne, thereby fulfilling a prophecy against King Jeroboam, but also bringing upon himself a prophecy that his own family would be similarly exterminated.
Baasha's 23-year reign was marked by ongoing war with neighboring Judah, and by a continuation of Jeroboam's golden calf cult.
Israel was not as prosperous as neighboring Judah, and many Israelites had warm feelings for their Judean neighbors. The kings of Israel generally saw emigration as a threat. Jeroboam had tried to stop international travel to Judah; Baasha similarly tried to seal the borders. He began building border fortifications at Ramah, for the dual purposes of enforcing travel regulations and for use as a base of military operations against Judah. But Judah's King Asa caused a diversion to draw Baasha's people away, then assembled a massive work force to remove the building materials so the fortifications couldn't be completed and used against Judah. Baasha was forced to abandon the effort.
Upon Baasha's death, he was succeeded by his son Elah. But Elah ruled only a short time before being murdered by Zimri, who also exterminated Baasha's heirs, as Baasha had done to his predecessor, and as the prophet had said would happen
The important moral of the story, though, is that they were not much better than we are, were they?
Claude
| | Question/Answer | | Saladin asked on 09/09/04 - Suicide for children The Vatican (LifeNews.com) -- A leading Catholic official is blasting a proposal in the Netherlands that would allow children under the age of 12 to request assisted suicide.
Bishop Elio Sgreccia, the vice-president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, condemned the idea saying "the final boundary will have been crossed" in disrespect for the sanctity of human life.
"No one can claim such homicidal responsibility for himself or for another person. No authority can legitimately impose or permit it. This is a violation of divine law, an offense at the dignity of the human person, a crime against a life and an attack against humanity," the papal representative said.
Bishop Sgreccia warned of a "moral relativism" that has "anesthetized society," and said that modern medicine is wrongly focusing on costs rather than the welfare of the patient.
Approved in 2002, Dutch law allows adult patients suffering from incurables diseases to request assisted suicide. Teenagers under the age of 16 must have their parents approval, but the newly proposed law would drop that to 12 years of age.
Bishop Sgreccia's comments, which appeared in the newspaper l'Osservatore Romano, said that children that young can't provide valid consent.
The Vatican official said the Dutch law is rapidly moving away from assisted suicide and towards euthanasia. Many residents of the European nation wear arm bracelets telling doctors not to end their lives prematurely.
Sgreccia said that Catholic teaching on end of life issues and its opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide is "well known, constantly repeated, and confirmed."
"We must repeat with the utmost firmness that nothing and no one can give permission to kill an innocent human being, whether he be a fetus, an embryo, a child, an adult, an old person or a sick person in incurable agony," wrote Sgreccia.
Expanding on the Catholic Church's pro-life policies on assisted suicide and euthanasia, the Pope in March said that removing the feeding tube of a disabled patient is immoral and amounts to "euthanasia by omission."
Pope John Paul II also said that the lexicon used to describe such patients -- as being in a "vegetative state" was degrading and inhuman
Commentatus?
curious98 answered on 09/10/04:Saladin,
In such delicates matters as Euthanasia (or abortion) it is impossible to come out with a 100% objective analysis.
We simply cannot get rid of our own prejudices or preconceived ideas derived from our religious principles.
And, as it constantly happens in most religious matters, we will not get to any sort of agreement.
To properly mull over Euthanasia one has to find himself personally immersed in the problem and, even so, he/she will always stumble (if a Catholic) with the Church.
The Roman Catholic Church does not accept Euthanasia under any circumstances. Just as, with one or two exceptions, it does not consider Abortion either.
No wonder, therefore, that Bishop Elio Sgreccia, claims that Euthanasia is a violation of divine law.
This is the line of thought of the Catholic Church I cannot tell for the other Christian Denominations- and is totally inflexible.
It is not a dogma, but almost.
Personally, I must say that I agree with that position. Along with millions of other persons who think the same
The Nederlands are lately characterizing themselves for a great disposition to yield to the wishes of minority groups who consider themselves discriminated. Cannabis being freely sold in drugstores; gay culture; homosexuals weddings; abortions and euthanasia. Catholics are a minority in Holland too, but nobody listens to them instead, for they are considered politically inconvenient and demods (old fashioned).
In Spain we are also starting to have some discussions on the subject, now that we have a brand new Socialist Government.
It gives me shivers at what they are capable of doing. Our President, with an eye on the next election (in 2008!!) he is behaving in what I would say a childish and opportunist way.
He is a rather stupid back-scratcher.
To give you an idea yesterday he came out on the news with a most extraordinary declaration.
He said the ONLY way to finish off the Iraqi problem of kidnappings is for the USA and all the other countries involved in the conflict to immediately quit the Country, as we did last June.
He thinks that splendid attitude of his, will guarantee him an increasing number of votes 4 years from now. Certainly, not mine if Im still down here.
And he is also saying: maybe we should be doing something about legalizing euthanasia and homosexual marriages.
Again, this is nothing else but fishing for votes.
He, and I guess all the rest of his gang, are the kind of persons that claim to fight against color segregation, but they would have a heart attack if their sons or daughters would come one day and would tell them they are going to live with someone who is not stark white
I do not believe in euthanasia nor in abortion. I believe we cannot dispose of our lives at pleasure, even if this means extra pain and sorrow.
Here again we enter into the field of personal comfort. We would like our religion to be lenient and casuistical, and be able to adapt it to our convenience.
That person wants to abort because she is too young OK, go on, and dont worry!
Or that other is in bed in coma! Lets be charitable and lets get rid of him/her. He/She wont even notice!
We may end up behaving like Spartans, which brings back to my memory that famous sentence from Adolph Hitler:
The abandonment (or eventual killing) of sick, puny and misshapen people and children by the Spartans was more humanitarian and, in reality, a thousand times more humane than the pitiful madness of our present time where the most sickly subjects are preserved at any price only to be followed by the breeding of a race from degenerates burdened with disease.
Great words, arent them?
Sometimes, I have the feeling that Hitlers ectoplasm is floating around us looking for new opportunities
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 09/08/04 - Free Will: what is it, and when do we get it? What is "free will"? When, as humans, are we endowed with it? at birth? at age of reason? at age of consent? at the age of our first sin?
Let's take a hypothetical example:
a young girl is raised in a religous orphanage from birth to the age of 15. At the age of 15, she is sent to a religous prison, where she is incarcerated for the rest of her natural life at forced labor. She is beaten by the religous leaders of the prison for any "sin" or defiance of the rules, she is not allowed to speak to others in the prison or ask questions of the leaders. She simply works 6 days a week, and performs religous ceremonies on the 7th. There is practically no chance to escape, and anyone who tries is beaten severely with rubber hoses especially made by the leaders to punish prisoners. They are often beaten unto near death for petty crimes, and she cannot fathom the punishment for attempting escape.
THe "crime" for which she is placed in this prison is that the religous leaders felt she was "too pretty", and would possibly sin or lead others into sin if she was allowed to remain in the outside world.
At which point did this woman have free will? curious98 answered on 09/09/04:
This girl had always free will from the moment she was born.
She had free will to endure her sufferings and remain faithful to the God her heart had turned to, or to the God she had been taught to worship. She was also free to renege of this God and curse him for having forsaken her.
In other words, she was free in her mind to think and believe the way she wanted.
In principle, nobody can control our minds; for we can abide by somebody else's instructions while thinking he/she is a son of a gun!
There are techniques, through hypnosis and/or chemicals, to try to control our minds (brainwashing) but, in any case, this refers to our physical life in this little world of ours; nothing to do with our spiritual life.
Regards
Claude
| | Question/Answer | | Saladin asked on 09/05/04 - Genesis 11
Who are the 'us' in Genesis 11:7?
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
curious98 answered on 09/06/04:Saladin,
I guess this fragment of the Gen. 11.7 is open to different interpretations. Im not a bible scholar so I will simply advance my personal opinion, which may be, of course, completely wrong.
In Gen. 11.5 and 11.6, it is being explained what the LORD did and gives the impression He is speaking with Himself. We also do that quite often, when we are thinking aloud
It also could be that in writing the Genesis, the author or authors (Moses?) might have decided to use the majestatic form whereas the Lord speaks with the plural form. We shall do this we shall do that
And in Gen. 11.8, it is said that the LORD scattered them
And it was the LORD who confounded the language Gen. 11.9.
So what He did, He did it by Himself, which is only natural. GOD can do what He wants, as He wants, from where He wants, and He needs no help whatsoever to do it.
If we accept this premise, the us in Gen. 11.7, could be simply Him, or He might be speaking with his Father and the Holy Spirit (if we accept the Trinity) and tell them what he was about to do.
But, let us not forget that this is a narration written by somebody else that was not the LORD (though it might be inspired by Him). In this case, Moses (if he was indeed the author) may have somewhat decided to adorn the text to give a major emphasis.
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 08/25/04 - Genesis 11, who is "they"? Who is "they" that travelled from the east in Genesis 11?
11:2
And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
11:3
And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar.
Does this refer to Noah's children, the survivors of the Ark? Does it refer to someone else? How soon after the Ark lands in the mountains of Ararat does the tower of Babel get built? curious98 answered on 08/27/04:The descendants of Noe had migrated from the "east" (Armenia) first southward, along the course of the Tigris, then westward across the Tigris into "a plain in the land of Sennar". As their growing number forced them to live in localities more and more distant from their patriarchal homes, "they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven; and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands." The work was soon fairly under way; "and they had brick instead of stones, and slime (asphalt) instead of mortar." But God confounded their tongue, so that they did not understand one another's speech, and thus scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city.
This is the Biblical account of the Tower of Babel, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Thus far no Babylonian document has been discovered which refers clearly to the subject. Authorities like George Smith, Chad Boscawen, and Sayce believed they had discovered a reference to the Tower of Babel; but Frd. Delitzch pointed out that the translation of the precise words which determine the meaning of the text is most uncertain (Smith-Delitzsch. "Chaldaische Genesis", 1876, 120-124; Anmerk., p. 310).
Oppert finds an allusion to the Tower of Babel in a text of Nabuchodonosor; but this opinion is hardly more than a theory (cf. "The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia", I, pl. 38, col. 2, line 62; pl. 41, col. 1, I. 27, col. 2, 1. 15; Nikel, "Genesis und Keilschriftforschung", 188 sqq.; Bezold, "Ninive und Babylon", 128; Jeremias, "Das alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients", 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1906, 286; Kaulen, "Assyrien und Babylonien", 89).
A more probable reference to the Tower of Babel we find in the "History" of Berosus as it is handed down to us in two variations by Abydenus and Alexander Polyhistor respectively ("Histor. Graec. Fragm.", ed. Didot, II, 512; IV, 282; Euseb., "Chron.", I, 18, in P.G., XIX, 123; "Praep. Evang.", IX, 14, in P.G., XXI, 705). Special interest attaches to this reference, since Berosus is now supposed to have drawn his material from Babylonian sources.
However, this is one of the narrations of the Bible that is has been more or less verified archaeologically.
The story of the tower of Babel found in the Bible is familiar to many. Is there evidence that such a tower really existed? There are archaeological indications that it did, indeed.
In the fertile Mesopotamian plain between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in what is now modern Iraq, there was a mound, or tell, of broken mud-brick buildings and debris. This is all that remained of the ancient famed city of Babylon, probably now destroyed for good, because of the war.
Babylon was one of a number of cities built by a succession of peoples that lived on the plain starting around 6.500 years ago. There developed a tradition in each city of building a temple in the shape of a stepped pyramid. These temples, or ziggurates, most likely honored a particular god. The people of Mesopotamia believed in many gods and often a city might have several ziggurates. Over time Babylon became the most influential city on the plain and its ziggurat, honoring the god Marduk (their main god), was built, destroyed and rebuilt until it was the tallest tower.
Archaeologists examining the remains of the city of Babylon have found what appears to be the foundation of the tower: a square of earthen embankments some three-hundred feet on each side. The tower's most splendid incarnation was probably under King Nabuchodonosor II who lived from 605-562 BC. The King rebuilt the tower to stand 295 feet high. According to an inscription made by the king the tower was constructed of "baked brick enameled in brilliant blue." The terraces of the tower may have also been planted with flowers and trees.
Constructing ziggurats on the Mesopotamian plain was not easy. The area lacks the stone deposits the Egyptians used effectively for their timeless monuments. The wood available is mostly palm, not the best for construction, so the people used what they had in abundance: mud and straw. The bulk of the towers were constructed of crude bricks made by mixing chopped straw with clay and pouring the results into molds. After the bricks were allowed to bake in the sun they were joined in construction by using bitumen, a slimey material imported from the Iranian plateau. Bitumen was used widely as a binding and coating material throughout the Mesopotamian plain.
The tower, referred to by the Babylonians as Etemenanki, was only one of the marvels of the city. Down the street was the Hanging Gardens, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Nebuchadnezzar also had two impressive palaces inside the city. The final beginning of the end of the tower of Babel probably began around 478 BC. The city had been taken over by the Persian King Xerxes who crushed a rebellion there that year. The tower was neglected and crumbled .
Because of the use of mud-baked bricks, ziggurats needed constant maintenance. Often they had elaborate internal drainage systems to channel rain water away so that the bricks would not be eroded. If the pipes on a ziggurat were not cleaned regularly and allowed to jam the tower would slowly crumble. Ziggurats were also highly susceptible to earthquake damage. Their height amplified the effect of quake forces while the rigid, unreinforced-brick construction did not allow the structures to flex with the shaking.
Although the Tower of Babel is now gone, a few lessor ziggurats still exist. The largest surviving, (although damaged) temple is now found in western Iran, in what was once the ancient land of Elam. It is located about 18 miles from the capital of Elam, a city named Susa. Built in 1250 BC by the King Untash-Napirisha it once had five levels and stood 170 feet in height.
Even in 460 BC, after the tower had been crumbling for many years, the Greek historian Herodotus visited the tower and was very impressed. "It has a solid central tower, one furlong square, with a second erected on top of it and then a third, and so on up to eight. All eight towers can be climbed by a spiral way running around the outside, and about halfway up there are seats for those who make the journey to rest on."
Though the tower has been gone for many years, its biblical story has continued to inspire artists. It was a favorite subject during the 14th century when several well-known paintings were done. As archaeological and historical research has shown most were not truly representative of the actual building.
So, in conclusion, you can see that "The Biblical Tower" was, in any case, one of many of a typical monument of the epoch in former Mesopotamia, very much ad the Pyramids were quite popular in Egypt.
Best regards
Claude
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 08/23/04 - Adam and others In Genesis 1:27, God created Adam (on the sixth day). Genesis 1:27 says that "male and female He created them." This is also repeated in Genesis 5:1 and 5:2, where God created man, male and female, and blessed them.
Who is the "them" that God created on the 6th day? It can't be Eve, because woman was created later, after the 7 days of creation, after the creation of Eden, etc., wasn't she? God finished the sixth day (Genesis 1:31), and then He ended His working and creating on the 7th day, and He rested (Genesis 2:2
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.)
Secondly,
How do scholars differentiate between the "man" God created on day 6 (genesis 1:27) and the "man" God created on day 2 (genesis 2:4 to 2:7)? In Genesis 2, God clearly makes man on the same day as He made the earth and Heaven. curious98 answered on 08/24/04:
I think your question is purely academic. If the process of creation had actually been accomplished as the Genesis account we might wonder about the what and the whys of the passages you are referring to.
The fact remains, however, that God created our Earth and its contents in an entirely different way to what the Scriptures say. And consequently, the way creation is narrated in the Genesis can only be attributed to the imagination of its authors and of the subsequent translators.
And I say authors for I find it hard to accept contrary to what my French rabbi friend says- that the Genesis was dictated to Moses by God himself during the 40 years that Moses needed to go across the desert to the promised land.
The Scriptures -probably, inspired, which is different than dictated - were written by men according to the knowledge available thousands of years ago, which has to explain whatever problems we may experience in interpreting them.
To this, you must add, as I said before, the differences small or big - arising from the many translations and translators.
For instance, our friend Yiddishkeit, in his answer to you, sounds somewhat reluctant to use a different Bible than his Hebrew one when, if they would all be alike, Hebrew, Catholic, Orthodox or Protestants would not really matter, for they would all have been the same author, would not they?
Regards
Claude
| | Question/Answer | | paraclete asked on 08/21/04 - How much religion is involved in the celebration of the Olympic games? I think we have forgotten the spiritually historic basis behind the Olympic Games curious98 answered on 08/22/04:The origin of the ancient Olympic Games has been lost, although there are many legends surrounding its origins. One of these legends associates the first Games with the ancient Greek concept of "Ekeicheiria" or Olympic Truce. The first recorded celebration of the Games in Olympia was in 776 BC, although this was certainly not the first time they were held. The Games were then mostly a local affair, and only one event was contested, the stadion race.
From that moment on, the Games slowly became more important throughout ancient Greece, reaching their zenith in the sixth and fifth centuries BC. The Olympics had, of course, a religious importance, for they honoured Zeus, of whom a huge statue stood at Olympia. The number of events increased to twenty, and the celebration was spread over several days. Winners of the events were broadly admired and were immortalised in poems and statues. The Games were held every four years, and the period between two celebrations became known as an Olympiad. The Greeks used Olympiads as one of their methods to count years.
The Games gradually lost in importance as the Romans gained power in Greece. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, the Olympic Games were seen as a "pagan" festival, and in 393, the emperor Theodosius forbade the Olympics, ending a thousand year period of Olympic Games.
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | Bradd asked on 08/11/04 - Beginnings of Religion What do you think is the source of religion? There are so many, and some are clearly opposed to others - to such a degree that one or the other must be "false".
How old do you think religion is?
For discussion purposes, I define religion as the belief in the supernatural (or outside of nature). curious98 answered on 08/19/04:Sorry for the delay, but I was out on holidays:
To try to properly answer your question I should disregard my own beliefs, to give you an objective view based on scientifical recent explanations. However, for me the existence of a supreme Creator is out of any question.
When we study the history of life, it is easy to see that life has evolved over time. The fossils of creatures that lived before us faithfully record the innovations and changes leading to the diversity of life that we observe today. The history of religion is much shorter, yet it too has left a fossil record revealing some of the innovations and changes leading to the diversity of religions which now surround us However, religion may be a special case of mystery religion depends on mystery and once the mystery is unraveled religion may not survive.
The evolution of humankind and religion are inextricably bound together. For millions of years evolution was controlled by one set of rules. The rules were simple: whichever genes carried the design for creatures most efficient at getting their genes copied into a new generation would come to dominate any gene pool. Then at some point those genes described a new environment. The new environment was a brain of sufficient power to support language. A new replicator would soon take advantage of the new environment. Not surprisingly, a rule very similar to the one for genetic replicators would apply to the new replicators. Whichever language constructs were most efficient at getting themselves copied would come to dominate the pool of language constructs.
Religion is really just a language construct a word-based replicator. Religions are affected by their environment and normally affect their environment in turn. The replicators must then adapt to the changes or perish. Thus we can see that the rules regarding natural selection of replicators apply equally to biological life and bodies of religious thought.
Evolution of life is a fact. The evidence is overwhelming. For example, Within our lifetime we have observed the rise of drug resistant bacteria and pesticide resistant insects.
Bodies of religious thought also evolve. The evidence is overwhelming. For example Christianity is clearly descended from Judaism. In turn, Judaism can trace its roots all the way back to the mythology of Zeus (Drews, 1998).
Many people no longer believed God conjured the Earth and man from nothing, but adapted by believing God's unseen hand directed our creation via natural laws. Humankind has an innate fascination with his origins and seems to need an explanation. Before science offered other explanations, this would seem to have the effect of making humankind a ready vessel for the need of religions.
Human curiosity is another characteristic seeming to go well beyond that of any other creature on Earth. We have a deep-seated desire to understand our surroundings. Again, before science offered competing ideas, this curiosity would seem to facilitate the need for religion as a means to explain the unknown. The young mind in particular seems to ask Why? A parent or religious leader was happy to answer and by doing so unwittingly transferred his beliefs to the next generation.
There are other characteristics of humankind which may show how our genes have been manipulated to better accommodate our religious experiences.
The God Module, if it exists, seems to be responsible for all sorts of visions and spiritual feelings in persons where it is not normally inhibited such as persons with certain types of brain-damage.
The term God Module was coined to describe a part of the brain which some people believe to be responsible for spiritual experiences. Many people would like to interpret the God Module as evidence that our creator made us in such a way that we could properly worship him. Mainstream scientists and free-thinkers are likely to dismiss the whole idea as illogical ranting or seek an explanation that does not involve religion (Noelle, 1998). Perhaps a better explanation is provided by the idea that the God Module does indeed exist and represents another way in which the genetic code of humankind has been manipulated to better accommodate this need or curiosity. A brain structure which created spiritual feelings or visions would seem to mesh nicely with a humankind's curiosity about his origins and surroundings. If we are wired so that we feel the constant presence of a supernatural being, then we are more likely to follow the rules of our beliefs and more likely to pass along the genetic code for accommodating to it.
Our need for ceremony crosses all cultures and has existed for all of recorded history. Does ceremony help our genes, or does it exist because it enhances the transmission of our ideas? There is evidence that Neanderthals placed flowers with the dead (Eccles, 1991). We still perform that ceremony to this very day. Yet, flowers for the dead cannot be interpreted in terms of getting genes into the next generation. However, from the vantage-point of most religions, flowers for the dead make perfect sense! Finally, does our recorded history exist to help us, or does it exist primarily to help stabilize and validate our theories?
Why are there Temples, Priests, and Nuns? Many religions include religious leaders who do not have children. Many religions also require the building of elaborate ceremonial structures. Can either temples or celibate religious leaders be interpreted as enhancing the reproduction of the genes in the temple builders or celibate religious leaders? Natural selection, even in terms of a selfish gene says No. Does a celibate religious leader make sense from the vantage-point of a selfish religion? Yes, because all their resources and energy which would have gone into reproduction are now redirected to replication and reinforcement of that religion! Purely ceremonial structures must be interpreted in the same way. These structures reinforce and spread a belief, but cannot be interpreted as contributing to the reproductive success of the builders. Building a temple or other purely ceremonial structure represents a diversion of important resources away from childbearing and child-rearing.
The appeal of religion cannot be underestimated. For example John Eccles writes I am constrained to attribute the uniqueness of the Self or Soul to a supernatural spiritual creation (1991, p.237). Eccles further concludes Each Soul is a new Divine creation which is implanted into the growing foetus at some time between conception and birth. Eccles is a highly educated scientist and Nobel prize winner and reached this conclusion after exhaustive research into the evolution and inner workings of the human brain!
The same quest for knowledge has led to many discoveries and many new discoveries have the effect of eliminating the mysteries formerly used by religions as connection points to the human mind. It would seem we are at a crossroads. We may follow the path of truth as rational and logical science or we may follow some other path that makes us feel better. What is certain is this: we cannot do both.
So I have chosen to follow the path that makes me feel better, i.e. Gods path.
Claude
| | Question/Answer | | avrom asked on 08/08/04 - What is your problem? For Aton2:
You wrote in a comment:
" that the three supporters of the Israeli killing of Palestinian children, should also be indiffernt to the Bush administration killing Iraqi children. Of course, what else can be expected from those who worship a war-mongering, desert tyrant as God???? Yahweh had nor more respect for innocent lives that any of the ' Musketeers of invasion...Avrom, Yiddishkeit, ETWolverine.
May God have mercy on your poor children. "
Dear Aton,
If you have any direct problem with anything I have said, please come out and say it. Please do not lump me with ETWolverine and Yiddishkeit, while, I may agree with them 90-95% of the time, I am in fact, not them.
Where have I stated any view that expresses that I support the willful, purposeful killing of innocent children?
Please, directly quote me and give a coherant logical argument why you think I am in error. Then maybe we can discuss this as adults instead of you resorting to childish insults. Your reference to my poor children (3 of them, thank G-d) is below the belt and probably merits a four letter word response followed by the word " you " but I dont do things like that. curious98 answered on 08/19/04:I can see that the Iraq war is still going on hot in this forum!.
I have just arrived from a few days in Anman and Ryad and for those of you who have in such high esteem the role the present US Administration is playing in the Middle East Countries, I would advise a short visit to anyone of the Countries in the area.
Nothing like being exposed to first hand information from some of the protagonists in the dispute.
Best regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 08/08/04 - NUNDINAE!
The Romans had a nine-day "week" (Nundinae) with each ninth day being the market day. Constantine adopted a seven-day week, oddly enough for a Christian, naming the days after the planets.
How did the Jews come to have such an unweildly system as a seven-day week?
How did the Sabbath get transferred from Saturday to Sunday?
HANK
curious98 answered on 08/19/04:Hi Hank,
Digging into the history of the 7-day week is a very complicated matter. Authorities have very different opinions about the history of the week, and they frequently present their speculations as if they were indisputable facts. The only thing we seem to know for certain about the origin of the 7-day week is that we know nothing for certain.
The common explanation is that the seven-day week was established as imperial calendar in the late Roman empire and furthered by the Christian church for historical reasons. The British Empire used the seven-day week and spread it worldwide. Today the seven-day week is enforced by global business and media schedules.
As you already know, the first pages of the Bible explain how God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. This seventh day became the Jewish day of rest, the sabbath, Saturday.
Extra-biblical locations sometimes mentioned as the birthplace of the 7-day week include: Babylon, Persia, and several others. The week was known in Rome before the advent of Christianity.
There are practical geometrical theories as well. For example, if you wrap a rubber band around 7 soda cans (or any other convenient circular objects). You get a perfect hexagon with the 7th can in the middle. It is the only stable configuration of wrapping more than 3 circular objects. Four, 5, and 6 objects will slip from one configuration to another. Ancients wrapping tent poles, small logs for firewood, or other circular objects might have come upon this number and attach a mystical significance to it.
One viable theory correlates the seven day week to the seven (astrological) "planets" known to the ancients: Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn. The number seven does not seem an obvious choice to match lunar or solar periods, however. A solar year could be more evenly divided into weeks of 5 days, and the moon phases five-day and six-day weeks make a better short term fit (6 times 5 is 30) to the lunar (synodic) month (of about 29.53 days) than the current week (4 times 7 is 28). The seven-day week may have been chosen because its length approximates one moon phase (one quarter = 29.53 / 4 = 7.3825).
Im quoting below an interesting paper on the subject offering additional info. on it.
Quote:
The first thing to understand is that a week is not necessarily seven days. In pre-literate societies weeks of 4 to 10 days were observed; those weeks were typically the interval from one market day to the next. Four to 10 days gave farmers enough time to accumulate and transport goods to sell. (The one week that was almost always avoided was the 7-day week -- it was considered unlucky!) The 7-day week was introduced in Rome (where ides, nones, and calends were the vogue) in the first century A.D. by Persian astrology fanatics, not by Christians or Jews. The idea was that there would be a day for the five known planets, plus the sun and the moon, making seven; this was an ancient West Asian idea. However, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire in the time of Constantine (c. 325 A.D.), the familiar Hebrew-Christian week of 7 days, beginning on Sunday, became conflated with the pagan week and took its place in the Julian calendar. Thereafter, it seemed to Christians that the week Rome now observed was seamless with the 7-day week of the Bible -- even though its pagan roots were obvious in the names of the days: Saturn's day, Sun's day, Moon's day. The other days take their equally pagan names in English from a detour into Norse mythology: Tiw's day, Woden's day, Thor's day, and Fria's day.
The amazing thing is that today the 7-day week, which is widely viewed as being Judeo-Christian, even Bible-based, holds sway for civil purposes over the entire world, including countries where Judaism and Christianity are anathema. Chinese, Arabs, Indians, Africans, Japanese, and a hundred others sit down at the U.N. to the tune of a 7-day week, in perfect peace (at least calendrically!). So dear is this succession of 7 days that when the calendar changed from Julian to Gregorian the week was preserved, though not the days of the month: in 1752, in England, Sept. 14 followed Sept. 2 -- but Thursday followed Wednesday, as always. Eleven days disappeared from the calendar -- but not from the week!
Unquote:
Regards
Claude
| | Question/Answer | | revdauphinee asked on 08/08/04 - Seperation of church and state ! Recently a judge in a neighbouring state to mine here lost his job because he chose to promote the ten commandments in a state ofice building.Yet all over the country there are folks preaching to thier congregations from the pulpit the greateness of Geo w. Bush( in other words promoting a vote for him )and please dont tell me this dosent happen, I myself have heard it.It seems this sepperation stuff only works one way here if you promote your faith in a government setting it is wrong! however if you promote the government in a religious setting its ok?
seems like sepperation only works one way to me what is your oppinion?
curious98 answered on 08/19/04:Don't know why you are surprised.
Mr. Bush, has time and again, boasted of his
close relationship with God.
I'm sure he has a especial "carte blanche", granted by the Big Boss, to use any religious settings at Bush's convenience.
With a little bit of luck, though, Mr. Kerry may bring in some order in these matters.
Regards
Claude
PS:
Sorry for the delay. I've been for a fornight in Jordan (spending some holidays with friends) and have arrived only today. | | Question/Answer | | koinegreek asked on 08/03/04 - 40 years of living in ignorance? Tell me how ignorant you are? Your profile has the readings of a no nothing? curious98 answered on 08/19/04:What the heck is this question about?
Is it only for US citizens?
I'm sorry. I've been spending a few days in Jordan on a holiday, and I've come back today a bit confused.
Best regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 07/25/04 - EGYPT!
Does the pharaonic religion give the impression that the Egyptians were preoccupied with death?
HANK
curious98 answered on 07/27/04:Dear Hank
The Egyptians saw death as a transitional stage in the progress to a better life in the next world. They believed they could only reach their full potential after death. Each person was thought to have three souls, the "ka," the "ba," and the "akh." For these to function properly, it was considered essential for the body to survive intact. The entire civilization of Ancient Egypt was based on religion, and their beliefs were important to them. Their belief in the rebirth after death became their driving force behind their funeral practices.
In a way, very much like our present monotheistic religions teach.
Regards
Claude | | Question/Answer | | Pamela asked on 07/24/04 - The old excuse Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden and God noticed that Adam was a bit slow about certain instructions He had given. So He called Adam to Him:
"Adam" God said. "I want you to go give Eve's hand a squeeze"
Adam said: "LORD, what's a squeeze?"
So God explained what a squeeze was, and Adam went off to find Eve.
A few minutes later, Adam returned with a smile on his face.
So God daid: "Adam, I want you to go and give Eve a kiss"
Adam asked "LORD, what'a a kiss?"
So God explained what a kiss was and Adam went off again to find Eve. A few minutes later He returned, with a puzzled expression on his face.
"LORD, I have to ask" said Adam. "What's a headache?"
curious98 answered on 07/27/04:That figures!
Now I understand how in 54 years of marriage, for 5.616 tiems, my wife have told she was developping a migraine fater the good night kiss...
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | Bradd asked on 06/24/04 - Proofreading Claude, My emails for the last several days have been returned by your end. "Access denied" or ͎ Data line too large (Max 1024)"
Since the reliability is less than adequate, you may want to remove me from your list of editors. If you have some suggestions, I'm open to them.
Otherwise, it has been a privelege to help you, and I wish you the best of luck.
Regards curious98 answered on 06/25/04:OK, Bradd.
I agree. For some mysterious reasons I have problems with some addresses -even family ones- while most others go smoothly.
Anyway, thanks for your cooperation, and I remain always at your disposal.
Thanks again
Claude | | Question/Answer | | kindj asked on 06/18/04 - Let's see if I can sneak this one by... Gonna try to sneak in a joke here, and hope the Post Police don't get me...
A young woman brings home her fiance to meet her parents. After dinner, her mother tells her father to find out about the young man. The father invites the fiance to his study for a drink. "So what are your plans?" the father asks the young man.
"I am a Torah scholar," he replies.
"A Torah scholar. Hmm." the father says. "Admirable, but what will you do to provide a nice house for my daughter to live in as she's accustomed to?"
"I will study," the young man replies, "and God will provide for us."
"And how will you buy her a beautiful engagement ring such as she deserves?" asks the father.
"I will concentrate on my studies," the young man replies, "and God will provide for us."
"And children?" asks the father. "How will you support children?"
"Don't worry, sir, God will provide," replies the fiance.
The conversation proceeds like this, and each time the father questions, the young idealist insists that God will provide.
Later, the mother asks, "How did it go, honey?"
The father answers, "He has no job and no plans, but the good news is he thinks I'm God."
curious98 answered on 06/18/04:So good and so real...
LoL and reLol
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | tomder55 asked on 06/18/04 - Madonna Madonna is planning on changing her name to "Esther". She says that as she has gotten older and more mature, she thinks "Madonna" is no longer appropriate. Never mind that Esther was a beautiful virgin in The Bible. The most beautiful virgin given to the King (Esther 2:2-7).
Yep. That describes her perfectly
Recently ,I read that she was involved in a Talmudic movement ;a 'Kabbalah Centre' which was described as a Jewish cult . What is that all about ?
curious98 answered on 06/18/04:Hi,
The origins of the Kabalah are lost in the mists of antiquity; no one can demonstrate who was its author, or who were its earliest teachers. Considerable evidence may be adduced to show that its roots pass back to the Hebrew Rabbis who flourished at the time of the Second Temple about the year 515 B.C. Of its existence before that time there are no proofs that I know of.
It has been suggested that the captivity of the Jews in Babylon led to the formation of this philosophy by the effect of Chaldean lore and dogma acting on Jewish tradition. No doubt in the earliest stages of its existence the teaching was entirely oral, hence the name QBLH from QBL to receive, and it became varied by the minds through which it filtered in its course; there is no proof that any part of it was written for centuries after. It has been kept curiously distinct both from the Exoteric Pentateuchal Mosaic books, and from the ever-growing Commentaries upon them, the Mishna and Gemara, which form the Talmud. This seems to have grown up in Hebrew theology without combining with the recondite doctrines of the Kabalah. In a similar manner it can be seen in that in India the Upanishads, an Esoteric series of treatises, grew up alongside the Brahmanas and the Puranas, which are Exoteric instructions designed for the use of the masses of the people.
With regard to the oldest Kabalistic books still extant, I understand a controversy is raging among modern critics, who deny the asserted era of each work, and try to show that the assumed author is the only person who could not have written each one in question. But these critics show the utmost divergence of opinion the moment it becomes necessary to fix on a date or an author; so much more easy is destructive criticism than the acquirement of real knowledge.
The "Sepher Yetzirah" or "Book of Formation" is the oldest treatise; it is attributed by legend to Abraham the Patriarch. This work explains a most curious philosophical scheme of Creation, drawing a parallel between the origin of the world, the sun, the planets, the elements, seasons, man and the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet; dividing them into a Triad, a Heptad and a Dodecad; three mother letters A, M, and Sh are referred to primeval Air, Water and Fire; seven double letters are referred to the planets and the sevenfold division of time, etc.: and the twelve simple letters are referred to the months, zodiacal signs and human organs. Modern criticism tends to the conclusion that the existing ancient versions were compiled about A.D. 200. The "Sepher Yetzirah" is mentioned in the Talmuds, both of Jerusalem and of Babylon; it was written in the Neo-Hebraic language, like the Mishna.
The "Zohar" or" Sohar" spelled in Hebrew ZHR or ZUHR "The Book of Splendour" or of "Light," is a collection of many separate treatises on the Deity, Angels, Souls and Cosmogony. Its authorship is ascribed to Rabbi Simon ben Jochai, who lived A.D. 160; he was persecuted and driven to live in a cave by Lucius Aurelius Verus, co-regent with the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. Some considerable portion of the work may have been arranged by him from the oral traditions of his time: but other parts have certainly been added by other hands at intervals up to the time when it was first published as a whole by Rabbi Moses de Leon, of Guadalajara in Spain, circa 1290. From that time its history is known; printed Editions have been issued in Mantua, 1558, Cremona, 1560, and Lublin, 1623; these are the three famous Codices of "The Zohar" in the Hebrew language. For those of us who do not read Hebrew the only practical means of studying the Zohar are the partial translation into Latin of Baron Knorr von Rosenroth, published in 1684 under the title of "Kabbala Denudata" and the English edition of three treatises,--"Siphra Dtzenioutha" or "Book of Concealed Mystery" "Ha Idra Rabba," "Greater Assembly" and "Ha Idra Suta," " Lesser Assembly," translated by S. L. MacGregor Mathers. These three books give a fair idea of the tone, style and material of the Zohar but they only include a partial view: other tracts in the Zohar are :--Hikaloth--The Palaces, Sithre Torah--Mysteries of the Law, Midrash ha Neelam--The secret commentary, Raja Mehemna--The faithful shepherd, Saba Demishpatim,--The discourse of the Aged--the prophet Elias, and Januka--The Young man; with Notes called Tosephta and Mathanithan.
In course of publication there is now a French translation of the complete Zohar, by Jean de Pauly: this is a most scholarly work.
Other famous Kabalistic treatises are :-- "The Commentary on the Ten Sephiroth," by Rabbi Azariel ben Menachem, 1200 A.D. ; "The Alphabet" of Rabbi Akiba; " The Gate of Heaven" ; the "Book of Enoch" "Pardes Rimmonim, or Garden of Pomegrantes" "A treatise on the Emanations" "Otz ha Chiim, or The Tree of Life" of Chajim Vital; "Rashith ha Galgulim, or Revolutions of Souls" of Isaac de Loria; and especially the writings of the famous Spanish Jew, Ibn Gebirol, who died A.D. 1070, and was also called Avicebron, his great works are "The fountain of life" and "The Crown of the Kingdom."
The teaching of the Kabalah has been considered to be grouped into several schools, each of which was for a time famous. It may be mentioned :--The School of Gerona, 1190 to 1210, of Rabbi Isaac the Blind, Rabbis Azariel and Ezra, and Moses Nachmanides. I must pointed out that Gerona, along with Toledo (both in Spain) had the most important Jewish communities in Spain, during the Middle Age. The School of Segovia of Rabbis Jacob, Abulafia (died 1305), Shem Tob (died 1332), and Isaac of Akko. The School of Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham Ibn Latif about 1390. The School of Abulafia (died 1292) and Joseph Gikatilla (died 1300); also the Schools of "Zoharists" of Rabbis Moses de Leon (died 1305), Menahem di Recanti (died 1350), Isaac Loria (died 1572) and Chajim Vital, who died in 1620. All the above from Spain. A very famous German Kabalist was John Reuchlin or Capnio, and he wrote two great works, the "De Verbo Mirifico," and "De arte Cabalistica."
In the main there were two tendencies among the Kabalists: the one set devoted themselves entirely to the doctrinal and dogmatic branch: the other to the practical and wonder-working aspect.
The greatest of the wonder-working Rabbis were Isaac Loria, also called Ari; and Sabatai Zevi, who curiously enough became a Mahommedan. Both of these departments of Occult Rabbinic lore have their living representatives, chiefly scattered individuals; very rarely groups of initiates are found. In Central Europe, parts of Russia, Austria and Poland there are even now Jews, known as Wonder-working Rabbis, who can do strange things they attribute to the Kabalah, and things very difficult to explain have been seen in England, at the hands of students of Kabalistic rites and talismans.
The Rabbinic Commentaries, many series deep, overlaying each other, which now exist in connection with the old treatises form such a mass of Kabalistic lore as to make it an almost impossible task to grasp them; probably no Christian nor Jew in the USA can say what doctrines are not still laid up in some of the old manuscript works.
The Dogmatic or Theoretical Kabalah indicates philosophical conceptions respecting the Deity, Angels and beings more spiritual than man; the human Soul and its several aspects or parts; concerning pre-existence and re-incarnation and the several worlds or planes of existence.
The Practical Kabalah attempts a mystical and allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament, studying each phrase, word and letter; it teaches the connection between letters and numbers and the modes of their inter-relation; the principles of Gematria, Notaricon, and Temura; the formation and uses of the divine and angelic names as Amulets; the formation of Magic Squares; and a vast fund of allied curious lore, which subsequently formed the basis of Mediaeval Magic.
For those who do not wish to read any Kabalistic work as a whole, but rather to glean a general view of this philosophy, there are now three standard works; two are in English; one by Dr. C. Ginsburg, 1865, a formal and concise rsum of the doctrines; the other, an excellent book, "The Doctrine and Literature of the Kabalah," by Arthur E. Waite, 1902; and one in French by Adolph Franck, 1889, which is more discursive and gives fewer details (the one these notes are taken from).
Many points of the teaching of Indian systems of religious philosophy are not touched on by the Hebrew system, or are excluded by differences of a fundamental nature: such as the Cosmogony of other Worlds, unless the destroyed Worlds of Unbalanced Force refer to these; the inviolability of law, as Karma, is not a prominent feature; Reincarnation is taught, but the number of re-births is limited generally to three.
Some small part of the Kabalistic doctrine is found in the Jewish Talmud, but in that collection of treatises there is some grossness that is absent from the true Kabalah; such are the theories of the debasement of men into animal forms; and of men to be re-born as women, as a punishment for earthly sins in a previous life.
It must be remembered that many points of doctrine are limited to the teachings of but a few Rabbis; and that the differences between the earliest and latest doctrines on a given point are sometimes very great, as is shown by a comparison of the Books of the Rabbis of different eras and schools. Some of the Kabalistic teaching has also never been printed nor published, and has been handed down even to this day from master to pupil only: there are some points not found in any Hebrew book, which, however, can be found and are taught in the Rosicrucian Society and in Hermetic Lodges. An attentive study of some of these old mystical Hebrew books discloses the existence of intentional "blinds," which appear to have been introduced to confine certain dogmas to certain students fitted to receive them, and to preserve them from promiscuous distribution and so from misuse by the ignorant or vicious.
Two or three centuries have now passed since any notable addition to the body of Kabalistic doctrine has been made, but before that time a long succession of commentaries had been produced, all tending to illustrate or extend the philosophical scheme.
As already said, when the Kabalah first took shape as a concrete whole and a philosophic system, may remain for ever an unknown datum, but if we regard it, as I believe is correct, as the Esotericism of the religion of the Hebrews, the foundation dogmas are doubtless almost as old as the first promulgation of the main principles of the worship of Jehovah.
As it would be pointless to initiate a debate about the fact some doubting scholars, are questioning whether the story of the Twelve Tribes is a historic fact, or whether there ever were a Moses, or even a King Solomon, it will be sufficient to say that the Jewish nation had the Jehovistic theology and a system of priestly caste, and a coherent doctrine, at the time of the Second Temple when Cyrus, Sovereign of all Asia, 536 B.C., holding the Jews in captivity, permitted certain of them to return to Jerusalem for the express purpose of reestablishing the Hebrew mode of worship which had been forcibly interfered with by the King Nebuchadnezzar in 587 B.C.
After this return to Jerusalem it was that Ezra and Nehemiah, circa 450 B.C., edited and compiled the Old Testament of the Hebrews, or according to those who deny the Mosaic authorship and the Solomonic rgime, it was then that the Pentateuch was written.
The renewed worship maintained until 320 B.C., when Jerusalem was captured by Ptolemy Soter, who, however, did not destroy the foundations of the Jewish religion; indeed his successor, Ptolemy Philadelphus, caused the Hebrew scriptures to be revised and translated into Greek by Seventy-two scholars, about 277 B.C.; this has been known for centuries as the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.
Further Jewish troubles followed, however, and Jerusalem was again taken and pillaged by Antiochus in 170 B.C. Then followed the long wars of the Maccabees; subsequently the Romans dominated Judea, then quarrelling with the Jews the city was taken by Pompey, and not long after was again plundered by the Roman general Crassus in 54 B.C. Yet the Jewish religion was preserved, and we find the religious feasts and festivals all in progress at the time of Jesus; yet once more in A.D. 70, was the Holy City taken, plundered and burnt, and that by Titus, who became Emperor of the Romans in A.D. 79.
Through all these vicissitudes, the Hebrew Old Testament survived, yet must almost unavoidably have had many alterations and additions made to its several treatises; the more Esoteric doctrines which were handed down along the line of the priestly caste, and not incorporated with the Torah offered to the people, may no doubt have been repeatedly varied by the influences of contending teachers.
Soon after this period was framed the first series of glosses and commentaries on the Old Testament books, which have come down to our times. Of these the earliest are the volume called the "Targum of Onkelos" on "The Law," written about A.D. 100, and that of Jonathan ben Uzziel on "The Prophets."
About A.D 141 there first came into note the now famous treatise written by the Rabbis of Judah, called "Mishna," and this formed the basis of those vast compilations of Hebrew doctrine called the "Talmud," of which there are two extant forms, one compiled at Babylon-the most notable, and the other associated with Jerusalem. To the original "Mishna" the Rabbis added further commentaries named "Gemara." From this time the literature of Judaism grew apace, and there was a constant succession of notable Hebrew Rabbis who published religious treatises, until at least A.D. 1500. The two Talmuds were first printed at Venice in 1520 and 1523 respectively.
The Old Testament books were the guiding light through the ages of the Jews, but the learned Rabbis were not satisfied with them alone, and they supplemented them by two parallel series of works of literature; the one, Talmudic, being commentaries based upon Thirteen Rules of Argument delivered by Moses to illustrate the Old Testament, and supply material for teaching the populace; and the other a long series of treatises of a more abstruse character, designed to illustrate their Secret Doctrines and Esoteric views. The Sepher Yetzirah, and the Zohar or Book of Splendour represent the kernel of that oral instruction which the Rabbis of the olden times prided themselves upon possessing, and which they have even claimed as being "The Secret Knowledge" which God gave to Moses for the use of the priests themselves, in contradistinction to the Written Law intended for the masses of the people.
One of the principal conceptions of the Kabalah is that spiritual wisdom is attained by Thirty-two Paths, typified by the Ten numbers and the Twenty-two letters; these Ten again being symbols of the Divine Emanations, the Sephiroth, the Holy Voices chanting at the Crystal Sea, the Great Sea, the Mother Supernal, Binah; and of the Twenty-two occult forces of the Nature of the Universe symbolised by the Three primary Elements, the Seven Planets, and the Twelve Zodiacal influences of the heavens, which tincture human concerns through the path of our Sun in its annual course.
Now to show the close connection between the Kabalah and orthodox Judaism, we find the Rabbis cataloguing the Books of the Old Testament into a series of Twenty-two (the letters) works to be read for the culture of spiritual life; this Twenty-two they obtained from the Thirty-nine books of the O.T. Canon, by collecting the twelve minor prophets into one treatise; Ruth they added to Judges; Ezra to Nehemiah; while the two books each of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, they called one each. The Canon of Thirty-nine works was fixed in the time of Ezra.
Returning to the books which illustrate the Kabalah, whatever may be the authenticity of their alleged origins, it cannot be denied that those ancient volumes, Sepher Yetzirah and Zohar, contain a system of spiritual philosophy of clear design, deep intuition and far-reaching cosmologic suggestions; that are well worthy of the honour of receiving a special name and of founding a theological body of doctrine,--The Kabalah.
The bulwark and main foundation of the public Hebrew religion has always been the Pentateuch, five treatises attributed to Moses, which proclaim the Laws of Jehovah given to his chosen people. The Old Testament beginning with these five books is further continued by historic books, by poetical teachings and by prophetic works, but many portions are marked by materialistic characteristics and a lack of spiritual rectitude which the books of a Great Religion might be expected to display, and they even offend our present standard of moral life.
The Mosaic Law, eminently valuable for many purposes to a small nation 3,000 years ago, and containing many regulations of a type showing great attention to sanitary matters, is yet marred by the application of penalties of gross cruelty and harsh treatment of erring mortals, which are hardly compatible with our modern views of what might have emanated from God the personal Creator of this Universe with its zillion worlds; and the almost entire absence of any reference to a life after death for human beings shows a materialism which needed a new Revelation by Jesus, whose life has earned the title of "Christ." Yet the orthodox of England hear this statement with incredulity, and if asked to show the passages in the Old Testament which insist on a life after death, or on a succession of lives for purposes of retribution, or the passages demonstrating the immortality of the soul, they could not produce them, and are content to refer you to the clergy, whose answer generally is, "If not plainly laid down, these dogmas are implied." But are they? If they are, how is it that notably clear passages can be quoted which show that important authors in the Old Testament make statements in direct opposition to these doctrines? And how is it, again, that a great author of modern times has said, "Prosperity was the blessing of the Old Testament for good works, but adversity that of the New"? This could only be true if there were no future life or lives, or no coming period of reward and punishment contemplated by the Old Testament doctrine.
But the comment is true and the Old Testament does teach that man is no more immortal than the beast, as witness Ecclesiastes, iii. 19 :--"For that which befalleth the sons of men, befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yeah they have all one breath; so that man hath no pre-eminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. . . . Wherefore some might perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?" Who, indeed, except his own Ego, Soul or Higher Self.
But perhaps this book is from the pen of some obscure Jew, or half pagan Chaldee or Babylonian. Not at all: Jewish critics have all assigned it to Solomon, who as you know- was the King of the Jews at the time of their heyday of glory; surely if the immortality of the soul were the essence of the Judaism of the people, Solomon could not have so grossly denied it.
Go back, however, to the narrative of Creation in Genesis, and the same story is found; the animals are made from the dust, man is made from the dust, and Eve is made from Adam, and each has breathed into the form, the "Nephesh Chiah,"--the breath of life, vitality; but there is no hint that Adam received a Ray of the Supernal Mind, which was to dwell there for a time, to gain experience, to receive retribution, and then enter another stage of progress, and achieve a final return to its Divine source. And yet the authors of these volumes, whoever they were, could hardly have been without the conception of the higher part of man, of his Spiritual Soul. The critical contention is that the Old Testament was deprived at some period of its religious philosophy, which was set apart for a privileged class; while the husk of strict law and tradition was alone offered for the acceptance of the people. The kernel of spiritual philosophy which is lacking in the Old Testament as a religious book may be the essential core of the Kabalah; for these Kabalistic dogmas are Hebraic, and they are spiritual, and they are sublime in their grandeur; and the Old Testament read by their light becomes a volume worthy of the acceptance of a nation. Im, of course, speaking of the essentials of the Kabalah, the ancient substratum of the Kabalah. Many are convinced that in many extant treatises these primal truths have been obscured by generations of editors, by visionary and often crude additions, and by the vagaries of Oriental imagery; but the keynotes of a great spiritual Divine concealed Power, of its Emanations in manifestation, of its energising of human life, of the prolonged existence of human souls, and of the temporary state of corporeal existence, are fundamental doctrines there fully illustrated; and these are the points of contact between the Kabalah of the Jew and the so-called Esotericism of the teachings of Buddha and of Hinduism.
It may be that the Catholic Church, which the Protestant Church seceded from during the Reform, was from its origin in the possession of the Hebrew Rabbinic secret of the intentional Exoteric nature of the Bible, and of a priestly mode of understanding the Esoteric Kabalah, as a key to the true explanations of the Jewish books, which being apparently histories are really largely allegorical. If this were granted, it would explain why the Catholic Church has for ages discouraged the laity from the study of the Old Testament books, and would lead some to think that Protestantism made a mistake in combining with the Reformation of some priests the encouragement of the laity to read the Old Testament books.
The literal interpretation of the Mosaic books and those of the Old Testament generally has repeatedly been used as a support for vicious Systems of conduct; a notable example of which was seen even a hundred years ago, when the clergy of some Protestant nations almost unanimously supported the continuance of the Slave Trade from arguments derived from the laws of Jehovah as stated to have been compulsory upon the Jews.
The Freethinkers of that day were largely the champions of suffering and oppressed races, and for centuries the wisest of men, the greatest scientists have maintained, and ever won, struggle after struggle with the assumed infallibility of old Hebraic Testament literal instructions, assertions and narratives.
The Old Testament may indeed be, to some extent, the link which binds together some of us Christians, for Jesus Christ founded His doctrine upon a Jewish people, but the interminable list of Christian sects of to-day have almost all taken their rise from the assertion of a right of personal interpretation of the Bible, which might have remained debarred to the generality by the confession that the keys of interpretation were lost, or at least missing, and that without their assistance error of a vital character was inevitable.
The vast accumulation of varying interpretations of the Bible, although a folly, yet sinks into insignificance as an incident of importance, before the collateral truth that the followers of each of the hundreds of sects have arrogated to themselves, not only the right of personal interpretation, but more often than not- the duty of condemning all others--as if the infallibility they claimed for the Bible could not fail to be reflected upon their personal propaganda, or the specialities of a chapel service. Religious intolerance has cursed many countries, and hardly a single sect has originated which has not only claimed the right to differ from others, and to criticise, but also to persecute and assign to perdition all beyond its own narrow circle.
The Mystic, the Occultist and the Theosophist do indeed do good, or God, service, by illustrating the bases and origins of all faiths by the mutual illumination that is available. By tolerance and mutual esteem much good may arise, but by the internecine struggles of religionists, every faith is injured, and religion becomes a by-word meaning intolerance, strife and vainglory, and the mark and profession of an earnest sectarian is now that he is ever ready to condemn the efforts of others, in direct opposition to the precept of Jesus the Christ, Who said--"Judge not, that ye be not judged." (Matthew 7:1-5)
One sect of the Jews, the Caraites, successors of the Sadducees, throughout history rejected the Kabalah, and it is necessary to say that the Hebrew Rabbis in USA and the U.K of the present day do not follow the practical Kabalah, nor accept all the doctrines of the Dogmatic Kabalah. On the other hand, many famous Christian authors have expressed great sympathy with the Doctrinal Kabalah.
St. Jerome, who died in A.D. 420, in his "Letter to Marcella," gives us all the Kabalistic Divine Names allotted to the Ten Sephiroth. Others were Raymond Lully, 1315; Pope Sixtus the Fourth, 1484; Pic de Mirandola, 1494; Johannes Reuchlin, 1522; H. Cornelius Agrippa, 1535; Jerome Cardan, 1576; Gulielmus Postellus, 1581; John Pistorius, 1608; Jacob Behmen, 1624; the notable English Rosicrucian, Robert Fludd, 1637; Henry More, 1687; the famous Jesuit Athanasius Kircher, 1680; and Knorr von Rosenroth, 1689. To these must be added Eliphaz Lvi and Edouard Schur, two modern French writers on the Occult Sciences, and two English authors, Anna Kingsford and Edward Maitland. The notable German philosopher Spinoza, 1677, regarded the doctrines of the Kabalah with great esteem.
Much more, of course, can be said on this fascinating subject, but I think I have exceeded the length of a normal answer by and far.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | paraclete asked on 06/17/04 - Dont give UP
"Don't give up. Moses was once a basket case."
curious98 answered on 06/18/04:Could any pious soul feel sorry for little "old" me and explain what am I missing between Paraclete's post and Elliot's answer?
Thanks
Claude | | Question/Answer | | paraclete asked on 06/15/04 - Knowing that some of you like humor and there are some strange religions about A Washington think tank has announced a breakthrough in the search for a pattern in the seemingly random US military aggression since World War II. "We think they are spelling out a message", explains an unnamed spokesperson. "If we take the first letters of Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Iraq, Iran, El Salvador, Grenada, Nicaragua and Somalia, it spells 'ELVIS _S KING'. We just need to find another 'I' country to complete the message."
Maybe this explains the second attack on Iraq?!
curious98 answered on 06/15/04:Yep! Interesting thought!
Anything, but the MDW!
Regards
Claude | | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 06/14/04 - Humour/Guaranteed to offend some. Have you heard the rumour?
California District Attorneys are worried that Michael Jackson may skip the country in an effort to avoid prosecution on his latest child molestation charges. Reports reaching their ears are that Michael's people are looking for countries that would accept Michael, welcome him and that share similar values to his.
Top contender is currently the Vatican City.
curious98 answered on 06/15/04:Hi Graeylin,
Ive tried to look at it by gathering all my sense of humor but Ive failed.
This is, of course, the sort of rumor (or joke, if you wish) that is spread with a very shabby and mean intention.
And of course, the same joke could be applied by replacing the Vatican, by La Mecca, by Jerusalem or by Bangkok.
When it comes to heterodox sexual practices I would challenge anyone to show me any country where you cannot find multiple instance of Michael Jacksons inclinations.
In ALL five stars Hotels in the Middle East countries from Tel-Aviv to Ryad, from Jeddah to Beirut, from Dubai to Bahrein, without forgetting, of course, Baghdad and Teheran (incidentally most of these Hotels with USA management) which I have visited in the last 40 years I have ALWAYS been offered by the night concierges whether I wanted to get some solace with young boys or girls under 12 years old. Same thing applies to all Maghrib and Sub-Saharan countries.
When in Bangkok, at the Dusit Thani Hotel for instance, they will tell you their best customers (and more demanding ones) for this kind of trade are the British. Apparently, there are a few travel agencies in London catering for this kind of sexual encounters in Thailand.
Im sure that in the Vatican there must be a few interested in pederasty and sodomy practices.
But the point is not this.
The point that really infuriates me is the hypocrisy spread all over the world in this respect.
Hollywood have found in Michael Jackson a good guinea pig for the yellow press, and they make it sound like if he was the only evil one in the whole of the States, and all the rest are saints.
Prostitution (feminine, masculine and/or children prostitution) is related to the amount of people that have to live below poverty level (mostly in great urban cities) and or drug consumption. LA is no exception, unfortunately, just as NY, Miami or Chicago is not either. Prostitution (at ALL levels) and drugs are easily available just as they are in Mexico City, Sao Paulo or Rio, Lima, etc. etc. The recent cases of pederasty in the very conservative Catholic circles of Boston (in fact, with lots of priests involved) have turned out to be an expensive game for the Bishopric (64 million dollars, so far) of Boston.
That reminds me of Jesus answer to the Pharisees who wanted to stone that woman taken in adultery.
He stooped down and started to write on the ground:
He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:1-11)
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | kindj asked on 06/14/04 - Can anyone verify this? My estimatin of Clinton just went up a notch, from the negatives to at least a zero when I read this.
But that's not the point. This article claims that the UN takes off on Christian and Muslim holidays, but not Jewish ones. Can anyone verify this from another source? A quick search of the UN website revealed nothing (go figure). Here's a portion of the text:
"But the National Day of Mourning didn't stop the U.N. from its regular schedule of festivities.
The U.N.'s headquarters in New York City remained open for business and all employees were expected to report for work, says spokesman Stephane Dujarric. "The U.N. does not discriminate on the basis of nationality," he explained.
That is not exactly true.
The U.N. shuts down for numerous Christian and Moslem holidays. (Interestingly, it has never closed for any Jewish holiday in its entire history.)
In September 2000, President Bill Clinton asked the U.N. to delay the opening of the General Assembly out of respect for the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur (the holiest day on the Jewish calendar.)
The answer was an emphatic "No."
Clinton boycotted the General Assembly's opening day and spoke the following week."
The source is NewsMax, a decidedly conservative internet news source. Not that that's a bad thing, but to be fair, I always like to double check anything from any source, especially when it's politically charged.
DK
curious98 answered on 06/15/04:
In my humble opinion, what the UN should be doing (bearing in mind they are representing practically all nations existing at present in the world) is ignoring ALL religious holidays (and possibly Political too) as an alternative to celebrating them ALL.
However, commenting this matter with a former UN employee (retired) she told me it is her belief this is done because of the importance and amount of member countries
whose religion is either some Christian or Islamic Church. In fact, there is only one country that professes the Jewish religion, i.e. Israel.
I can understand that this is not fair towards all Jews in the World, or at least in N.Y. This is why I said at the beginning, they should not be contemplating ANY religious holiday to be fair with everybody.
Because this problem may be important for Jews, as it appears from the answers given to this post, but Im sure it must also be important to other representatives in the U.N. for, although the majority are, of course, Christians and Moslems, there must be many others who are belonging to different religions altogether.
Religious holidays in non-confessional countries should ONLY be kept in religious environments, and that should affect to all of us whether Christians, Moslems or Jews, for NO holiday in a given religion is more important than any other in other religions. Each one is important for each member of a given Confession but, of course, not for the others.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 06/08/04 - What do you believe pray(er)(ing) does? As religous folks, we are frequently told/requested/cajouled/shamed/asked/desirous to pray.
To you, what does a prayer do? Why do you pray? What comes of a prayer?
Do you believe you can change events through prayer? Do you believe you can change God's mind through prayer? Do you feel it is simply a way to reach your inner self, or get in touch with others? Do you believe there is a tangible outcome to a prayer? If so, each time? every time? only some times? what determines it? curious98 answered on 06/09/04:
Prayer like everything else as far as religions are concerned- is just a matter of faith.
But, at the same time, we all know the old saying faith can move mountains and, more often than not, it does.
I sustain the theory that praying is inherent to human nature.
Before certain circumstances, even atheists can exclaim or think God, please help me.
Prayer needs not be a long discourse or sentence written in a book for our benefit, nor it has to be said in a temple of some sort.
To me, the simple volition, at a given moment, and no matter where you may be, of exclaiming God, please, help me is a prayer just as good as any other.
But, of course, whatever your prayer is, it has to be said with faith.
Im not going to debate now whether or not prayers reach GOD. This is, also, a matter of faith and conviction. But to me it is rather irrelevant, for I think that the faith great strength lies on the effect that it can psychologically exert upon us.
Medicine is also trying to explain that our attitude whether optimistic or pessimistic-
can modify the course of a given disease.
Faith is stronger than this positive attitude for it is made of such an attitude plus the hope that our prayer is going to be heard by GOD. And, indeed, this has a tremendous force.
Ive been a few times in Lourdes (French Pyrenees) where there is a catholic Basilica built to commemorate the alleged apparition of the Virgin Mary, in 1858, to a very poor teen-age girl named Bernadette, whose incorrupt body can be seen in the town of Nevers (France). I always come back amazed at what I see there.
In the area of the Shrine there is a supposedly miraculous spring around which there have been built some pool-like bathtubs, where people bathe to be cured.
And ever since that cold day of February 1858, people have kept going to Lourdes, first by hundreds, then thousands and now, hundreds of thousands (over a million last year), with the faith (and hope) their diseases can be cured, through prayer.
Any person who has made a pilgrimage to this remarkable shrine of Our Lady will tell you that Lourdes is a place where the sick, the poor, those with emotional, psychological, spiritual, and physical handicaps find, if nothing else, encouragement, solace and hope. There, these downtrodden of the world, become the center of attention. Just as according to the Gospels- Jesus made the sick and the poor the focus of His public ministry, so too in Lourdes do these same children of God become the focus of the community's activity and care. Each day the sick are taken to the baths, brought in procession with the Blessed Sacrament around the main esplanade of the shrine, and taken to visit the sacred grotto. More often than not, they must wait for hours, in long lines, under the cold wind blowing from the mountain. Each evening they can participate in the candlelight procession, praying the rosary with hundreds, indeed thousands, of others, begging God to bring them greater peace, strength and consolation. For the believers Lourdes provides a glimpse into what the Lord envisioned for his Kingdom.
But all this would just be a big show were it not by the flagrant fact that every year a number of unexplainable cures are reported.
As a matter of fact, medical doctors normally accompany those pilgrimages to Lourdes. Many of these doctors declare themselves as complete agnostics. And many of them, have to sign a document, whereby some miraculous healing has happened and stating that for reasons unknown to them, that particular person is cured
The funny thing is that the Church is very cautious about considering any of such cures as a miracle. In fact, they hardly do it. They just say, it is unexplainable. Period.
To illustrate what I say, the last cure considered miraculous by the Church (that is, officially attributed to the Virgin Mary) in Lourdes, goes back to the case of Jean-Pierre Bly, age 51, French, who on the 9th of October of 1987 arrived in pilgrimage to Lourdes, with his family doctor, and a severe case of multiple sclerosis, took a bath, and got out of it totally cured. The diocese of Angoulme recognized this case only 12 years later, after studying a number of papers by a select group of doctors and countless visits and tests to M. Bly.
To me, there are only 2 alternatives to explain cases like this one.
Either you believe Our Lady is eventually responsible of these cures or the faith and the prayers of some of these pilgrims are so strong that they can do the trick.
And, believe me, since 1858, cures can be counted by hundreds of thousands.
When my elder son was 8 years, we took him there for he had developed an eczema, which our dermatologist said it would not disappear until he would be a teenager, with his change.
We bathed him and came back home. Some 3 months later, the eczema had disappeared completely and the doctor is probably still wondering (if still alive) what happened.
Before going we told our son he would be cured if he prayed to the Virgin Mary for his cure.
Faith in an 8 years old child can be very strong.
Whether She had anything to do or not with his cure is irrelevant, in this case. We never made a big fuss about it, anyway.
But the fact remains he was cured
Another instance. Whether Christian martyrs in ancient Rome, Japanese kamikazes in WWII or Muslim suicide terrorists, they all prayed before going to die
Believe me, prayer, when accompanied by a strong Faith, can, and often is, a powerful tool.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | paraclete asked on 06/06/04 - A Theory of Creation. I know there are some here who reject humor as unchristian but I couldn't resist this item
A THEORY OF CREATION
God created the mule, and told him, "You will be mule, working constantly from dusk to dawn, carrying heavy loads on your back. You will eat grass and lack intelligence. You will live for 50 years."
The mule answered, "To live like this for 50 years is too much. Please, give me no more than 20." And it was so.
Then God created the dog, and told him, "You will hold vigilance over the dwellings of Man, to whom you will be his greatest companion. You will eat his table scraps and live for 25 years."
And the dog responded, "Lord, to live 25 years as a dog like that is too much. Please, no more than 10 years." And it was so.
God then created the monkey, and told him, "You are monkey. You shall swing from tree to tree, acting like an idiot. You will be funny, and you shall live for 20 years."
And the monkey responded, "Lord, to live 20 years as the clown of the world is too much. Please, Lord, give me no more than 10 years." And it was so.
Finally, God created Man and told him, "You are Man, the only rational being that walks the earth. You will use your intelligence to have mastery over the creatures of the world. You will dominate the earth and live for 20 years."
And the man responded, "Lord, to be Man for only 20 years is too little. Please, Lord, give me the 30 years the mule refused, the 15 years the dog refused, and the 10 years the monkey rejected." And it was so.
And so God made Man to live 20 years as a man, then marry and live 30 years like a mule working and carrying heavy loads on his back. Then, he is to have children and live 15 years as a dog, guarding his house and eating the leftovers after they empty the pantry; then, in his old age, to live 10 years as a monkey, acting like an idiot to amuse his grand children.
curious98 answered on 06/07/04:I know some of these Christians you are talking about and I feel sorry for them.
True Christians should laugh their lungs out at the thought of their Salvation.
But, even for those who are not Christians, a good laugh is a most excellent cure for many deseases.
Your joke is really terrific, and I'm circulating it among friends.
Besides, as you know, it is already 3 years now I'm acting like and idiot... and enjoying it too.
Best regards
Claude | | Question/Answer | | bal317 asked on 06/06/04 - Prayer's for Mrs. Reagan & Family I would like to start a Prayer request, for the former First Lady of the USA, Mrs. Ronald Reagan and Family.
Mr. Reagan passed away yesterday and preparations is being made.
However, I feel we all need to stop and say a Prayer for the continued strength Mrs. Reagan and Family will need.
This is not a question, just a personal request for our Nation's fallen Leader.
Thank you,
bal317 curious98 answered on 06/07/04:
While I can imagine how sad Ms. Reagan and the rest of the family must be right now, I suppose she must have sighed with relief as her husband have passed away.
Having to see for 10 long years how the person you love falls victim of the Alzheimer disease must be hell in life.
So I wish to salute the courage of this lady, while this confirms that the powerful are not in the least exempt of pain and sorrow and that, like the rest of us, they must find consolation and comfort in prayer and, in the final instance, in GOD.
Amen
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | XCHOUX asked on 06/03/04 - Hermetica-Ancient Egyptian Sacred Writings I can't remember where I read it, but perhaps I can get a clarification and more information. The Jews were held as slaves in Egypt(not sure when?)and then Moses led them out of captivity. The article I read suggested that the Jews learned about monotheism from the Egyptians.
Can anyone address this idea and perhaps provide any kind of timeline? curious98 answered on 06/05/04:This is not quite so.
According to the Genesis, the Hebrews arrived in Egypt approx. during the rule of Ammenemes III, who was the 6th ruler of the 12th Dynasty, and may have reigned for as long as 45 years. According to Clayton he ruled from 1842 through 1797 BC., i.e. 19th century.
By the l4th century B.C. the Egyptians had developed a large empire and their polytheistic religion beliefs were spread to other peoples of the Middle East, though Hebrews seem to have managed to stick to Abrahams monotheistic principles. Then, in the year 1379, there comes Amenhotep IV, the new pharaoh, son of Amenhotep III and his queen Tiy, who was probably a Nubian. She may have suffered from an ailment, which affected her physical structure and that of his son, too.
With these physical peculiarities, real or invented, went an equally remarkable personality and policy. Possibly, influenced by the Hebrews religion, he tried to replace the traditional, official Egyptian religion of Amarna by a new concept of god. Although still embodied in the sun, this concept, called Aton, was understood more abstractly and monotheistically. He destroyed the traditional patterns of religion, which were thoroughly woven into every aspect of Egyptian life and changed the theology, ritual and ecclesiastical structure. He also changed his name to Akhenaton, which means "Aton is satisfied."
However, Akhenaton died after only fifteen years of rule. His successors were young and ineffectual and hence victimized by the leaders of the party of the old regime. So the worship of the old god Amen was shortly.
Zoroastrian is considered by some to be the earliest monotheistic view to have evolved among mankind, though it is not fully so, as their chief god Ahura Mazda is not the sole creator. It has been theorized that Judaism was influenced by Zoroastrianism as well as by Greek philosophy before arriving at its modern monotheistic view of God. Earlier Judaism is assumed to have claimed only that Yahweh was a tribal deity who was the patron the descendants of Abraham worshipped, or that there were many gods but that theirs was the most powerful. This view is not compatible, though, with the modern self-understanding of the three Abraham religions, i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam - which traditionally insist that exclusive monotheism is the original religion of all mankind, all other gods being viewed as idols and creatures which wrongly came to be worshipped as deities.
The Christian belief in the Trinity is monotheism, the worship of the one God of Abraham according to the Trinitarian tradition. However, many Jews, Muslims, and Unitarian Christians question this classification. Such critics claim that the Trinity is in fact a form of Tritheism, a hypothetical belief system that teaches that there are three gods -- and, that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are, specifically, three distinct Gods.
Im giving you this information irrespective of my own beliefs practically quoting what the Encyclopedias are saying in this respect, which means in the most objective possible way.
As for the Chronology given by our friend Elliot, of course you realize that he is using the O.T. chronology, which does not necessarily follow what historians, and archeolegists say.
If Clayton data is more or less accurate, the Hebrews arrived in Egypt some 3900 years ago. As Elliot says, Moses date of his exodus is largely at debate, between 1450 and 1250 BC.
But, of course, all the rest belongs to the Scriptures.
Nobody knows, other than by faith, whether there ever was an Adam and Eve, and if they ever lived, when did they?
Today, the view of the history of man accepted by conventional archaeology is that Homo sapiens evolved roughly 30,000 to 50,000 years ago in Eurasia. Later, humans crossed the Bering Straits land bridge into North America around 15,000 years ago. Thus there should not be any indigenous man-made artifacts in North or South America older than around this date.
The trouble with this theory is that it can be maintained only by ignoring literally scores of archaeological finds that are unquestionably much older.
It was the discoverer of one such find, Dr Virginia Steen-McIntyre, who had such an interesting story to tell. In the late 1960s, Steen-McIntyre and Harold Malde, both of the U.S. Geological Survey and Roald Fryxell of Washington State University, were working under a grant from the National Science Foundation at a site called Hueyatlaco 75 miles south east of Mexico City.
Steen-McIntyre and her colleagues found very sophisticated stone tools there, rivaling the best work of Cro-Magnon man in Europe. The scientists applied four dating methods to the finds and the strata in which they were found: uranium series dating; fission track dating; tephra hydration dating and mineral weathering study. The four methods yielded a unanimous date of around 250,000 years!!
More recent findings in Atapuerca (Spain) at present, visited by the worlds very best archaeologists are finding evidence of a very sophisticated way of living around 450.000 years ago!!!
But if we want to concentrate only on the theoretical location of the Garden of Eden (in fact, quite close to present Baghdad) professional geologists and paleontologists have been able to trace back an splendorous civilization like the Sumerian (here we are no longer speaking of Paleo cultures, but of full fledged ones who could read and write) to some 7.5/8000 years BC., which means some 10.000 years ago So the garden must have occurred before
However, the Hebrew Masoretic text (MT), some major manuscripts of the Septuagint (LXX) versions (manuscripts Alexandrinus and Vaticanus), and the Samaritan Pentateuch have divergent figures. The Jewish historian Josephus of the first century is known to quote from the shorter Hebrew figures as well as from longer ones (Hasel 1980), testifying to the existence of both the Greek and "the Hebrew figures and their [the latter] being regarded as of value in the first century of our era"
MT = Adam to Abraham: 1948 years
LXX (Alex.) Idem 3334
LXX (Vat.) Idem 3414
SAM. PENT. Idem 2249
FLV-Joseph Idem 3329
Obviously, even taking the longest chronology between Adam and Abraham (3334 years) is cannot be scientifically sustained unless we consider Adams genealogy as just that, i.e. the genealogy of someone who lived in those days and whom the Bible, or all the other Sacred Books, write about.
The 20 generations the Genesis figures out between Adam and Abrahams birth are also quite hypothetical, for the ages of the Biblical characters of the O.T. are rather extraordinary in some cases.
In any case, Elliots very well documented chronology is based on the Torah which, naturally enough, he accepts by the letter, same as I should accept the O.T., but I dont. But, each one is entitled to believe what he wants is he not so?
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | stiamo_bene_insieme asked on 06/05/04 - Writing a letter to corporations to give money for trip. Hi
I bunch from our school are planning to go to Germany next summer 2005 for World Youth Day. We are hoping to get a maximum of 40 people to go. Though there is not much left, we need funds. We started on selling a community cookbook for $15 and we kind of doing poorly and we are resorting to other means to get funds like writing a letter to big coorperations like banks and other religious organizations to donate money for our trip.
Right now we don' have much just $75 and we are looking around $25000.00. We know that this is alot but we are trying to get as many money as we can.
My question is how can I write this letter, how do I approach them, what things can I say in the letter?
Thanks
help_youth curious98 answered on 06/05/04:I'm afraid that unless you have something to offer in return, these Corporations are not even going to reply to your letter.
In the first place, you must think of some way to prove you are genuinely and truly interested in the money for the trip.
You must realize that you know it but they don't. To start with they do not even know you. And you could be asking the money just to buy yourself a nice car,,,
So you better think of the guaranties you can give and then we may speak of the kind of letter you could write.
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | XCHOUX asked on 05/31/04 - Messiah I am wondering, are orthodox people of the Jewish faith still expecting a Messiah? Would the Messiah be a rabbi or someone else?
Is a Messiah a prominant part of current Judaism?
Thanks, curious98 answered on 05/31/04:I prefer to leave the response to this question to our Jewish friends who must be experts on the subject.
Best regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | paraclete asked on 05/31/04 - singer tries to pull the fat from the fire Gene clarifies Muslim claim
May 31, 2004 - 12:47PM
Kiss bassist Gene Simmons, who sparked outrage in Australia after making comments seen as anti-Muslim, said he was speaking only of "extremists" and that his remarks were taken out of context.
"I was asked about extremists," he told The Associated Press. "And that's what I was talking about - only extremists."
Kiss has begun a five-concert tour of Japan.
Simmons sparked a furore when Kiss toured Australia earlier this month with comments seen as attacking Islam.
"This is a vile culture and if you think for a second that it's willing to just live in the sands of God's armpit you've got another thing coming," Simmons said during an interview on Melbourne's 3AW radio.
"They want to come and live right where you live and they think that you're evil."
Angry Muslims flooded the radio station with calls.
KRT
I can't recall that its extremists who want to live among us, I though it was those who wanted to escape extremism, so how can this fellows comments not condemn all Muslims with the statement "This is a vile culture and if you think for a second that it's willing to just live in the sands of God's armpit you've got another thing coming," curious98 answered on 05/31/04:
Hello Paraclete,
Gene Simmons, and his Kiss and Make-up, probably could do better by concentrating in his hard rock and in self-analysis.
There are Good Muslims and Bad Muslims ad there are Good Christians and Bad Christians and or Good Jews and Bad Jews.
Being Good ar Evil is not necessarily linked to religion but rather to human personality.
I know many Muslims who are excellent people and I know there are others who should better be dead...
But, you as a Christian should know that too, don't you?
Regards
Claude
| | Question/Answer | | queenybee asked on 05/31/04 - RACISM & RELIGION Racism and Religion
"When I came to the U.S. in 1978, I believed that America had long since resolved its racial problems, that blacks were equal citizens," stated Mark Mathabane, a South African-born author, in an interview by Time magazine. "In many ways, I found that to be true. The U.S. seemed to be a hundred years ahead of South Africa. Then I discovered, to my horror, that not much had changed in people's hearts." What brought him to that startling discovery?
"One of the most segregated hours in America is 11 a.m. on Sunday," said Mathabane. He noted that even in church, people cannot bring themselves to join in worship with those of another race. "How can they feel on the other days of the week?" he asked. Calling for education as a catalyst for change, Mathabane said: "With education you are made to accept the universality of human beings."
comments? curious98 answered on 05/31/04:Hello Queenybee,
How is your honey production?
It is a matter of education, indeed. And of race too, going back centuries ago. Mediterranean peoples have never had many problems to accept and intermingle with people of other cultures and races. And this goes back to the Greek and Roman civilizations. On the other hand, central and north European peoples (Saxons, Anglos, Goths, Celts, Normands, Francs), were just very jealous of their own ethnics, considering themselves stronger and braver while considering the Mediterranean weak and decadent. In a way, they were right, for when they appeared in the European picture with some strength it already was the decadence of the Roman Empire.
At any rate, this situation didnt improve in the least as far as color people were concerned in the US of the 18th and 19th centuries, where hundreds of thousands of blacks were sold as slaves in the Country. You must remember that a large proportion of the US population in those days was of Anglo-Saxon and north European origin. And, though diminishing, they still are a majority. Then, many are Episcopalian. For some strange reason I have not been able to understand, Episcopalians, among all Christian churches, are almost always hard working people (some could even add, responsible for the prosperity of your Country) whereas they consider themselves superior to the rest, not to speak of color people only, but also to what the call Hispanic (though they are not from Spain), Jews, Oriental people, etc.
That is, a similar problem to the one Germans had with their famous Aryan race
Therefore, until they cannot get rid of this deeply implanted gen (and it has to start with the education at home) you will keep on having that problem.
When you compare towns like London and Paris with Rome and Madrid you find what I mean in a rather explicit way.
London and Paris (the latter to a lesser degree, though) have ghettos for the different populations of immigrants. Not as clear-cut as the German had with the Jews, but ghettos all the same.
Whereas in Rome and Madrid these divisions are not a matter of race but of money; that is, you find all kind of mixtures.
In Spain, right now, we are having an important immigration coming from Sub-Saharan and Maghrebi countries. So far, many of them, find their way to total integration through marriage with Spanish women (and or Spanish men, too) Whereas, I still remember the big scandal way back in USA when Sydney Poitier kissed a white woman in a movie!
The funny thing, though, is that all those people are, as I say, Christian and the Gospel says quite clearly we are all alike
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | XCHOUX asked on 05/29/04 - The Individual vs. The Common Good What are the similiarities and differences among religions on the topic of the importance of the individual and the common good of their societies?
Say, The Christian View, The Jewish View, The Islamic View, The Indian(Hindu)View.
I'm very curious.
Thanks, Choux curious98 answered on 05/30/04:The Christian View.
Our one and final target is Salvation. To attain it we are supposed to follow the Gospel's teachings.
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Matthew 22:37-40"
and:
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, just like I have loved you; that you also love one another.
John 13:34 (Read all of John 13)"
Jesus established the main lesson for mutual understanding when he said:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
This saying has come to be called the Golden Rule.
The Christian view is based on true love for Mankind. Id we could simply assume that idea our world would be a different place altogether to live in.
In fact, this principle is prevailing in the core of most religions. The trouble is that, we all acknowledge it but none of us really practice it.
I once discussed this same subject with a Buddhist Lama in a Bangkok Temple and he sadly said that LOVE was the basis of their philosophy and yet, so very few seemed to understand the beauty of the idea.
And we shall not live in peace until we accept that only love can save our world
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | XCHOUX asked on 05/23/04 - Qualilties of God I do not believe that a quality of "God" has anything to do with judging good and evil in human beings. Or, holding human beings to be models of perfection which is unattainable, at least a hundred times a day!
God is to be worshipped. Having good ethics/morality is the business of humans in order to find happiness and have social order, among other things.
Comments... curious98 answered on 05/24/04:I have often said in this forum, that to start with NO human being can even start imagining the qualities of GOD. We can only assume or pretend to know that GOD must have in a maximum degree all those virtues or qualities known to us.
But, as I'm fully conscientious of my insignificance -contrary to what many others think of themselves- I'm willing to accept that GOD is Perfection to a total degree. And by that, of course, I do not mean only the conventional adjectives we normally use, like beauty or goodness, but those we have no idea of.
This said, I feel inclined to share your theory that ethics/morality is our own business, for we were born free to behave as we please.
However, one big question mark opening up here is that, while it sounds logical that each one of us should try its best to socially behave, which means having a degree of morality, there should be somehow some kind of premium to differentiate those who fulfill the established norms from those who don't.
Otherwise, it would not be fair if all those who pretend to walk the line while they are not in the least (and could not care less and not only are not guilty of anything under human laws but are respected) would enjoy the same privileges (once we have reached our fnal destination) than the ones who suffer the injustice of mankind without a complaint.
There should be some kind of yardstick to measure our activities in this life. Dantes Inferno is full of popes, bishops and wealthy people, who were honored and respected while alive. And he was only referring to the limited segment of people he knew in his Florentine Renaissance!
With all due respect, and bearing in mind that I consider myself full of faults and in red numbers in my private accounting with GOD, I would certainly feel being very unjustly treated should I be considered by my auditors with the same yardstick as a person like Mr. Bush Jr., to mention just one. In other words, both being Christians and both supposed to believing our prize should be enjoying GODs vision in Heaven, I feel I should be much closer to that than Mr. Bush Jr., which does not mean Im entitled to that vision immediately, but certainly sooner than him
Think it over.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | XCHOUX asked on 05/21/04 - Impossible Goals What is the best way to deal with the reality that an individual is facing a situation such as institutionalized bias, inequality, hopeless oppression or any other situation that a person cannot face up to and be delt fairly with? curious98 answered on 05/22/04:The best way -in my opinion, of course-
would be for that person to believe in GOD.
No matter the name you give to IT. But to believe that our life is just a coffee stop at some unimportant crossroad on our way to the real MacCoy.
If the individual you are talking about can manage to believe in that you would be surprised how his/her life would be simplified...
I'm fighting to assume that thought, for my train is getting near its Terminus. I haven't reached that perfection yet. But just by trying so hard, I already feel more relazed and cheerful
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | XCHOUX asked on 05/21/04 - Chaos How does your religion or spiritual path teach you to deal with the chaos that is so prevalent in many cultures? curious98 answered on 05/22/04:I'm not in the least concerned with the chaos you claim is prevalent in many cultures.
The only chaos I'm concerned with is that chaos that our Universe comes from and which could be originated by our own Creator as the beginning of the Universe we know. Not of our Creator, of course, for IT must be eternal.
However, if you are really interested in the subject I would advise you to get this book:
Quarks, Chaos and Christianity: Questions to Science and Religion
by John C. Polkinghorne
I found it to be extremely interesting.
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | XCHOUX asked on 05/21/04 - Goals in Life According to your understanding, what are the three most important individual goals a human being should pursue during their short time on earth? curious98 answered on 05/22/04:I would make it simpler.
The ONLY goal a human being should strive to attain during the short span of his/her life is Salvation.
Salvation according to his/her own religion.
For if we believe in some sort of religion, salvation is eternal, while our life is less than a sigh as compared to eternity.
Therefore, what we do to try to achieve that salvation is the only important thing.
In my own religion -and in most others- one good way to accomplish this is by loving your fellowmen as you love yourself...
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | XCHOUX asked on 05/21/04 - Suffering Suffering is always part of the human drama called life. How does your religion deal with helping individuals deal with their suffering? Thanks, curious98 answered on 05/22/04:Those very religious persons accept human suffering as GOD's will, which mean they accept if with resignation.
Others -those with an unlimited faith- can even accept their suffering with joy.
You can find multiple exemples in oriental spirituality -abandon of any human comfort-, christian martyrs or present muslims suicides.
The fact seems to be that the less faith you have in GOD the less inclined you are to accept your own sufferings.
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | XCHOUX asked on 05/21/04 - Salvation What is salvation in your religion? What does it mean to your day to day life? curious98 answered on 05/22/04:In my religion (roman catholic) salvation means to be able to enjoy an everlasting (eternal)life by our Lord, once we are no longer here.
In our day to day life it means, precisaly, what i already mentioned when referring to the devil concept, i.e. "walking the line" or abiding by the Law.
May I say, however, that going by the law, if one can manage to do it sincerely and willingly, is the best possible way to live in peace with oneself and with the others.
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | XCHOUX asked on 05/21/04 - Dualism? I have been thinking a little about dualism-the concept that human beings have two separate natures, physical and spititual. When and how and why did this idea begin? Who believes in this idea?
Thanks, Chou curious98 answered on 05/22/04:This is what my Encyclopedia has to say in respect of dualism.
quote:
DUALISM, feature peculiar to Iranian religion in ancient and medieval times. There is general agreement on this point, though some scholars have minimized the importance of dualistic elements in Zoroastrian doctrine and even denied their existence, in order to emphasize monotheistic or crypto-monotheistic aspects (e.g., Shroff; Moulton, pp. 125-26; Gray, 1929, p. 3), perceived as incompatible with any form of dualism (cf. Duchesne-Guillemin, 1958, pp. 1 ff.; idem, 1962, pp. 385 ff.; Herrenschmidt, pp. 217 ff.). From a strictly religious-historical perspective, however, dualism should not be conceived as opposed to monotheism (as polytheism must be); on the contrary, it can be viewed as "monotheism itself in two opposite and contrary aspects" (Pettazzoni, pp. 96, 112 n. 109). Although this definition cannot be applied to every dualistic religious conception (cf. Bianchi, 1986, p. 109), it fits Zoroastrianism, in which a monotheistic tendency and a strong dualism coexisted. The problem is complicated by the fact that Iranian dualism was not unitary and static but a developing concept (Gnoli, 1984). Heterogeneity within the Iranian religious world must also be taken into account; in fact, the fundamentally ethical and philosophical dualism of Zoroaster (as found in the Gathas and in part of Zoroastrian tradition) must be distinguished from a metaphysical and ontological dualism in which two coexisting entities are opposed by their intrinsic natures, rather than by choice (see below). This distinction is rejected by those who maintain the ontological nature of dualism in the Gathas and argue that reference to the two mainiius "spirits" (Y. 30.5) is at most a "statement regarding their essence" (Bianchi, 1978, p. 376). Nevertheless, the pivotal role of choice in Zoroastrianism has been established by Herman Lommel (pp. 156-65) and others, and Ilya Gershevitch has argued effectively for the ethical character of the gathic opposition between the two spirits (1964, pp. 12-14; cf. Gnoli, 1984, p. 118).
The most lucid evaluation of dualism as a fundamental element of the Gathas is that of W. B. Henning: "Any claim that the world was created by a good and benevolent god must provoke the question why the world, in the outcome, is so very far from good. Zoroaster's answer, that the world had been created by a good and an evil spirit of equal power, who set up to spoil the good work, is a complete answer: it is a logical answer, more satisfying to the thinking mind than the one given by the author of the Book of Job, who withdrew to the claim that it did not behove man to inquire into the ways of Omnipotence" (1951, p. 46). According to Henning, Zoroaster came to formulate his dualistic conception "only by thinking" and "by very clear thinking." Whether he was correct that it was a protest against monotheism or whether it was an integral part of gathic monotheism is unclear. It can reasonably be concluded, however, that dualism lay at the heart of Zoroaster's message and that gathic dualism cannot be dismissed on grounds that Ahura Mazda@ (q.v.) stood above the two opposed spirits or that an eschatological expectation of the triumph of good pervades the Gathas. These elements are, in fact, common to other dualistic conceptions in which the final triumph of good is implicit.
The following passage from the Gathas (Y. 30.3-4) is fundamental to understanding Iranian dualism: "The two primeval Spirits (mainiiu@ pauruiie@) who are twins (y@ma@) were revealed [to me] in sleep. Their (h^) ways of thinking, speaking, and behaving are two: the good and the evil (vahiio@ akma@). And between these two [ways] the wise men (hudho@) have rightly chosen, and not the foolish ones (dudho@). And when these two Spirits met, they established at the origin (paouir^m) life and non-life (gae@mca@ ajiia@it^mca@) and that at the end (ap@mm) the worst existence (ahu acito@) will be for the followers of Falsehood (drguuatam) and for the follower of Truth (aa@une@) the Best Thinking (vahitm mano@)." Although the interpretation of this passage is uncertain (for a different translation, see Kellens and Pirart, p. 111), its dualistic content is beyond doubt. Equally clear is the paradigmatic character of the choice between two spirits, the prototype of the choice that man must make between the paths of truth and falsehood (Gershevitch, 1964, pp. 13, 32). Among the many other gathic texts in which dualism is emphasized are Yasna 45.2, in which the two spirits are juxtaposed in several modes of expression, and Yasna 47.3, in which the twinship of the two spirits is implicitly clarified by affirmation that Ahura Mazda@ is the "father" of the beneficent spirit: Both are, in a certain sense, sons of the same father (Gershevitch, 1964, pp. 13, 33). Interpretation of "twins" as a metaphor for "the equality in state of the two unrelated beings, and their coevity" (Boyce, Zoroastrianism I, p. 194) is unconvincing. Instead, the fundamental role of choice in Zoroastrian dualism should be kept in mind; the relationship between God and the devil did not involve direct dependence, because the notion of "childbirth" implicit in the concept of twin spirits refers to derivation from God of an undifferentiated spirit, which splits into twin spirits of opposite allegiance once human free will has emerged (Gershevitch, 1964, p. 13).
Zoroaster's dualism was therefore a wholly transcendent or "spiritual" dualism, not based on the opposition me@no@g versus ge@t^g, which can be very approximately translated as "spiritual" and "material" respectively. The latter duality recurs particularly in 9th-century Pahlavi texts, reflecting a complex theoretical systematization (Shaked, 1971). It has clear Avestan antecedents in the Gathas, in the idea of two states of being (uba- ahu-), ahu- manaho@ (or manahiia-) and ahu- astuuant (lit., "bony," i.e., "corporeal" cf. Pahl. axw ^ asto@mand) or sti- "existence," mainiiauua- and gae@iiia-. In this context ge@t^g is negative not by nature but because it is the place where the two spirits intermingle, in which God's creation is contaminated by the assault (Pahl. e@bgat) by Ahriman (q.v.). In 9th-century Zoroastrian theology Ahriman was not considered the author of a ge@t^g creation, as Ohrmazd was (Bundahin, chap. 1; tr. Anklesaria, pp. 17-21): "Of Ahriman it is said that he has no ge@t^g" "The creation of Ohrmazd is both me@no@g and ge@t^g, while that of the demon has no ge@t^g" (Da@dista@n ^ de@n^g, pt. 1, 18.2, 36.51). In the De@nkard (q.v.) it is said that "Ahriman never existed and does not exist" and that "the gods exist while the demons do not" (De@nkard 6.278, 6.98; tr. Shaked, 1979, pp. 39, 109). It may therefore be concluded that "Ahriman's presence in the world is not an ontological fact, but merely an anthropological and psychological phenomenon. This does not deny the reality of Ahriman as such: it merely marks his totally negative, hence also non-material, character" (Shaked, 1967, p. 232). This doctrine, too, has Avestan antecedents: Avestan gae@iiia- (> Pahl. ge@t^g) may refer to the yazatas but not to the dae@uuas (Gnoli, 1963, pp. 182-83 n. 61; see *DAIVA; DEW). The existence of evil forces is only "spiritual" or "mental" Iranian dualism is a dualism not between spirit and matter but between two spirits, who choose between truth (aa, q.v.; gathic auuan-) and falsehood (drug; gathic drguuant- or Younger Av. druuant-; see DRUJ-) in the same way that men do (Gnoli, 1963, pp. 180-90; idem, 1971, pp. 77-78, 97-98).
There is no doubt that Ara Mainiiu, like Ahura Mazda@, was a "creating divinity," an idea that occurs in the Avesta (e.g., Yt. 13.76 = Y. 57.17, with an explicit reference to creation by the two spirits; cf. Kreyenbroek, pp. 44, 45, 85-86; Vd. 1, with a list of "countries" created by Ahura Mazda@ and the countercreations of Ara Mainiiu; cf. Christensen, 1943, pp. 50 ff.). The crucial element is the fundamental difference between the two kinds of creation (Y. 44.7; for references, see Gray, 1929, p. 176). Ara Mainiiu's creation has a negative character because it begins in opposition to that of Ahura Mazda@ (or, in the gathic formulation, of Spnta Mainiiu). The ge@t^g state is the creation of Ohrmazd; Ahriman can only attack, contaminate, and corrupt it. The me@no@g nature of Ahriman's creation is amply documented in Pahlavi literature (De@nkard III, sec, 10; Da@dista@n ^ de@n^g, pt. 1, 18, 30; cf. de Menasce, 1968; idem, 1973, pp. 107, 393). From this perspective the preeminently "mental" or "spiritual" character of the demons can be explained: The dae@uuas are false gods or chimeras without real existence (Gershevitch, 1975, pp. 79-80; Zaehner, 1961, p. 216), an idea traceable to the gathic notion (Y. 30.4) that Spnta Mainiiu and Ara Mainiiu are related to life and to nonlife (gae@ma@ ajiia@it^mca@) respectively. Pahlavi ge@t^g "worldly" corresponds to Avestan gae@iiia- "having corporeal life, material" (AirWb., col. 479) and is therefore connected to j^- (juua-) "to live," gaiia- "life." Zoroastrian "pandemonium" (Gray, 1929, pp. 175 ff.; cf. Christensen, 1941), with its classes of demonic beings symmetrically opposed to the angelic ones, results from an elaborate analysis of the superhuman world divided between good and evil, virtues and vices, opposed forces that, like man, may belong to the world of truth or of falsehood. All things are divided into two categories, even language itself, in order to distinguish between activities proper to beings that conform to truth and those who choose falsehood (Frachtenberg; Gntert; Gray, 1927; Burrow, pp. 128-33; Boyce, Zoroastrianism I, p. 298).
Zoroastrian dualism was based on the idea of choice, and the argument that one who chooses evil follows his own nature (Bianchi, 1978, pp. 361-62) does not affect that principle. In the Bundahin (1.20-22; tr. Anklesaria, pp. 6-9) Ohrmazd offers peace to the evil spirit (gana@g me@no@g), who may thus become "deathless and unaging, unfeeling, incorruptible," but the evil spirit rejects the offer and threatens to take over the entire universe. From this passage it appears that Ahriman freely chooses his own destiny: Dualism is thus characterized by "choice," not by the essence or nature of the protagonists. Further confirmation comes from the Armenian Christian writer Eznik Kobaci, in whose work Ahriman says: "'It is not that I cannot create anything good, but that I will not.' . . . Do you see? He is evil through his own wish, not from the fact of his birth" (Zaehner, 1955, p. 438). Abnormal aspects suggesting that Ahriman is capable of creativity comparable to that of Ohrmazd are debatable or absolutely secondary in Zoroastrian dualism, the ethical nature of which is a constant element from the Gathas to Pahlavi literature. Yet Zoroastrian and Iranian dualism generally did undergo historical transformations, impelled by inner tendencies and contacts with other religions (Shaked, 1994).
The transformation of Zoroaster's original dualism was determined by the progressive assimilation of Ahura Mazda@ and Spnta Mainiiu, a process favored by the idea that God created everything through the beneficent spirit (Y. 44.7), defined in the Younger Avesta (Yt. 10.143) as a "creator" (dauu spnto@ mainiiu) not unlike Ahura Mazda@ himself (Gershevitch, 1964, p. 14); there is no real evidence in the Avesta that the opposition between Spnta Mainiiu and Ara Mainiiu was transferred to Ahura Mazda@ and Ara Mainiiu, however. As Gershevitch (1964, p. 15) has noted, such a transformation was documented in the Greek sources as early as the 4th century B.C.E. and in Zoroastrian texts of the 9th century C.E.: "In the place of Falsehood now stands the Fiendish Spirit, in the place of Truth, God himself. Zoroaster's religion has become an uncompromising dualism, in which two aboriginal deities, Ohrmazd and Ahriman, God and the Devil, face each other and contend for ultimate victory." Aristotle, in a fragment of the Per philosophas (apud Diogenes Laertius, 1.8), explained the teaching of the Magi as presupposing the existence of two principles, Zeus or Oromasdes and Hades or Areimanios. In the Metaphysics, too, he cited the Magi in Asia, because of their dualism, as forerunners of Plato immediately after Pherecydes in Greece (cf. Benveniste, p. 17; Bidez and Cumont, I, p. 102). A similar notion was expressed by his disciple Eudemus of Rhodes (apud Damascius, p. 322; cf. Gnoli, 1988). In De Iside et Osiride Plutarch attributed such a dualistic formula to Zoroastres the Magus (Bidez and Cumont, II, p. 71).
In the 9th-century Pahlavi literature the dualism between Ohrmazd and Ahriman is omnipresent. In the first chapter of the Bundahin there is a powerful representation of Ohrmazd as omniscient and good, residing on high in the infinite light (asar ro@n^h), which is also its own space (ga@h) and place (gya@g). Ahriman, endowed with "knowledge after the fact" (pas-da@nin^h, knowledge of effects, rather than causes, as only Ohrmazd is able to foresee) and a desire for destruction (zada@r-ka@m^h), resides in the abyss (zofr-pa@yag) in infinite darkness (asar ta@r^g^h), which is its own place. Between them is the void (tuh^g^h), or atmosphere (way), where the mingling (gume@zin) of the two spirits (me@no@g) takes place (Bundahin 1.1-5; tr. Anklesaria, pp. 4-5).
It should be noted, however, that this new formulation of Zoroastrian dualism, in which God is degraded to the level of devil's antagonist, was part of a unitary body of doctrine that remained essentially unchanged for centuries. Within certain limits a historical development can be partially reconstructed from the heterogeneous sources. It can be assumed that the gathic formulation (of Ahura Mazda@ and opposed twin spirits) was succeeded by a formulation in which Ahura Mazda@ was directly opposed to the evil spirit, with the addition in some instances of another entity, time (Zurwa@n), conceived as the father of the twins Ohrmazd and Ahriman. The supremacy of time in some sources, both Iranian and non-Iranian, related to the religion of the Magi or even in the 9th-century Zoroastrian religious literature, has been interpreted as attesting to Zurvanism, defined either as the continuation of an Iranian religion parallel to Mazdaism, a Mazdean heresy, or simply a theological trend peripheral to orthodoxy (Nyberg, 1929; idem, 1931; Zaehner, 1955; for further references, cf. Gnoli, 1980, pp. 211-12; Boyce, 1990; idem, Zoroastrianism III, pp. 412, 423-24, 463-64). It seems that Zurvanism, "with its speculation on Time, its apparatus of numbers, and the idea of the world-year, is the outcome of contact between Zoroastrianism and the Babylonian civilization" in the 5th-4th centuries B.C. (Henning, 1951, p. 49; see BABYLONIA ii). The various references to the opposition between Oromasdes and Areimanios in Greek and Latin sources, particularly the passage from Eudemus, can be interpreted as evidence that Zurvanism already existed in the latter half of the Achaemenid period. The historical development of Iranian dualism can therefore be viewed as having taken place in three principal stages: gathic dualism (Ahura Mazda@ + Spnta Mainiiu and Ara Mainiiu), Zurvanite dualism (Zruuan + Ahura Mazda@ and Ara Mainiiu), and the simplified dualism of the Pahlavi texts (Ohrmazd and Ahriman), in which the two principles are represented in almost symmetrical opposition (pace Bianchi, 1958; Mole).
In the Zurvanite myth as transmitted by hostile and foreign sources, chiefly Syrian and Armenian Christian writers (cf. Schaeder, 1941), Zurwa@n, or time, fathered the twins Ohrmazd and Ahriman; having promised the scepter to the firstborn, he made Ahriman, who came to light first, king for 9,000 years, a "limited time," after which kingship was to be bestowed on Ohrmazd for "endless time." This myth attests a religious and philosophical mentality quite different from that of original Zoroastrianism. The historical development of Iranian dualism under the influence of Babylonian astronomy and astrology and the astral religion of Mesopotamia, far from preserving Zoroastrian moral values and belief in the dignity and freedom of man, caused a radical subversion of those values. In gathic dualism Ahura Mazda@ and man, his earthly and corporeal symbol, stood above and in the center of everything, with the two opposing spirits offering free choice. Syncretistic Iranian-Mesopotamian dualism reduced Ahura Mazda@ to the level of Ara Mainiiu and raised time above everything. Whereas in the Gathas the role and value of God and man's moral freedom were exalted above all, in the syncretistic version the role and value of the creator God were debased and man subjugated to the omnipotence of time (zama@n), from which the soul cannot release itself: "Time is more powerful than the two creations, the creation of Ohrmazd and the creation of the Evil Spirit" (Bundahin 1.43; tr. Anklesaria, pp. 12-15; cf. Nyberg, 1929, pp. 214-15; Henning, 1935, p. 11; Zaehner, 1955, pp. 281, 297 ff., 315-16). In these conceptions lie the foundations of a religious fatalism that deeply influenced medieval Persia (cf. Ringgren, 1952, pp. 72 ff.).
The transformation of gathic dualism into Zurvanite dualism was not simply a theological development without consequences for the Zoroastrian religious life and world view, as has been suggested (Boyce, 1990, p. 25). In fact, the Zurvanite conception of the world-year and exaltation of time above the protagonists in the cosmic drama represented adaptation of the Zoroastrian tradition to the religious, philosophical, and scientific tendencies prevailing in the Near East during the Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods, when the notions of a universal law regulating the eternal movement of the orbs and of the celestial vault were widely accepted (on these aspects of Babylonian religion, see, e.g., Meissner, chap. xviii; Bottero, pp. 142-43). It is certainly paradoxical to consider dualism as a monistic attempt to subjugate dualism to Zurwa@n (Petrement, 1947, pp. 323 ff.).
It was during this period, too, that Iranian dualism influenced Judaism (Bousset, 1926; Colpe; Duchesne-Guillemin, 1958, pp. 86 ff.; Hultgrd; Shaked, 1984), as is especially clear from the Qumran texts (Wilderberger; Michaud; Duchesne-Guillemin, 1957; Winston; Widengren, 1966; Ringgren, 1967; see DEAD SEA SCROLLS); early Christianity (Clemen; Duchesne-Guillemin, 1962, pp. 264 ff.; Widengren, 1975); and Gnosticism (Bousset, 1907; Widengren, 1952; idem, 1967). Research in these different fields is particularly rich and complex, and opinions often differ widely. It is nevertheless difficult to deny an influence of Iranian dualism on the religions of the Near East from the Achaemenid period to the early centuries of the present era (for a recent discussion see Boyce, Zoroastrianism III, pp. 361-490; cf. Gnoli, 1984; see also BIBLE ii).
Even clearer is the influence of Iranian dualism on Manicheism, despite the present tendency to consider the origins of Manicheism within the general framework of Judaism and Christianity (see, e.g., Boyce, Zoroastrianism III, p. 460-65). In formulating his version of dualism Mani abided by one of the fundamental tenets of Mazdaism, that creation is the work of a good, wise, and omniscient God (Puech, p. 142), but in Manicheism there is particular emphasis on an omnipresent evil, which man must fight with all his force during his earthly life. This dualism is based on the opposition of light and darkness, God and matter, conceived as principles preceding and transcending the drama of human existence in the mediating moment of their "intermingling" (Pahl. gume@zin), as in the 9th-century Zoroastrian texts. In Mani's dualism man was again at the center; Ohrmazd was redeemed from the degradation into which he had fallen in Zurvanite theology and identified as primordial man, who, in Manichean Gnosticism was the true divine savior (Gnoli, 1984, pp. 134-35). Manichean and Turkish documents from Central Asia demonstrate that Manicheans reacted against Zurvanite dualism by attacking those who affirmed that Ohrmazd and Ahriman were brothers or that God had created both good and evil, referred to in the Manichean Middle Persian text M 28 (Henning, 1951, p. 50) and the Uighur confession text Xwa@stwa@n^ft I.C.3-4 (Asmussen, p. 194; cf. the texts collected in Zaehner 1955, pp. 431 ff.; Puech, pp. 140-41). The occurrence of such a condemnation in a 9th-century Zoroastrian text undoubtedly reflects the influence of polemics between Manicheans and Christians (De@nkard 9.30.4: "Ohrmazd and Ahriman were two brothers in one womb" Junker, p. 144; Schaeder, 1930, pp. 288-91; Benveniste, 1932-33, pp. 209-11; Zaehner, 1955, pp. 429-31; Mole, pp. 464-65). Any trace of Zurvanite dualism was to be eradicated and replaced by the new Zoroastrian orthodoxy, in which the dualism between Ohrmazd and Ahriman was preeminent.
Islamic hostility to dualism also influenced the Zoroastrian communities in Persia. In fact, condemnation of dualists (tanaw^ya, ahl al-itnayn) was almost a topos in Muslim refutations of Manichean, Mazdakite, and even Mazdean doctrines; the last was, however, given special attention by such authors as Abu@ Bakr Mohammad Ba@qella@n^ (Monnot, 1977), Abd-al-Jabba@r b. Ahmad (Monnot, 1974), and Abu'l-Fath Mohammad ahresta@n^ (Gimaret and Monnot, pp. 635-54; cf. Monnot, 1986, pp. 119, 38, 41, 86, 124, 141 ff., 157 ff.). After the Muslim conquest of Persia and the exodus of many Zoroastrians to India and after having been exposed to both Muslim and Christian propaganda, the Zoroastrians, especially the Parsis in India, went so far as to deny dualism and to view themselves as outright monotheists (Dhalla, pp. 46-53, 156-73, 247-68, 337 ff.; Duchesne-Guillemin, 1953, pp. 161 ff.; idem, 1962, pp. 373-74; Boyce, 1979, pp. 197, 207, 213, 220). After several transformations and developments one of the defining features of the Zoroastrian religion thus gradually faded and has almost disappeared from modern Zoroastrianism.
Nevertheless, Iranian dualism spread widely east and west of the Iranian world, especially through Manicheism. Traces can still be found in Central Asian and particularly Tibetan cosmogonies (Klimkeit, 1986, pp. 46, 48; Tucci, 1949, pp. 730-31; idem, 1980, pp. 214, 271 n. 5; Gnoli, 1962, pp. 127-28; Hoffmann, pp. 102 ff.; Blondeau, p. 313; cf. Uray; Kvrne). In the West, although the connections are uncertain and the historical development difficult to reconstruct, religious dualism can be identified in the beliefs of Priscillianus and his followers in the late Roman empire, the Paulicians in the Byzantine empire, and later the Bogomils (see, e.g., Sderberg; Runciman; Loos; for a sound survey of the history and problems, see Manselli; for further references, see Couliano, pp. 223-81; Rudolph, pp. 402 ff., 423 n. 191).
Unquote:
Hope to have helped you
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | XCHOUX asked on 05/21/04 - A question re: Satan Didn't the concept of Satan develop in the MiddleEast as a result of the need to externalize the negative aspects of GodAlmighty, such as anger and jealously? curious98 answered on 05/22/04:In the Judeo Christian tradition, Satan, from the Hebrew word for "adversary," is the principal figure of the demonic world that is hostile to God and his will. In the Old Testament (for example, the Book of Job), Satan is presented as a distinct personality of darkness and accusation - the heavenly prosecutor. A fuller expression of his role is presented in the New Testament, where he is called "the tempter," "the slanderer," "the enemy," "the liar," and "the angel of the bottomless pit." Collectively, these titles present Satan as the one who has the power of death, rules with lies and deception, accuses humankind before God, and opposes the purpose of God in the world (while remaining obedient to God).
The Bible nowhere explains Satan's origin, but in both testaments he is presented as a part of the created order rather than as an eternal entity. Although, to the best of my knowledge, no explanation is given in the Bible for God's allowing Satan to exist, it does indicate that his time is short (only for this age of time and history) and his end is certain - ultimately he will be banished by the Messiah.
This concept of a temporal dualism in which Satan has influence is brought to expression most clearly in apocalyptic literature, such as the Book of Revelation. Two ages are reflected in apocalyptic cosmology: "this age" and "the age to come." Satan appears to be prevailing in this age, but in the age to come God will clearly display his sovereignty. In later Christian tradition Satan was described as a fallen angel.
But I would not go to the extent of saying that the concept of Satan can be dated back to Christianism, which you seem to imply.
In fact, I think it is as old as the concept of God. God represents the supreme prize while the Devil represents the supreme punishment.
The concept of a leader of the powers of darkness found expression in cultures as old as Sumerians. The Babylonians, Chaldeans, and Persians believed in a dualism between the forces of darkness and light. Ahriman, in Zoroastrianism, and Set, in Egyptian mythology, manifest characteristics similar to Satan's.
From certain cuneiform texts, which are more especially described as "religious", it appears that besides the public and official cult of the "twelve great gods" and their subordinate divinities, the Assyrians indulged in magic and sorcery. These "religious" texts together with a mass of talismanic inscriptions on cylinders and amulets prove the presence of an exceedingly rich demonology. Below the greater and lesser gods there was a huge lore of spirits, some of them good and beneficent and some of them evil and hurtful. Moreover, these spirits were described and classified with an exactness and method, which leads some to liken the arrangement to that of the choirs and orders of our own angelic hierarchy. The antiquity and importance of this secret religion, with its magic and incantations of the good spirits or evil demons, may be gathered from the fact that by order of King Assurbanipal his scribes made several copies of a great magical work according to an exemplar which had been preserved from a remote antiquity in the priestly school of Erech in Chaldea.
This work consisted of three books, the first of which is entirely consecrated to incantations, conjurations, and imprecations against the evil spirits. These cuneiform books, it must be remembered, are really written on clay tablets. And each of the tablets of these first books which has come down to us ends with the title, "Tablet No. - of the Evil Spirits". The ideogram which is rendered as kullulu -- "accursed" or "evil" -- might also be read as limuttu -- "baneful". Besides being known by the generic name of udukku -- "spirit" -- a demon is called more distinctly ecimmu, or maskimmu. One special class of these spirits was the sedu, or divine bull, which is represented in the well-known figure of a man-headed bull so common on the Assyrian monuments. This name, it may be remarked, is probably the source of the Hebrew word for demon. The Assyrian sedu, it is true, was more commonly a beneficent or tutelary spirit. But this is hardly an obstacle to the derivation, for the good spirits of one nation were often regarded as evil by men of rival races.
I honestly believe that the Satan concept was created by ALL religions to force their followers to walk the line.
Finally, at present, some theologists define Hell is the turture of having known GOD and not being able to share IT.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | XCHOUX asked on 05/20/04 - This is the Religion Board For all who are under a misconception, this is the Religion(Spiritual Path)Board, not any specific religious board. If you want to post questions and quibble, do it! I have a right to do what I want to say and do. I can share ideas with anyone who wants to "converse" with me!
Thanks for your cooperation.
Have a great day!
Chou curious98 answered on 05/21/04:I agree with you.
I hope you are not referring to me, for I've never questioned your right to participate in this forum.
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | XCHOUX asked on 05/18/04 - Middle Eastern GodAlmighty I tried to answer Elliot's clarification from two questions ago, but it didn't go through.
I understand that there are vast differences between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but they share the MiddleEastern GodAlmighty in their scriptures.
I consider GodAlmighty a demiurge. There is a higher "God" who is associated with the fierce Mystery of Creation. God is a Mystery and Creation is a Mystery. Middle Eastern humans over the ages have created this GodAlmighty to describe God from their puny knowledge and emotions. This "God" proves to be a failure as we see with our "lying eyes"!
Just my opinion as you have your opinion(s).
Have a great day, Chou curious98 answered on 05/19/04:O.K., lets try to clarify some points or, at least, to answer as best as possible your post.
There are differences between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But not that many! Judaism could be considered as the parent religion from where Christianism was born. Most of the Judaism sacred books are contained or shared in our Christian Old Testament. On the other hand, Jesus and his first disciples were all Jews. The basic difference is that Judaism never accepted and still dont- Jesus as the announced Messiah, whom they are still waiting for.
As for the Islam, differences are not that big when we are referring to the actual Al-Koran written by Mohammed. In fact, He recognizes Jesus as the last of the prophets, as well as most of the other prophets of the O.T.
And yes, the 3 religions do coincide in one basic important fact. There is a single GOD creator of the Universe and of everything in our little planet.
But GOD is not a Middle Eastern God Almighty but my GOD and your GOD too, though you have failed to recognize or accept it so far. GOD reigns all over his Creation (otherwise IT could not be identified with the meaning we give to this word) and therefore it would be a piece of sheer nonsense to claim that GOD is not the same GOD atheists do not believe in or Hindus adore. GOD, wherever IT may be, is EVERYWHERE at the same time and, of course, what we may think or believe of HIM is perfectly irrelevant.
Some of the followers of the 3 religions you mention are convinced that GOD is listening ONLY to them, while ignoring the others.
In my opinion, they are entirely wrong. If GOD listens to us at all, IT must listen to all for we are all ITS children. Human fathers if normal ones- listen to all their children, likewise, no matter what.
As for the famous Almighty of yours, you must bear in mind that earthen epithets only try to give an idea to our very limited minds of what GOD must be like.
We are, of course, short of words and/or ideas to properly describe the concept of GOD.
To start with many insist on depicting GOD as a venerable white bearded wise man sitting in the midst of pink clouds up there, somewhere. (What does it mean up or down, by the way?)
Or in many other ways, as many as our poor human imagination is able to create.
But hardly as an unimaginable force, energy or something entirely different to what we know, which holds and controls all peculiarities and epithets, like omniscient, omnipotent, ubiquity, etc. etc. to total perfection.
And that must necessarily be what you consider as a higher God
Man, since his very beginning, has had the instinct or the need to justify his very presence in this Planet. This peremptory need has compelled him to create the name and image of God.
It may have been the Sun, the Stars, a Horse or a Bear, and thousands of other representations. But the mere fact that ALL men with a few exceptions really- have to believe in something, already is a prove, in my opinion, that this something MUST exist,
The middle eastern men, and their descendents have only developed a set of beliefs, which have ended up by producing the 3 largest monotheistic religions now available. This probably means that the unknown GOD may have favoured us with some advantages in ITS regard. In every case, through Sacred Books, theoretically (and also possible, why not) inspired or dictated by GOD and written by men, explaining the history of a small part of our world. We, Christians, have it better, of course, for we have Jesus and his Gospels (whether the Son of God or Gods envoy or anoter prophet, is irrelevant, again in my opinion) for He might indeed have been sent by GOD to deliver his message of Love.
But in no case can GOD proves to be a failure, for every night, when we look at the sky, we have the actual prove, in front of our eyes, of Gods triumph!
The beauty of it all, however, is that each of one of us may believe what we want for that does not and will not modify a bit the fact that there is GOD.
And, sooner than we may think (for human life is so short) we shall all find out that was totally right or totally wrong and our curiosity will be fully satiated.
Regards
Curious98
Just my opinion as you have yours!
Think it over, Chou
| | Question/Answer | | XCHOUX asked on 05/18/04 - Western Buddhism I have studied some Buddhism(Western Buddhism, that is Buddhism explained and adapted to a Westerner by qualified Lamas) over the last number of years, and I would be curious to know where I can find out the number of Western Buddhists in the USA. Are the numbers growing, stuff like that.
Thanks, Choux curious98 answered on 05/19/04:Buddhism seems to be doing alright in the USA as well as in many other countries of the western world.
Maybe because it is not exactly a religion but a way of life or a philosophy of life with a high spiritual contents.
You should be interested, perhaps, in visiting some of the web sites below:
http://www.google.es/search?q=cache:0xjphXVYoa8J:www.diamondway.org/usa/1about.php+*is+buddhism+growing+in+the+usa*&hl=es
http://www.google.es/search?q=cache:VE8vdAZIrQIJ:www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/resourceguide/resourceguide.html+*is+buddhism+growing+in+the+usa*&hl=es
http://www.google.es/search?q=cache:6faEJ_2b2u0J:www.buddhanet.net/whybudoz.htm+*is+buddhism+growing+in+the+usa*&hl=es
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | XCHOUX asked on 05/17/04 - Woman's Purpose On of the responders(a Christian) to one my previous questions stated that it was a "woman's 'purpose'" to have children.
I ask the believers of GodAlmighty religions, what is the earthly PURPOSE of a male human?
curious98 answered on 05/18/04:Obviously, when what you say was written and accepted by ALL religions - and Mankind in general it was only logical that it would be a prevailing though, bearing in mind the world needed to be populated, and women were (and, of course, still are) the only ones able to do it. Man, on the other hand, as author of this and whatever other laws and statements were made at the time, felt his role was too important to be defined. In fact, man started the whole thing by saying (at least, in our Christian religion, he said so) that he had been created in the image of God, which, in my humble opinion, is the supreme evidence of masculine arrogance I can think of. And mind you, it is not that Im gay (when I was young this was not in fashion) nor have androphobia. It is simply, that I have always liked to call a spade a spade
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | XCHOUX asked on 05/17/04 - HIgher Ethical/Moral Standard For Women Do you think that the GodAlmighty religions and how they have evolved in the last thousand years or so hold women to a higher moral standard than they hold men to?? curious98 answered on 05/18/04:I do not think so.
Inasmuch as women and men are the 2 only specimens belonging to the human race, they are -in my opinion-entitled to the same moral standards, privileges and responsibilities. No reason why there should be any differences.
Yet, we must admit throughout centuries -and even now- it is true that such differences exist, and in many places and for many centuries, higher moral standards have been expected from women in some cases and in some others -actually Christianism to a certain extent- women have been considered as non having a soul.
But, in every case, this has nothing to do with what you call God Almighty. Whatever injustices we can see in our world have nothing to do with God Almighty - who by definition must be totally just- but with man, who constantly manipulates religions to suit his own private interests and reasons.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | XCHOUX asked on 05/16/04 - Pope Names New Saints This morning I was greeted by the announcement that the Pope had created a bunch of new saints. Among these new "saints" was a woman who gave her life so that her in utero fetus could live.
For me, this seems very sick to say that a woman is a saint for giving up her life unnecessarily. It smacks of mental oppression of women! Why? Why should a woman give up her life for a fetus???? Are women still very second class citizens to the Catholic Clergy?
The best thing you can say about a woman is that she died??? A saint??? Or a victim of evil dogma???
Comments? curious98 answered on 05/16/04:Obviously you are not only in favour of abortion (I am not) but you DO NOT RESPECT the fact other people may think differently than you do.
And people who think they are right while refusing they might be wrong or people who refuse others the right to think differently, not ONLY they do not understand Democracy but they are very CLOSE to Fascism or Neo-Nazism thinking. In Mussolinis Italy, Hitlers Germany, Stalins URSS or Francos Spain (and I know what Im talking about) you had to be very careful to express an opinion which would be different than the official point of view.
But true democrats have learnt since a long time ago to respect other peoples way of thinking and debate, instead of imposing, our own opinion. True democrats are also respectful. That means that I would not dare saying that the Pope had created a bunch of new saints.
This way of talking implies a great disrespect for all Roman Catholic followers. The Pope does not create a bunch of saints. Perhaps, you should say the Pope creates some new saints instead, assuming saints can be created by the Pope, when what he actually does is to nominate them.
This said, another thing it would be advisable for you to do is to investigate a little about the life of the person you are talking about.
Maybe it is hard for you to understand it but, thanks God, there are people in our world who do not share your thoughts, although no doubt, you think they are wrong
For your guidance I reproduce a short biography of Gianna Baretta Molla.
Quote:
Gianna Beretta Molla (1922-1962)
Gianna Beretta was born in Magenta (Milan) October 4, 1922. Already as a youth she willingly accepted the gift of faith and the clearly Christian education that she received from her excellent parents. As a result, she experienced life as a marvellous gift from God, had a strong faith in Providence and was convinced of the necessity and effectiveness of prayer.
She diligently dedicated herself to studies during the years of her secondary and university education, while, at the same time, applying her faith through generous apostolic service among the youth of Catholic Action and charitable work among the elderly and needy as a member of the St. Vincent de Paul Society. After earning degrees in Medicine and Surgery from the University of Pavia in 1949, she opened a medical clinic in Mesero (near Magenta) in 1950. She specialized in Pediatrics at the University of Milan in 1952 and thereafter gave special attention to mothers, babies, the elderly and poor.
While working in the field of medicine-which she considered a mission and practiced as such-she increased her generous service to Catholic Action, especially among the very young and, at the same time, expressed her joie de vivre and love of creation through skiing and mountaineering. Through her prayers and those of others, she reflected upon her vocation, which she also considered a gift from God. Having chosen the vocation of marriage, she embraced it with complete enthusiasm and wholly dedicated herself to forming a truly Christian family.
She became engaged to Pietro Molla and was radiant with joy and happiness during the time of their engagement, for which she thanked and praised the Lord. They were married on September 24, 1955, in the Basilica of St. Martin in Magenta, and she became a happy wife. In November 1956, to her great joy, she became the mother of Pierluigi, in December 1957 of Mariolina; in July 1959 of Laura. With simplicity and equilibrium she harmonized the demands of mother, wife, doctor and her passion for life.
In September 1961 towards the end of the second month of pregnancy of her fourth son, she was touched by suffering and the mystery of pain; she had developed a fibroma in her uterus. Before the required surgical operation, and conscious of the risk that her continued pregnancy brought, she pleaded with the surgeon to save the life of the child she was carrying, and entrusted herself to prayer and Providence. The life was saved, for which she thanked the Lord. She spent the seven months remaining until the birth of the child in incomparable strength of spirit and unrelenting dedication to her tasks as mother and doctor. She worried that the baby in her womb might be born in pain, and she asked God to prevent that.
A few days before the child was due, although trusting as always in Providence, she was ready to give her life in order to save that of her child: If you must decided between me and the child, do not hesitate: choose the child - I insist on it. Save him. On the morning of April 21, 1962, Gianna Emanuela was born. Despite all efforts and treatments to save both of them, on the morning of April 28, amid unspeakable pain and after repeated exclamations of Jesus, I love you. Jesus, I love you, the mother died. She was 39 years old. Her funeral was an occasion of profound grief, faith and prayer. The Servant of God lies in the cemetery of Mesero (4 km from Magenta).
Conscious immolation, was the phrase used by Pope Paul VI to define the act of Blessed Gianna, remembering her at the Sunday Angelus of September 23, 1973, as: A young mother from the diocese of Milan, who, to give life to her daughter, sacrificed her own, with conscious immolation. The Holy Father in these words clearly refers to Christ on Calvary and in the Eucharist.
Gianna was beatified by Pope John Paul II on April 24, 1994, during the international Year of the Family.
Unquote:
At todays ceremony, her husband and her 4 sons were present and I had a chance to see their faces on TV. They looked so proud and happy that I felt a pang of envy.
And let me tell you something else, additionally. I think this lady now a saint by our Catholic standards- has much more merit by sacrificing her life for her new daugther who has been able to realize the magnitude of her sacrifice- than any of those poor soldiers that are told to offer their lives to save their countries
Those soldiers are considered as patriots!
This lady is considered a Christian!
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Yiddishkeit asked on 05/12/04 - CEO pay increases and politics... Although this is the "Religion" board I know many of you are very serious about America and it's current direction.
Both main party candidiates now have there ads on tv (Bush and Kerry) and as of last week I received the John Kerry DNC wish list in the mail. I'm giving strong consideration for voting none of the above and probably will just skip this election altogether.
If you have the MSN News home page (dated 5/12/04) and check out the article concerning the study done on the avg. US CEO pay that leaped 27% in 2003.
Now...the Corporation that I work just gave the Reports Record for the first quarter 2004. Here you go...generated net revenues 1.07 billion, up 12% from 2003 and produced an invididual property level of 370 million, up over the previous year and an all-time Company record for any quarter, and operating income 255 million, up 60% over 2003.
Wow! You just wish you had a potfolio like that...huh?!!!
But, how much did my pay leap last year? ONLY 2%!!! And that was only because of a cost of living increase. I never missed one day of work and you never found me on the golf course. Meanwhile, those fat headed brother-in-law CEO's types of America had a very large pay increase and to mention the bonus money that was generated on the backs of middle class America. As an additional insult to our dignity the damn CEO, who thinks he is so important, is still cutting jobs and downsizing by further enslaving the remaining work force for even more production.
I don't think for a minute that either, Bush or Kerry, are going to improve the average American working class status...not 2,3, or 4 years from election. The song will remain the same! Any little bit that has been done in the past has not been enough and I can't possibly see that changing for the better anytime soon.
Let's put aside thinking of one candidiate or party for just a moment. If you had the power to make change with the support of congress, senators, and the general public, what would you initiate to make improvements for middle-class working American?
Bobby
curious98 answered on 05/13/04:
Hi Bobby.
As you know Im not a USA citizen. All the same as a world citizen I feel I can give you my opinion.
Bush and Kerry have gone to the same University and both are millionaires. That means both are deeply involved in the system and geared to gain as much power and money as possible. Each one will promise the Moon to ensure his victory, and once in the Presidency they will forget most of what they said.
On the other hand, corporations all over the world use the same yardstick to keep going.
It goes without saying that if they would have given you a 10% increase, their profit would have suffered tremendously and their balance sheet would not look so glamorous for their stockholders.
As good Jew you were probably thinking in terms of ma-aser but Corporations do not think along these lines.
You are speaking of additional insults to your dignity But listen to this
One of my sons is the Financial Manager of a multi-billion corporation (2nd largest Editorial in Europe). However, their CEO is also the main shareholder with some 85% of all shares. According to Fortunes 500 magazine, he is in the 150 level, so that means he is not really a beggar. He has many other companies (an aircraft company amongst them) and some 20.000 people work for him.
Last January he instructed my son to inform all Human Resources manager that business was pretty bad all over, and he could NOT authorize any increase. So that my son could sound convincing enough he allowed him, however, a non-official 3% increase, which he receives in a separate account. Of course, my son knows quite well that business is going splendidly
To top it all, last month the CEOs only daughter got married, and he celebrated a Salomonic wedding in Barcelona, with some 1500 guests. My son estimated the cost in well over $200.000 for the luncheon only
And it appeared on all Magazines
And yet, I had to tell my son that, no matter what he thinks of this CEOs and all the other CEOs in the world, Capitalism (even wild Capitalism as this one) is the best system available to produce wealth for a great amount of people, like my son and probably you, too.
Not as much wealth as it would be desirable. Not as much wealth for everybody as it would be convenient. But, at least, you two still have a job and still manage to keep up a family in rather good terms.
There are many who cannot do that
So this is why my advice would be go for Kerry. He cannot be any worse that Bush has been for the USA and probably, at least, in the beginning, he will do a few things better.
He will, of course, keep on favoring your gorgeous COE (they probably know each other) but, as long as your COE has a job in your Corporation you are likely to go on being engaged, which is not too bad.
But do vote! Its not only your duty, but if you dont you wont be able to protest later on
Incidentally, a Financial Mgr.. in Spain, can make some 95.000, or US$ 114.000 a year,
How does that compare with the States, right now?
Regards
Claude
| | Question/Answer | | XCHOUX asked on 05/09/04 - Islam Islam is a religion and social system based primarily on the opression of women and general sexual repression derived from ideas and tribal stories millennia old. Men are God in their cultures.
The cork in the steaming kettle is going to pop in violent ways such as the Terrorist Mentality which is driven by hatred for women, deep psychological poison and resentment for the success of women in western cultures in which Arab men cannot compete because they do not have "God" status there.
Islam is antediluvian and evil in its primitive abusive human relationships not only toward women, but thegoverning elite toward the "commoners", the clerics coveting great power.
Comments... curious98 answered on 05/10/04:Most religions, when manipulated and adapted to private and political interests driven by lust for power or ethnical hate are equally dangereous.
History gives us plenty of evidence in this respect.
Islam, per se, is a legitimate religion, 2nd in number of followers.
The problem there, and you are, of course, right, is that Islam is being deeply and profoundly manipulated by Islamic priesthood (Ulemas, ayatolahs, etc.) who, in turn, are following indications of those who have undertaken a personal war against western culture.
The fact that Muslim populations, in general, are lacking the necessary cultural background to understand how they are being manipulated and also the sad coincidence that most Muslim countries are underdevelopped. belong to the so called 3rd world and millions are bving deprived of the minimum essential by their own leaders, makes Islamic Terrorism extremely dangerous for mankind.
But I think, it would be unfair to blame their religion for what is happening now as it would just be equally unfair to blame Christianism for the so called Holy Court of the Inquisition.
It is we men who must be blamed for all this nonsense...
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | XCHOUX asked on 05/08/04 - More Religious Oppression Did you know that it is illegal in several states of the US for an atheist to run for office? Can you name the states? curious98 answered on 05/09/04:I know really nothing about US lawa, mostly because I'm not a USA citizen.
But I would say such laws as you mention should date back to the beginnings of your Country when your founders were people extremely religious.
I'm sure that there must be scores of forgotten laws that need to be revised as it happen in many other countries, like mine, for one.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ETWolverine asked on 05/06/04 - A plea from a soldier. Guys,
This is an exerpt from an e-mail that I have received through the grapevine. I know Moses Sheinfeld well, and my wife has known him a lot longer. He's an Orthodox Jew, like myself, and a personal friend, and one of the straightest guys I've ever met. He's a Captian in the Rangers, and he's currently in a combat zone in the Sunni Triangle. I personally vouch for the legitimacy of this e-mail. It was written to some friends of his, asking them to get their synagogues to set up a 'care package drive'. But I see no reason not to share this letter with all of you as well.
If you can, please help lift the morale of the soldiers risking their lives to protect us, especially a frum yid. More detail to follow at the end of his letter:
---------
Greetings from Forward Operating Base Ar Ramadi (formerly Camp Junction City), the western edge of the "Sunni Triangle" in Iraq.
Today (20APR04), our unit, TF 1-16 IN (Iron Rangers), attended a memorial ceremony for our brother, SGT Christopher Ramirez, who was killed in action
while attacking an enemy dug in position during our unit's largest operation on 14APR04.
At the end of the ceremony, the 1st Sergeant (1SG) from SGT Ramirez's company, B Company (Bushmaster), conducted a heart-rendering ceremony called "Last Roll Call." The company of about 100 soldiers stood at
attention and the 1SG called out the name of a soldier and the soldier answered, "Here 1SG!" Then the 1SG called out the name of a different soldier and he answered, "here 1SG!" Then the 1SG called out the name of "SGT Ramirez" and there was no answer. He called out again, "SGT Christopher Ramirez," and no one answered. Just bone-chilling silence that was broken by a 21 gun salute in honor of this "Fallen Hero."
I mention this story to illustrate the great sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice which SGT Ramirez and 7 other Iron Rangers have made in the War on Terrorism, a war to protect us all.
Now, I request from each of you that you make a sacrifice on behalf of the soldiers of the Iron Ranger Battalion and the other soldiers of the Devil
Brigade. I request that each of you prepare a package of food and other items for our soldiers at the front of the War on Terrorism. Every single day, we face enemy direct fire outside the "wire" and enemy indirect fire inside the wire (we are mortared and rocketed on a regular basis inside the base). Your packages will be a phenomenal morale boost.
When our soldiers receive your packages, it's a little bit of home 7,000 miles from U.S. soil. The positive impact of your packages will be immeasurable. Your package will not only express your care and concern for
our soldiers, but also represent a much, much needed break in the monotony we face each day. We eat the same foods on a 3 week cycle, day in and day out. We see the same things day in and day out in our small post exchange.
This is a unique and extraordinary opportunity for the Jewish community of the United States, every temple, synagogue, congregation, and JCC and for each Jew to support the soldiers who are over here. Most Iron Rangers will be deployed to Iraq for up to a year away from family, friends, and home. Can you imagine being away from your wife, your husband, your children,
your parents for a year? It's a tremendous and noble sacrifice.
A principle Jewish value is hakart h'tov (recognition of good, gratitude). Sending packages here to Iraq is a unique opportunity to fulfill this mitzvah, this good deed.
Our soldiers would appreciate the following items: dried fruit, popcorn, candy (hard, soft), Pez and Pez dispensers, gum, cakes, cookies, power bars (EAS, Met-RX), nuts, chocolate (all types of M & M's), coffee (ground coffee, Starbucks would be greatly appreciated, soldiers love and live on coffee!!!), white exercise socks, Gold Bond powder, magazines, newspapers, soft cover books, and anything else you can think of to surprise our soldiers.
Success, victory for this avodah (this labor) will be twofold. One is that this e-mail makes the rounds to every Jew in the U.S. and two is that each member of the American Jewish community responds with a package. If thousands of packages come rolling in, this will be a magnificent kidush h'shem (a sanctification of the name of G-D).
You can send your package to the following address:
Iron Ranger Battalion and Devil Brigade
C/O
CPT Moses Scheinfeld
HHC/1-16 IN
1 BCT, 1 ID (M)
FOB Ar Ramadi/Camp Junction City
APO AE 09394
Please send your packages by priority mail. It will get here faster.
Finally, please continue to pray and say Tehillim (Psalms) for the successful mission and safe return of our troops here in Iraq and in other distant places.
"Rangers Lead The Way, But G-D Is The Way"
CPT Moses Scheinfeld
P.S. The walls of our headquarters are covered with patriotic drawings and expressions of appreciation and thanks from children all over the U.S. Such drawings from kids from Gan Shalom in Chicago, Ramaz in New York, the Beren Academy in Houston, and all the other Jewish schools in the U.S. would mean much. There's still plenty of space on our walls for these.
-------------
OK. Here's a little more information:
When sending these packages overseas, you will need to fill out a 'customs declaration form' (Form 2976 or 2976-A). Articles are liable for customs duty and/or purchase tax unless they are bona fide gifts intended for use by military personnel or their dependents. When the contents of a parcel meet these requirements, the mailer must endorse the customs form, "Certified to be a bona fide gift, personal effects, or items for personal use of military personnel and dependents," under the heading, Description of Contents.
Here is a partial list of items that the soldiers are commonly looking for. It comes from the Operation Military Pride website
http://www.operationmilitarypride.org/packages.html
Food Items
*Instant coffee. There are many flavored coffees that are very good.
*Powdered Gatorade.
*Powdered hot chocolate
*Kool-Aid (presweetened of course)
*Tea bags
*Slim Jim's
*Crackers and Easy Cheese. Triscuits and Ritz crackers are great.
*Single servings of bagged chips. (The small bags stay fresh longer.)
*Candy, of course. (M & M's are great, hard candy-anything that won't melt.)
*Little Debbie snack cakes
*Bubble gum
*Rice Krispie Treats
*Dry cereal. (The small, individual serving boxes stay very fresh.)
*Kraft Easy Mac
*Microwave popcorn
*Beef jerky
*Granola bars
*Power bars
*Dried fruit
*Chex mix
*Canned soup
*Tuna
*Spices (Onion powder, garlic powder, spice all, ect )
*Summer sausage
*Oatmeal
*Salsa
*Lollipops
*Marshmallows
*Gum
*Chips
*Ragu Express
*Canned chicken
*Salad dressing
*Instant soup
*Fast food condiments (Hot sauce, ketchup, mustard, salt and pepperpackets, relish, Mayo)
Practical
*Clorox wipes
*Baby wipes
*Razors
*Shampoo, conditioner
*After shave lotion
*Soap or body wash
*Mouth wash
*Deodorant
*T-shirts, underwear and socks, monthly.
*A big fluffy towel
*Eye drops, especially for those in the desert.
*Chapstick
*Lip balm
*Sun block
*Skin so soft (Avon)
*Lotion
*Dental floss
*Baby powder
*Foot powder
*Combs /brushes
*Cotton balls
*Liquid hand sanitizer
*Breath mints
*Contact lens cleaner
*Eye drops
*Nail files
Just for fun
*Send batteries. It sounds simple, but people forget.
*Sunblock
*A stress ball.
*Stamps, paper and envelopes with a nice writing pen might inspire a few more letters home.
*Phone cards (AT&T work best from Kuwait)
*Paperback book or magazines
*Disposable cameras
*Puzzles
*Film
*Journals
*Yo Yo's
*Squirt guns
*Frisbees
*Dart boards
*Small flash lights
*Hackie sacks
*Jump ropes
*Electronics hand held games
*Post cards from your home state
*Handmade items
*Radio head sets
*Portable CD players
*Mini fans
*Jokes and comics
*Balloons
*Hats (Baseball)
*Bandannas
*Socks
*Blankets
*Bug off
*Single sheet sets
*Birthday decorations
*Banners
*Send board games-the ones they have made into key chains.
*With a CD burner, make a CD of favorite songs.
*Send a few toys. Slinky, sidewalk chalk, squirt guns...anything extra silly.
*Send electronic games.
*Make a miniature scrapbook.
*Foam footballs and basketballs, the miniature size. These will be used constantly!
THINGS NOT TO SEND
*Pressurized items (Shaving cream, etc...)
*Chocolates (May melt all over package)
*Liquor
*News for shipments to the Persian Gulf
Thanks, everyone, for taking an interest and helping out our soldiers. This is a great chance to show them that we appreciate their putting their lives on the line for us. Hakaras hatov (recognition and gratitude) is a HUGE mitzvah. Please help them out.
I know from personal experience that morale can mean EVERYTHING in a fight.
May you be remembered on the Day of Judgement for your Good Deeds.
Elliot curious98 answered on 05/06/04:A most sincere salute for your friend and admiration for all soldiers that are risking their lives in that hell!
Do you think, they will welcome a parcel from a non jew Spanish citizen?
I hope so
I will also try to distribute this mail to the Jewish community in Barcelona and in Madrid.
Let me know what you think?
Reagrds
Claude | | Question/Answer | | XCHOUX asked on 05/03/04 - Forging a New Religion Scientology gained tax exempt status from the IRS in 1993...they stated that they were a religion after a scare. The Food and Drug Administration raided their offices and seized e-meters, part of their self-help program. Hubbard had been making madical claims for the device which could not be proven.
Hubbard added religious myth to his program which he apparently made up out of whole cloth. The final stage of scientology, one must tlepathically contact the parasitic body thetans and persuad them to let go. Critics deride all this as bad science fiction. But religion scholas J. Gordon Melton, who has studied dozens of new religions, says Scientology's theology is no more "irrational and ridiculous than the creation myths of many mainstream religions.
Any comments?
curious98 answered on 05/04/04:
Religions are man made, but some are GOD inspired; at least, this is what I believe, being that I believe in GOD while I assume my own religion Roman Catholic has been widely tampered with by men, throughout history.
The Church of Scientology, though, is a sect, as there are so many others popping up in your Country. With all due respect to its members that I know of it has been outlawed, at least, in Spain and in France.
I call sect all those religious organizations where it is very easy to get in and very difficult to get out. This seems to be the case of the C. of Sci.
However, I must admit that Im not interested in religions that are younger than 400 years give or take. I respect the right everyone has to believe in what he/she deems it convenient, and I admire the ability some people have to convince others of almost anything. Like some of the Hindu gurus who drive Rolls Royces and people keep on throwing flowers and rupees when they go by in their splendid cars.
Alas! Thats life.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | PraiseJah asked on 04/28/04 - Sh*t happens Christianity - the devil did it
Buddhism - you deserved it
Judaism - why me?
Hinduism - again and again and again. curious98 answered on 04/28/04:Great answer from Elliot!
BTW, what is your kind of Sh*t?
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | XCHOUX asked on 04/22/04 - The Worst Kind of Religious Oppression I have personally found that the worst kind of religious oppression is against those who do not beieve in the God of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
How terrible! Would any politician get elected if he/she actually stated that they didn't believe? No way! They have to pretend they believe. All over a matter of opinion!
curious98 answered on 04/22/04:I'm a Christian Catholic and I partly agree with you, i.e. I would not feel inclined to vote for an atheist for the simple reson that, in my opinion, of course, whoever does not believe in anything is lacking a certain amount of logical sense. Someone, somehow, must be responsible for the Creation of the Universe.
On the other hand, I would not mind voting for some who would profess any other religion like hinduism, for one.
Again, in my opinion, a truly religious persons offers some guarantees of honesty and straightforwardness.
The problem, as you also point out, is that quite a few the pretend to believe and they don't, and they get elected on the assumption they are faithful followers of one religion or other.
And even worse than that, there are those who are fanatic believers and, on top of that, pretend to be in direct communication with God, who also get elected and can be tremendously dangerous, for they always find a reason to justify their behavior through God.
In order to mention anyone alive, I will give as an instance Ayatollah Jomeini.
But, bear in mind that Christian or Judaism fundamentalism is just as perilous for mankind as Islamic fundamentalism.
Best regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | XCHOUX asked on 04/16/04 - Religion and God I feel some confusion has arisen over some of my comments which, I see, may be confusing.
I believe in a Higher God than the gods described in Judaism, Christianity(god almighty) and Islam. Also, in other tribal based religions like Hinduism, Shintoism, and assorted lesser known religions.
One of the problems for me is to make a distinction between my god and what most others call god which is god almighty. I see that not capitalizing the name of the Middle Eastern God/Allah may be a problem for some. I will now use *God* when speaking of my God(I'm not an atheist, more like Deism), and God when speaking of your God. Please accept my apologies.
Give me any other advice as you see fit. curious98 answered on 04/17/04:Dear Schoux,
In the first place I think it would be good if we should all stop referring to Allah as the God of Islam. Allah in Arab means God, very much as Gott in German, Dieu, in French, Dios, in Spanish, Dio, in Italian, God, in English and so on and so forth...
In the second place your "God" is my God and everybody else's God, no matter what each one of us may say or believe.
Islam, Judaism, Christianism, Deism, Hinduism, Sintoism, and what have you, they all share the same God, though many insist only theirs is the true one.
That's fine with me, for everybody has a right to believe in what their parents taught him/her or into who he/she may have chosen to believe in
But, what I'm trying to tell you, is that, in your case, you say you believe in one such "God" above all the rest. And this God is above all the others, the point is that HE must be the number ONE "God" or God or GOD; the Big Boss, so to speak, who created everything in this Universe, including you and me.
Accepting this premise, the kind of liturgy each one of us decides to follow in honest good faith does not matter too much, at least in my opinion.
At the end of our journey we shall all meet (this is a rhetoric figure, of course, to avoid theological discussions) and will share our common destiny whichever it may be.
I do not have any doubt that we are ALL heading for the same Station Terminus.
If part of the Islam believe in a Paradise with sweet fruits and 64 virgins for each male that has committed suicide in the name of God (I wonder what the Ulemas promise to each woman that has also committed suicide), or if we Christians believe we shall all sit at the right of God Father, or if Hindus believe we may end up as a Holy Cow in our next reincarnation, or if Jews hope for the Messiah to take them to Paradise, it does not matter very much, does it?
We must accept -at least, those who believe in ONE God - there cannot be different Paradises or destinations for each different believes.
We are not that important... In fact, we are insignificant before the Almighty GOD we all believe in, you too, one way or other, one name or other, one liturgy or other.
When the ONE and ONLY God created the Universe He must have certainly laid out the plans for whatever living beings there may exist in such Universe (lets not insist on the dream we are the only ones) and there cannot be anything past, present or future God ignores or has yet to decide about our future.
In fact, if God does care about us a tiny winy as some of us may believe in- ITs bound to have a kick out of our earthen worries and discussions at all levels regarding who God is, and Gods plans about us.
Best regards
Curious98
BTW. I think Capitalizing the name of God is just a sign of respect.
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 04/13/04 - How dumb can you be? Given that God knows everything that is going to happen, and that the Devil has been around long enough to probably know that, why on earth would the Devil Bet God regarding Job?
No matter what the Devil did, God already knew what Job would do, right? So God already knew the outcome of the bet. The Devil had to know that God knew (heck, I know He knows, how could the Devil be dumber than I am?). Why would the Devil bet God when he knows that God already knows the outcome? What was in it for the devil?
curious98 answered on 04/13/04:
If your question has to do with an interest in promoting some sort of debate on something we can do nothing but speculate, then my answer would be the devil was ahead of a new frustration, as the many he had already had and the many he was yet to have.
If you are candidly interested in a formal answer I should say that, in the first place, and irrespective of what our religious beliefs are, if we believe in GOD we must accept HE is Omniscient.
Our knowledge is limited--we do not know everything and cannot. The more we learn, the more we find out that there is so much that we do not yet know and understand. Only a foolish man thinks he knows it all. But though we only learn and know in part, God knows ALL! Nothing is hidden from Him. This too is beyond our understanding to comprehend. God is Omniscient; that is, He knows and possesses all knowledge.
This said the formal answer to your question lies hidden in GODs mysterious ways. It is part of human curious and arrogant nature to pretend to explain why GOD did this or that or what were HIS intentions to let something happen as it did.
But the actual fact is that everything we say, think, imagine, consider, study, read, is based on speculation. When we read the O.T. some of us will believe it to the letter considering it is GODs direct word- some will consider as a set of books teaching the story of the Jewish people, some will claim there are other holy books belonging to other religions which are also worth studying.
When we get to the Gospels in the N.T. some of us believe the message therein contained is superb as originating in the Son of God, some will simply say they are fine as coming from a prophet, and a few will go to the extent of saying there is no historic evidence of Jesus.
Most Biblical scholars, historians, archeologist and even the clergy are knowledgeable about one fact of Christianity that we Christian worshippers mostly ignore. There is limited historical facts to establish finite historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed. The vast majority of what Christians believe today is based purely on the New Testament , a collection of writings and testimony of those who supposedly knew Jesus and from those who never saw him. The origin of the New Testament was not the "bible" of the Christians until after 150 A.D. The actual "bible" of the early Christians was the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. For more than a century after the death of Christ, the early Christians relied on the Old Testament.
However, the recent finding of the burial cave of Caiaphas, the high priest, adds even more evidence to the general historical truth of the New Testament, though, of course, still leaved in the air the question of Jesus divinity.
Jesus resurrection the main pillar supporting the Christian Church- is just a matter of Faith for us Christians as it is for the Jews to believe in the O.T.
So you see, remove the Faith and all that remains is sheer speculation.
But, over and above all speculation there is the fact GOD exists and we simple mortals cannot dream of having the foggiest idea of what GODs plan have been, are or will be in our respect.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | abirl asked on 04/07/04 - Explaining God In your opinion, what is the best way to explain the concept of God to a child and at what age?
Thank you for answering.
Abir curious98 answered on 04/08/04:At 4 or 5, I took my own children out in the garden, at night; showed them the stary sky
and told them:
See all these little and bright points shining up there?
They were put up there by a good magicien who wanted to show us how powerful he is.
He also made the Sun and the Moon and the sea and the trees and everything you can see.
He lives up there, and He wants you and me and your mom and your brothers to be good and love each other very much.
And if we do, one day we shall see Him!
And it worked quite well...
But that was in the late fifties and mid sixties, when children were no used to navigate through Internet at 5 years old.
Right now, I must admit that perhaps my tale
would make them smile...
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 04/06/04 - How would you answer? Short intro: One cubicle over from me sits a VERY religous proselytizer, who is always pushing a religous slant/agenda onto everyone near to him. He isn't horribly annoying, just enough that you constantly hear him on the phone, talking to church mates at work, debating religion with others during breaks, etc..
I overheard him on Monday inviting another worker to a "special Easter Service" his church was holding "so that (the other worker) "could get to know about God and Christ better." He has been "working" this particular co worker for about 6 months, trying to get him to come to church.
The worker replied "Thank you, but I have no interest in worshipping a god who orders a mother to stone her children to death."
It is the first time in 3 years I have heard Mr. Religion speechless... Coworker walked away (to silent cheers?), and Mr. Religion stayed quiet the rest of the day.
My question: Given that someone else will use that line against him (as a way to quiet him down), what would YOUR answer and line of defense be against it? How would you handle the charge? curious98 answered on 04/07/04:It depends on the "talk" he/she claims is having with the Lord.
In this particular case, there is no question in my mind she is totally insane.
And, do not forget that not ALL who claim have been talking to GOD have indeed doing so.
Many say so to justify their actions by making us believe they have a direct red line with GOD.
But this is not so extraordinary. The extraordinary thing, in my opinion, is the amount of people that give them credit for what they say.
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 04/06/04 - How would you answer? Short intro: One cubicle over from me sits a VERY religous proselytizer, who is always pushing a religous slant/agenda onto everyone near to him. He isn't horribly annoying, just enough that you constantly hear him on the phone, talking to church mates at work, debating religion with others during breaks, etc..
I overheard him on Monday inviting another worker to a "special Easter Service" his church was holding "so that (the other worker) "could get to know about God and Christ better." He has been "working" this particular co worker for about 6 months, trying to get him to come to church.
The worker replied "Thank you, but I have no interest in worshipping a god who orders a mother to stone her children to death."
It is the first time in 3 years I have heard Mr. Religion speechless... Coworker walked away (to silent cheers?), and Mr. Religion stayed quiet the rest of the day.
My question: Given that someone else will use that line against him (as a way to quiet him down), what would YOUR answer and line of defense be against it? How would you handle the charge? curious98 answered on 04/06/04:My answer would be that Deanne Laney was obviously either pathologically out of her mind or had chosen that line as an excuse to hide some obscure sadist whim or instinct of hers.
And then I would add that if she accords Deanne the slightest suspicion of having actually received a message from God, and then it would be her who should immediately see a psychiatrist
And I would call it a day and go to the services by my little old self.
Curious98
PS. Unfortunately, there are plenty of religious nonsense and fanatism going around these days.
Nobody in his/her sane mind, for instance, may believe that Moslems God (Allah) who is also our own GOD, is behind what the Islamic fundamentalists are doing.
The trouble is that some of their crazy priests are listened to and believed by some even crazier followers. But this is not new. Only recently, we had devils like that, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, who were so convincing that they still have followers.
| | Question/Answer | | kindj asked on 04/02/04 - On the Pharisees, Sadducees, and others... I'm curious if, within Judaism, there is still a "sect" or group that is called the Pharisees, Sadducees, or any of the other names of old.
If not, do their traditions continue in some circles?
How about the Essenes? From what I've read about them, those guys were pretty OK to me.
I know in Christianity I have personally called some "Christians" modern-day Pharisees, meaning to speak to their love of law over the law of love.
I sincerely hope I was not insulting to another group by accident in doing so.
Anyway, the real question I had was whether or not these groups still officially exist, or if they were pretty much disbanded after 70AD.
I'm obviously not a historian, so this should be pretty easy for those of you that are.
DK curious98 answered on 04/02/04:Probably, if you were a Jew you might be somewhat offended unless you would appreciate that the word Pharisee has been adopted in the Western World to define someone who has a high opinion of himself.
The following are the definitions from 2 reliable dictionaries:
From the Webster Dictionary definition:
Middle English pharise, from Old English fariseus, and from Old French pharise both from Late Latin phar saeus, from Greek phar saios, from Aramaic p ri ayy , pl. of p ri , separate, from p ra , to separate. See pr in Semitic Roots.]
1st definition
Phar"i*see (?), n. [L. Pharisaeus, Gr. , from Heb. pārash to separate.] One of a sect or party among the Jews, noted for a strict and formal observance of rites and ceremonies and of the traditions of the elders, and whose pretensions to superior sanctity led them to separate themselves from the other Jews.
2nd Definition
a self-righteous or sanctimonious person
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Pharisees were an ancient sect of Judaism; they existed during the time of rabbis Hillel the Elder and Shammai, and during the time of Jesus. They are the direct predecessor to what eventually became known as Rabbinic Judaism.
In contrast to other Jewish groups of the time, such as Sadducees, Pharisees held that the books of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible, also called the written law) have always been transmitted in parallel with an oral tradition. They pointed as proof to the text of the Torah itself, where they said many words were left undefined, and many procedures mentioned without explanation or instructions; the reader is assumed to be familiar with the details from other sources. This parallel set of material was originally transmitted orally, and came to be known as "the oral law". By 200 CE much of this material was edited together into the Mishnah, the core document of rabbinic Judaism. Thus, from the Saduccee and Essene point of view, the Pharisees were the liberal party, which allowed for flexibility in the interpretation of the law.
This sect was present in the days of Jesus. Christians have traditionally seen Jesus as an opponent of the Pharisees, accusing them of being only outwardly religious, rather than inwardly observant of the Law. Jesus was opposed to the Pharisees emphasis on observance of religious purity laws. Some modern day scholars argue that this reading is no longer tenable, and that when the New Testament is read in its historical context, Jesus's attitude towards the law was more like a liberal offshoot of Pharisee thought.
While during the first century CE and earlier, the Pharisees were faced with opposition from other Jewish groups such as the Essenes and the Sadducees, they were eventually triumphant; rabbinic Judaism as it is known today is descended from them.
| | Question/Answer | | tomder55 asked on 03/30/04 - prophets have the line of prophets ended ,or did it continue beyond the biblical days? (besides the Muslim recognition of Mohammed of course) .Is there a system in the major religions that emerged from the deserts of the Middle East to recognize ,and possibly embrace prophets of the post bible era ? curious98 answered on 03/31/04:I think it all depends upon your personal beliefs and upon the different major religions.
Also, upon how you want to define the word Prophet.
For instance, you have someone like Nostradamus; some like to claim he is a prophet...
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 03/29/04 - Your opinion: Was Christ aware? Apologies to my Jewish mentors on the board... feel free to answer or ignore:
Since the gospels skip almost all of Christ's childhood, I was wondering what YOU thought.
Was Christ aware of His destiny as a child, or did He only become aware of His role as an adult? Did He grow up thinking "wow, I am the Son of GOd, I have huge job ahead of me..." or do you think His role was hidden from Him until later? When did He become aware of his part in the plan/big picture? curious98 answered on 03/31/04:You, of course, realize that we have no way of knowing for sure what were Jesus' thoughts as a child.
However, if you are asking for personal opinions, mine is that He grew up as a plain normal child and it was not until He was an adult that He became conscient of His destiny.
As to when did He find out -as adult- of his role, again this is just another point open to speculation, bearing in mind, mostly that through the Gospels we know only the final part of Jesus' life.
According to the Gospel only Mary, Jesus' mother, and Joseph (his putative father, as you know) were aware from the very beginning of Jesus' destiny.
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | kindj asked on 03/29/04 - Here's another guy's take--- Here's what another guy thinks about the Israel/Yassin situation. He may be kind of famous, but his opinion is that of just an ordinary guy.
Makes a lot of sense to me, though.
>>Defending Ourselves
A couple of days ago Israeli forces sought out and killed a Palestinian named Yassim. He was a pathetic figure, small, emaciated and confined to a wheelchair.
Yet under those innocent looking white robes he wore beat the heart of a wanton terrorist. He was the founder of Hamas and responsible for the murder of hundreds of innocent Jewish women and children, masterminding an untold number of suicide raids against the Israelis.
Yet when the Jews finally take him out world opinion runs from
caustic criticism to outrage. How dare the Israelis retaliate, how dare they take out a terrorist who was dedicated body and soul to their destruction.
Well I dont care what the rest of the world says, I say, way to go Israel, we could take a lesson from you in this country. What it comes down to is do we destroy our enemies or do we sit back and let our enemies destroy us? And believe me folks, its going to be one way or the other, there is no middle ground.
Too long the U.S.A. has yielded to world opinion and political correctness and the inane and feeble edicts of the United Nations. Too long we have ignored our enemies until we find them on our doorstep.
There are parts of the world that are not going to like America
no matter what we do. We could consign fifty percent of our gross national product to them and they would still criticize and hate us.
One of the things which appalls me most is that there are so many people in this country who just dont get it. They think that if we leave the terrorists alone theyll leave us alone, that if we placate them they will go away.
Well nothing could be farther from the truth. Theyre never going to leave us alone no matter what we do and every little acquiescence is interpreted by them as weakness and in reality, it really is.
There are those who say that America has brought this on herself, that we are a mean and malevolent nation who rides roughshod over the rest of the world. There are even those who would side with the Palestinians who say that we were complicit in the assasination of Yassim.
The Palestinians say that they are going to hold the U.S.A. accountable and start terrorist attacks on American soil and interests.
Well I for one think that at the very first sign of Palestinian
terrorism that a few well placed bombs in the Bekah valley might be in order along with the immediate cutting of all aid to them.
But the best thing we could do is to encourage the Israelis to take the gloves off. They know how to deal with terrorism and are ready and willing to do it if their only ally would just get out of the way and let them have at it.
Pray for our troops.
God Bless America.
Charlie Daniels<<
DK curious98 answered on 03/31/04:
As a non-USA citizen I must say that, globally, I agree with Mr. Daniels remarks. There are, of course, several points in his paper that might deserve some further debate but, in the whole, getting rid of that sinister character, as it was Mr. Yessin is a good piece of news. At least, he will not be able to harm anybody anymore
The problem now lies with the eventual revenge Hamas will seek which, as usual, will hit innocent people. Unfortunately, there seems to be no other way to finish with terrorism right now than to behead its many heads. For Islamic terrorism is like the Lernaean Hydra in Argos, Herakles had to slaughter as his 2nd work. Yet, the Hydra had only 9 heads and this terrorism has many more.
What has happened in Madrid on the 3/11 is an instance of what Im saying. We have managed to already throw into jail 17 morocchans (14 have been proven guilty) but, so far, we havent been able to locate their head. Not even to find out who was sponsoring this terrible attack.
I, for one, believe that Mr. Arafat is just as responsible as Mr. Yessin, and he should be next in the list
But it cannot be done in the open and brag about it
There are certainly subtler and probably more efficient- ways to eliminate all these guys.
Besides, I think it is a very effective form of counter-terrorism to destroy its main leaders without letting them know where the next blow is going to come from!
In other words, to do the same think as they like so much to do.
They have the whole world as a target and they like to hit without any warning. We should be doing the same thing. And if they can do it, there is no question in my mind we can do it too, and do it in such a way, that nobody can put the blame upon anyone in particular.
Then it would not be possible to talk about State terrorism
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Yiddishkeit asked on 03/15/04 - Here's an opportunity for all... Recently our Religion board has discussed American and World politics.
I'm an Independent minded voter, another words I don't care for neither of the two main parties, Democrat or Republican. I'm registered Democrat, but do not have an alliance to support a particular party affiliation. I have some issues that I agree with Libertarian Party and the Constitutional Party as well. Since Claude and Elliot started discussions concerning American politics the other day I have now started to look online concerning various issues and the candidiates.
Here are some issues important to me and why:
* Health Care...I would like to see health care for every American citizen or legal resident. If Canada can do it, I'm sure we can also.
* Social Security...This issue Elliot and I touched upon earlier. I look for reform or preferably dismantling the system to allow control over their oiwn hard monies.
* IRS...ditto on the tax system here in the U.S. I would abolish the I.R.S. and go to a flat tax system or just about anything else at this point.
* Illegal-Imigration...well if your spending time in the U.S. taking the food out of my families mouths perhaps then we should close the borders. The only other solution I see fit is to make Mexico another state or at the very least a common-wealth like Puerto Rico.
* Corporations...At some point when does Corporate America get the message? The government gives them tax breaks and why? In return with their greediness they break down the fabric of America with down-sizing and lay-offs...and a big no thank you for that! Let's get back to the government encouraging upstart small business and that in return will produce employment.
* Pro-Life...this means to me that abortion is only allowed if the mother's life is in danger or rape. I think adoption first in most cases over possiblity of an abortion.
* I'm pro-Israel....this means to me that Israel remains a State and that non-Jews are treated with all due respect as long as they are commited to Israel and remaining law abiding citizens.
* Budget, deficit, economy...well for me it's stop focusing on Iraq and throwing our U.S. dollars at their country. I'm very supportive that Pres. Bush did the world a favor by ridding it of the Saddam Hussein regime, now let's come home and work toward securing our borders. Reduce troop involvment before we end up like the USSR did with Afghanistan.
Well I'm stepping down off my soap-box now and as always I give ***** stars for the effort and opinion, not if I agree with a person or not. This is for everyone to share their views and opinions. Some of our board members are American citizens and yet other are not, in all fairness, allowing all to vote for the next United States president who would you vote for and why?
Bobby
curious98 answered on 03/15/04:Hi Bobby,
Here are my views for what they are worth:
* HEALTH CARE...
Not only Canada. The E.U. too. And though in some countries is better than in others in the average is quite good. But this is the sort of socialization many are against in your country.
* SOCIAL SECURITY...
Yes, but that implies having to rely upon private Banking or Insurance Corporations and in turn in the Stock Market ups and downs. All my sons have been investing money on a monthly basis on Dutch or American Insurance Corps., to build a pension plan for when they retire. Theoretically, these funds were absolutely safe and guaranteed to grow every year. Safe, they are, indeed, at least so far. But, after the collapse of the Stock Market since the 9/11, the money they invested is now worth less than the total theyve paid so far
Social Security was facing and to a certain extent still is- certain insecurity for eventual lack of funds. Retired people living longer and diminishing vegetative growth depicting a rather pessimistic panoramic. However, the situation has improved thanks to immigrants who, not only have more children, but also quote to the SS. In Spain, for instance, we have gone from a forecast of almost bankruptcy by 2010 to an optimistic superavit until 2020.
Every year our pensions are increased by the increase of the cost of life and, in some cases like myself, what I have got so far from the SS already exceeds what I paid up in total while I was working.
* IRS...DITTO.
Here, we all have problems. No possibility of improvement whatsoever, no matter what Elliot says. Money spent by Government has to come out of somewhere. And normally it is from taxpayers pockets.
* ILLEGAL-IMIGRATION...
Illegal immigrants come because they find people who employ them. Those who employ them should be penalized by Law and then, perhaps they would not come. As for your idea, Im sure Mexicans would gladly become a member state of the US provided they would be treated as equals. They would simply considerably increase their living standards, wouldnt they?
* CORPORATIONS...
Agreed. And dont you ever forget the problem of greediness of Corporate America, and of Corporate Europe and of Corporate Asia affects the entire World.
In fact I sustain the idea that the main psychological resource where international terrorism supplies from as far as terrorists are concerned is the misery of third world countries, which Transnational Corporations contribute to conscious or unconsciously.
* PRO-LIFE...
I agree.
* I'M PRO-ISRAEL....
Makes sense bearing in mind your beliefs.
I agree with you, but Arafat on one side and Sharon on the other it will still take some time to calm down the situation.
* BUDGET, DEFICIT, ECONOMY...
And unless you get out you are bound to be. Your Government should understand that fighting guerrilla war in some countries does not pay the effort, the money and most than all the casualties in human lives. You should know because you had a terrible experience in Viet Nam at the loss of 55000 young guys.
Pres. Bush got rid of Saddam, yes. The trouble is that his father could have done the same think 11 years ago, and he didnt.
But then you might wish to consider what this delay in taking action against S.H. has represented in terms of profit for weaponry industries (plane, warships, arms, equipment, etc) in your country
In all fairness, Id vote for JFK, though he seems to belong to the same secret Yale org. than the present Pres. But maybe he is smarter.
| | Question/Answer | | excon asked on 03/06/04 - Gay Marriage
Hello experts:
Is gay marriage a legal or a religious issue? Certainly, its a political issue. Im asking this same question on the law board as well as on the political board to see if the responses differ depending on ones particular expertise. If youre on those boards (as I know some of you are), feel free to answer from a different perspective if you have one. I, personally, have many.
I think its a religious issue. If it werent, there wouldnt be any fuss about it. Or would there be? Is the gene out of the bottle? What happens to those licenses already granted? Is it here to stay? Or has Armageddon arrived?
excon
curious98 answered on 03/06/04:Hi Excon,
I think it is everything. A religious issue, a political issue and a legal issue probably. But, most than all, I think it is an anti-natural law issue.
Some people do pretend that homosexuals do exist amongst certain animals to a certain degree, though it seems only among males.
But have never heard of any of those learned guys speaking of animal families composed by two males or two females. In some species males are not interested in their offspring, so they have to depend upon their mothers tender care. Like the Elephant crowd where babies are cared by their mothers, aunts and sisters. But the Male is always around just in case
This said Im willing to understand that a homosexual couple may decide to live together and form a family, but this sounds to me more like living new experience than as something that will last.
Mother Nature has its laws and whenever man has decided to break them man has suffered one way or other. The Ozone layer destruction would just be a recent example. Deforestation in Brazils Matto Grosso is another.
Demographical unbalance could be another should this trend continue with the destruction of conventional family.
It remains to be seen, however, whether this sort of couples will last. My conventional, old-fashioned marriage has lasted, so far, some happily 53 years and still going on.
Unfortunately, the old family model seems to also be experiencing some problems amongst heterosexuals conventional marriages. Being optimistic by nature in my approach to life Im quite pessimistic regarding the future of our society if marriages keep on being destroying by divorce and violence
Aside of all that, as a religious person, I do not agree with gay marriages.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | tomder55 asked on 03/04/04 - U.S.First Amendment issue A "Relatively Minor" Burden
What is the government's proper relationship to religion? In Locke vs. Davey, the Supreme Court explains why a public scholarship can't fund a theology education.
by Terry Eastland
The Supreme Court has taken another crack at explaining the government's proper relationship to religion. Unfortunately, last week's ruling in Locke vs. Davey, while it may seem limited just to the facts of a difficult case, could lead to substantial discrimination against religion.
The defendant in the case was the state of Washington, which, like all states, is bound by the U.S. Constitution as well as its own. Under the U.S. Constitution, government may not establish religion or prohibit its free exercise. But Washington's own constitution has a provision on religion not found in the federal Constitution, for it prohibits the state from even indirectly funding religious instruction.
That restriction came into play five years ago when the Washington legislature created a scholarship program designed to help high-achieving students from low-income families pay their college expenses.
To qualify for a Promise Scholarship, which may be used at any accredited school in the state, public or private, a student must meet certain academic and income requirements. But, consistent with the state constitutional ban on funding religious instruction, the program also requires that no Promise Scholar may pursue a degree in theology that's "devotional in nature or designed to induce religious faith." Devotional theology happens to be the only field of study denied to a Promise Scholar.
Enter Joshua Davey. Qualifying for a Promise Scholarship in the first year of the program's operation, he matriculated at Northwest College, a duly accredited school affiliated with the Assemblies of God. Planning to become a church pastor, he decided to co-major in "pastoral ministries." Advised by the college that pursing a degree in that subject would violate the terms of his scholarship (worth $1,125), Davey refused to opt for a different co-major and gave up his scholarship. He sued, arguing that the state, by treating theology differently from all other majors, had unconstitutionally burdened his federal right to the free exercise of religion.
In an opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Supreme Court sided with the state of Washington. The chief justice said the federal Constitution binds government in a looser fashion than the Washington constitution does. He pointed out that, consistent with the court's decisions on "establishing religion," Washington could allow Promise Scholars to major in devotional theology. In other words, it could treat theology majors the same way it treats all other majors--precisely what Davey was asking for. But, the chief justice went on, the state has chosen not to pay for the religious education of future ministers. And it is free to do that--to "draw a more stringent line than that drawn by the U.S. Constitution."
The majority opinion is defensible--but only to a point. What makes the ruling hard to accept is that in past cases the court has said that when government makes a public benefit generally available, it can't withhold the benefit from some individuals solely on the basis of religion but must treat everyone equally. Had the court stuck to that principle, it would have ruled for Davey.
The court described the burden imposed on Davey as "relatively minor" and declined to "venture further into this difficult area." But the court might be forced to venture further; what if Washington now decides to prohibit Promise Scholars who aren't theology majors from taking theology courses? Or if it decides to prohibit Promise Scholars from even attending a religiously affiliated school like Northwest? And what if other states decide to craft scholarship policies based on "less stringent" line-drawing that treats religion differently? Or if--to consider another area of policy--states begin to exclude otherwise qualified religious charities from competing for social service grants?
When would the burden on free exercise rights cease to be so minor? When would the court feel compelled to enforce the First Amendment principle of neutrality and equal treatment?
Joshua Davey isn't on track to be a church pastor. He's in his first year at the Harvard Law School. Maybe someday Counselor Davey will find himself in the Supreme Court, arguing against efforts to extend the logic of Locke vs. Davey.
curious98 answered on 03/04/04:
Hi Tomder 55,
I'm not going to debate on the subject you are posing because I think you are basically right on your claim.
But I'm surprised you are surprised of how your Supreme Court (and Supreme Courts all over the World) reacts in certain cases.
The Preamble of your Constitution says:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"
I could also add your Constitution -like all Constitutions of Democratic Countries- speak of equal rights and opportunities for everybody.
Unfortunately, I must say that, quite often, this is just a romantic piece of paper written in yonder times.
I do not think that neither in the USA nor in the rest of the Western Democratic Countries (Im disregarding all others) anybody can seriously brag of equal rights for everybody. It is simply false
And another thing. Your President Mr. George Bush constantly boasts of his deep Christian faith and spirit.
A couple of days ago I read in the newspapers he is going to spend US$160 million in his coming campaign for the Presidency.
Would you say that anyone who can spend such an amount of money just to renew his mandate is a true Christian?
Im not disputing his right to do so. Others, in other areas spend much more.
But Im disputing his right to call himself a Christian!
Not with the amount of misery there is just a few blocks from the White House.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Yiddishkeit asked on 03/04/04 - Favorite religious movies... Religious board-
Of the movies that are religiously based what are some of your favorite movies and why?
In no particular order here are some of the films that I think are classics for various reasons.
* Fiddler on the Roof - Because of the sense of humor and yet an ironic truer sense of history during that that time period. Besides nothings better than a musical of shtetel life with dancing and drinking in the bar after a hard days work.
* The Chosen - Well I can relate to this movie having come from a more liberal acclimated Jewish background. Likewise as in the movie, as is true in my life I eventually learned to respect the more traditional elements of Judaism.
* Schindler's List - The recreation of factual history reproduced in the details of this movie. Spielberg did the world a historic educational justice with this film.
* Diary of Ann Frank - Well it can't more real than this and from such a beautiful young soul.
* The Jazz Singer - I don't think this movie is anything to hang a yalmulke on, but it gives a little satisfaction to all the cantors out there with wonderful voices. Diamond mentions Jewish migration in his song 'Coming To America' in the line 'they come to America but not without a star' refering to the mogan David.
Bobby curious98 answered on 03/04/04:Dear Bobby,
I see you have basically picked out movies concerning Judaism, though I agree with your selection.
But then, I think you are forgetting a most splendid movie (last year's Oscar) such as The Pianist, which also concernes the drana of the Jewish Ghetto in Varsaw during WWII while surrounded by a beautiful sound track with a grand performer of Chopin music.
If you havan'e seen you should.
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 02/29/04 - ANTI-CHRIST!
Are there more than one anti-Christ?
"I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and know that no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also." (1 John 2:21-23 RSV)
True OR False?
HANK curious98 answered on 02/29/04:
In my humble opinin John had to say what he writes in this paragraph of his Gospel. First of all, because he truly believed in what he was writing; secondly, because the threath of eternal doom for those who didnt believe in Jesus, was en excellent argument in those days even now- to make believe those who were doubtful.
God's Infinite Mercy is ongoing and limitless, as all Gods attributes, and I doubt very much that God's forgiveness will not be extended to those who may not accept Jesus divinity, but believe in GOD.
I also think that the true Anti-Christ if it ever appears- will be something more terrible than not believing in Jesus as the Son of God.
I quote:
Although the "spirit of the antichrist" (1 John 4:3) has been around for a very long time, and there were relatively minor examples of antichrists long ago (1 John 2:18-19), the ultimate end-time antichrist, identified variously as the "lawless one" or "man of sin" (2 Thessalonians 2:9) or "beast" (all of Revelation 13) is going to be more evil and more incredibly powerful (made possible by That Old Serpent) than any human that has ever existed. In a way, he will be the embodiment of Satan himself because no one is more anti-Christ than Satan.
For centuries, many have believed that a certain great, highly popular religious leader will be the antichrist. Although the idea has much superficial merit, it does not fit all of the stated facts in Bible Prophecy. While the antichrist will have his own extremely powerful and influential Great False Prophet, a role that will be filled by a very important religious leader, the actual antichrist will be a great, for a time undefeatable, military leader, who, like Satan, will not accept anything less than a leading role - the motive behind Satan's rebellion long ago (see Did God Create The Devil?). However, both of them will be judged equally guilty, and both will be cast alive into the lake of fire after the Return of Christ (Revelation 19:20).
Let's look at what The Bible actually says about them, with our own notes in brackets -
The antichrist will be a great military leader:
"Men worshiped the dragon [that is, Satan] because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, "Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?"
"The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months [the same forty-two months in which The Two Witnesses will be active]. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander His Name and His dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against The Saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation [he will conquer countries all around the world]. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast [many will be deceived into worshiping the man] - all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to The Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. He who has an ear, let him hear." (Revelation 13:4-9 NIV)
The antichrist's false prophet:
"Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb [he appears righteous - a lamb is the symbol of Christ], but he spoke like a dragon [a dragon is one of the symbols of Satan]."
"He exercised all the authority of the first beast [the political leader] on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast [the great religious leader will take a secondary role to the political leader], whose fatal wound had been healed [the Roman empire has "fallen" and come back to life a number of times]. And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men [he is going to put on quite a show to convince people]."
"Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image [the political ruler is the one who will demand worship, not his powerful and influential religious ally who will merely be serving as his "prophet"] to be killed."
"He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666." (Revelation 13:11-18 NIV)
Unquote:
In fact, it does look as if the Anti-Christ would be someone more in the line of Stalin, or some one of our political leaders, even though if the believe in Jesus Christ!
Regards
Claude
| | Question/Answer | | excon asked on 02/26/04 - Anti-Semitism
Hello Elliot:
Are you ready for the next round of anti-semitism eminating from Mel Gibsons movie?
excon
curious98 answered on 02/27/04:As I say in my previous post on the subject,
those who are writing about the Jews, because of this movie, are just those poor bigots who think the world is divided into aryans and the rest.
Maybe you should try to find out the background of those critics.
Furthermore, which scientific authority has dear Mel to comment on Jesus's life or on Jews?
As I said in my other post, Mel's only concern is how much money he will make and to ensure that, I agree that a good decision is to produce a movie that will originate a world debate on whether the jews were or were not guilty of Jesus' death.
Who in his sane mind would care a bit about that 2000 years later?
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ETWolverine asked on 02/26/04 - Mel Gibson's "The Passion of Christ" This board has been pretty silent about this film, considering the level of controversy that it has stired. So I've decided to shake up the proverbial hornet's nest.
1) Have you seen the film? Do you intend to?
2) If you have seen the film, do you think that it is anti-Semitic, or has the potential to cause anti-Semitism?
3) Do you believe the film to be too violent? (Please keep in mind that we are living in an age where eviscerations, beheadings, amputations, etc. are the norm in 'mainstream' horror flicks like the Freddy or Jason series.)
Here's my take. I have not seen the film, and quite a few of my fellow Jews who have seen it have condemned it as Anti-Semitic. I have not, because I'm not sure whether to trust people who I know have a history of knee-jerk reactions... like Abe Foxman of the ADL, and (despite my deep respect for him) Assemblyman Dov Hikind.
Nor am I willing to give in to the temptation to call Gibson an anti-Semite. I DO believe that his father is exactly that, a Nazi wannabe, a Holocaust denier and a ZOG conspiracy theorist nutcase. But Mel has on a number of occaisions disavowed or disassociated himself from his father. In a recent statement after one of his father's tirades, Mel said "He is my father and I love him, and I won't speak against him." Which leads me to believe that if Hudson Gibson were not Mel's father, he WOULD speak against him. I can accept that Mel is in a tough position where his father is concerned, an his wish to not speak against his father does not neccessarily constitute agreement with his father's beliefs.
Mel is further in a tough bind because of his ultra-Orthodox Christian views. (I never thought I'd use the term ultra-Orthodox for any groups except Chassidim, but there you go.) He rejects the "liberalization" of the Church that the Vatican has allowed and performed over the past 40 years... including allowing services to be multi-lingual, among other things. He therefore publicly rejects the Vatican's edicts over the past 40 years en toto. Unfortunately, that means that he also rejects the Pope John Paul II's edict that rejects the notion that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. As Edward Cardinal Eagan puts it "Jesus gave his life. Nobody took it." But Mel's position is that EVERY edict by the Vatican in the past 40 years is wrong. He can't cherry-pick the ones that he likes without seeming hipocritical. But the fact that he rejects the edict of the Vatican does not necessarily mean that Mel is an anti-Semite. It just means that he's in a tough position from an intelectial/religious perspective.
But what I have heard about the film does disturb me.
What is it that we Jews are afraid of? Are we afraid that the crowd exiting the theatre is going to start another Crown Heights riot? Are we worried about spontaneous progroms breaking out all over the world? (By the way, from an hisorical perspective, very few if any of he progroms were 'spontaneous'. Most were government and Church sanctioned, and developed over a period of months or years, and a few were actually STARTED by either the government or the Church deliberately.) Are we afraid that some mob will start tying Jewish men, women, and children to stakes and burn them as heretics and Christ-killers?
Hardly.
So what are we really afraid of?
Simply put, we are afraid of intellectual anti-Semitism. What does that mean? It means, we are afraid of how this movie will effect attitudes and relationships regarding Jews worldwide. Even before this film came out, there was a growing trend towards such forms of anti-Semitism.
For example:
- A pole in France recently determined that the French believe that the single greatest threat to world peace was Israel.
- The EU recently buried a report that they themselves commissoned which showed that Muslim Anti-Semitism is on the rise.
- The UN continues to try to pressure Israel into taking down the security wall, despite the fact that it is the most peaceful solution to the violence in the West Bank to have come about in years. And it even creates jobs for construction workers.
- In several protests against the United States in Europe recently, the flag of Israel was burned alongside the American flag... Somehow both the USA and Israel have been linked in people's minds as The Great Satan.
- Even in the United States, the number of universities that have hosted Radical Anti-jewish Muslims as guest lecturers or have even given such people tenured positions is on the rise. On the other hand, several protests against "Zionism" on campuses have turned violent, or at least destructive.
- In Germany, there is a best selling book that states that the 9-11 attacks were aranged by the Mossad with the help of the CIA. 19% of Germans believe it.
- In France's most recent elections for Prime Minister, 23% of the country voted for an admitted ex-Neo-Nazi, who in his political speaches blamed France's domestic and international woes on the Jews. 23%--- almost 1/4 of the country... and that's just the ones who admitted to agreeing with him by voting for him. I wonder how many people really agree with him, but are still in the closet.
- Muslim radicals state regularly that they are not against Jews, they are just against Zionists. But Jews living in Israel are guilty of living in and supporting Israel, (whether they are Zionists or not), and Jews outside of Israel are all guilty by association (whether they are Zionists or not). And people believe them, thanks to the media.
All of these things are forms of anti-Semitism. They are mostly non-violent forms of anti-Semitism, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. And the truth is, such attitudes that form intellectual anti-Semitism CAN lead to violent anti-Semitism. Don't believe me? Check out the background behind the afore-mentioned Crown-Heights riots before you come to any conclusions.
So the question is whether Mel's film will cause people to see Jews in such a light as to cause an intellectual form of anti-Semitism.
I guess, to a certain degree, it is the same as an Italian person having a problem with The Sopranos because of how people might come away viewing Italians... as violent mobsters who settle problems with their fists or a gun, and who are all part of organized crime. Or a Black person having a problem with Blacksploitation films, because they re-enforce certain stereotypes of Black men as violent and abusive to women, as well as promiscuous. Any person who believed such things were true would be called a racist. And most likely, nobody would come away from an episode of The Sopranos or Shaft feeling that way. But I can understand how it would make some Italians or Blacks worry about that possibility. Just as I can understand (more directly, obviously) how The Passion might make Jews worry.
Is the film anti-Semitic? I don't know, because I haven't seen it. But I do know that it makes Jews nervous... myself included. So is Mel Gibson an anti-Semite? Probably not. But I think he definitely could have been a bit more sensitive when making this film.
Elliot curious98 answered on 02/27/04:Dear Elliot,
I haven't yet seen the picture, and I suppose it will take long before I do, for I go very seldom to the movies.
I prefer to watch the pictures in the comfort of our living room where, if I do not like the movie, I can switch on to Discovery or National Geographic Channels.
I have read, however, some commentaries and I understand the Vatican has finally accepted it.
Come what it may, I doubt very much of the fidelity of its historical background. In principle, Hollywood is more interested in how much money their pictures can generate than in how truthful they may be re. their subject.
European moviemakers are more precise in this respect. Perhaps, because they know we, over here, are rather well informed, in general, about our own history.
The history of Jesus is rather controversial, anyway, and its importance depends on one's beliefs.
All I know is that, though it has been finally accepted, as I say, by the Vatican, some bishops over there do not consider it too factual or interesting.
In all likelihood, the only part of Jesus life that was surrounded by violence was His Passion, and then, it concerned only Him.
Although, in those days, it seems there were some revolutionary movements going around in Galilee and in Judea, after Flavio Josephus, the problems for the Romans came in at a later stage. In fact, from the Roman point of view which, in that case only means Pilatus- Jesus figure was not so important. Im of course, historically speaking. He was treated and crucified by the Romans in very much the same way as they used to treat any other delinquent.
Now, if Mel Gibson is such an ultra-orthodox, as you say, then God knows what he may have imagined for the movie to make it
more cash producing!
As for Jews being afraid of psychological reactions against them all over the world, I do not think this movie or any other movie, for that matters- may change too much what people may think of Jews or of Israel now a days.
I think there are three kinds of opinions all over the world re. present Judaism.
Those who do not care any more about Jews than about any other ethnic group.
Those who have a visceral hate for Jews and Judaism that goes from fathers to sons, in very much the same way as they also hate anything that is not pure white and Christian, and those I consider myself within this last group that firmly believe there are bad Jews and good Jews as much as there are good persons and bad persons in any other race. That is, that people are not good or bad depending on their nationality or their religion, but just because human nature is divided just like that.
And I do not think this movie may alter that situation too much
Regards
Claude
| | Question/Answer | | PraiseJah asked on 02/25/04 - 666 (Revelation 13:16-18) The number of the beast. What does it mean? What is the mark of the beast? curious98 answered on 02/25/04:Maybe this article I have found in the Net may give you some indications:
"Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom: let him who has understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number, its number is six hundred and sixty-six." (Revelation 13:16-18 RSV)
The Mysterious "
A tremendous amount has been written about the Bible's one and only reference to the mysterious number ." Using various methods of equating numbers with letters of words or names, a wide variety of interpretations have been made. A few are reasonable guesses (e.g. Nero Caesar, Romulus, Lateinos, Vicarius Filii Dei), while numerous others are extremely unlikely.
Although it's not entirely clear, yet, what the " itself means, the Bible does provide many Scriptures relating to the "beast" that the number represents:
A "new" world economic and military superpower that will represent the final prophesied revival of the ancient "Holy Roman Empire" (Daniel 2:31-45, Revelation 13:1-3, 17:9-14) (see Daniel's Statue and Birth Of A Superpower), which has actually existed in Europe for many centuries.
A Satan-possessed human who will eventually become its absolute ruler, while claiming divine status (Revelation 13:4-6). The "beast" is a term used to describe both this human, and the great political/religious superpower that he will lead (see Emperor and The Antichrist).
A great religious leader who will support the beast. He will perform spectacular Satan-powered "miracles" that will deceive a majority of the citizens of every nation on earth into obeying and actually worshiping the "beast." (Revelation 13:4, 7-8, 12-14) (see Emperors and Popes). Because of this worldwide deception, undeceived Christians in even the most strongly-defended countries will not escape persecution because, in most cases, it will not come from foreign invaders, but from fanatically-deceived "Christians" of their own nation. The deceived masses will think that they serving God while they are actually martyring His people (e.g. John 16:2-3, Revelation 13:7).
The right and ability to buy, sell and work (Revelation 13:17).
The personal acceptance or refusal of the "mark" of the beast (Revelation 13:16).
The time will come when there will be no doubt about who and what the " symbol is all about. Why? Because the end-time account of the true church is about choices that every genuine Christian then living will have to make, and the consequences of those choices.
God's people can choose to obey Him and reject the mark of the beast, but then be persecuted by the beast and deceived humans (Revelation 13:7,10,15 and 17:6), or accept the mark of the beast and face the wrath of God that will come upon those who do so (Revelation 16:2). It will be a deliberate, knowing choice, and at that time there will be no doubt what it means.
Fact Finder: What great event will occur at the time that the "beast" is eventually defeated?
Matthew 24:30-31, Revelation 19:11-20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Day In History, October 21
1520: On the first-ever voyage around the world, Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan entered a passage off the southern tip of South America. Today it is known as the Strait of Magellan.
1520: The coronation of Charles V (Hapsburg) at Aachen.
1529: King Henry VIII of England was named Defender of the Faith by the Pope after defending the seven sacraments against Luther. The British church later rejected the papacy.
1532: Protestant reformer Martin Luther said, "For some years now I have read through the Bible twice every year. If you picture the Bible to be a mighty tree and every word a little branch, I have shaken every one of these branches because I wanted to know what it was and what it meant." (translated from German). See 52-Week Bible Reading Plan
1692: William Penn was removed as Governor of Pennsylvania amidst charges of him being a "papist."
1790: The French Tricolor was chosen as the flag of France.
1797: The U.S. frigate Constitution was launched in Boston. The ship is still in existence today, and is popularly known as Old Ironsides.
1805: The Battle of Trafalgar. British forces under Horatio Nelson battled Spanish forces off Cape Trafalgar, Spain. Admiral Nelson, age 47, was killed in the battle.
1824: Portland cement was first patented, by Joseph Aspdin of Wakefield in Yorkshire, England.
1879: The incandescent light bulb was invented by Thomas Edison.
1923: The first planetarium was opened, at the Deutsche Museum in Munich, Germany.
1940: At the start of World War 2, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill challenged Adolf Hitler in a radio speech, "We are awaiting the long-promised German invasion - and so are the fishes..."
1960: HMS Dreadnought, Britain's first nuclear submarine, was launched.
1962: Day 8 of the 15-day Cuban Missile Crisis. U.S. President John F. Kennedy reached the decision to impose a naval blockade of Cuba. Up to that day, the existence of the Soviet missiles in Cuba had not been made public.
1967: A few months after the end of the Six Day War, Egyptian missiles sank the Israeli destroyer Eilat off Sinai. Israel responded by shelling the major oil installations in the Egyptian port town of Suez.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quotations
"Words - so innocent and powerless as they are, as standing in a dictionary, how potent for good and evil they become in the hands of one who knows how to combine them."
~~ Nathaniel Hawthorne"
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 02/19/04 - NEW WEB PAGES ...
... MINE! (I'm humbling myself by posting this notification!) Please go to my PROFILE and CLICK. Any suggestions will be WELCOME! Thanks.
curious98 answered on 02/19/04:Dear Hank,
An absolutely remarkable web. I would not have expected anything less than that from someone like you, having read many of your responses.
So congratulations!
Now I'm somewhat busy, but I want to go through it in detail, and perhaps I will elaborate (with your permissin, and from the experience and "wisdom" of my 77 years) on some of the splendid thoughts you are pointing out in your web.
Claude | | Question/Answer | | PraiseJah asked on 02/17/04 - Lamarckism? Did the ancient partriarch Jacob like Lamarck of the 18th century AD believe that the environment could change or alter and animal's physical characteristics?
Does Gen. 30:29-43 suggest Lamarckism? curious98 answered on 02/18/04:I do not think so but, on the other hand, how can anyone affirm what Patriarh Job may have ever thought on that subject?
It is highly possible that Jacob's problems may have been of a different nature altogether.
Bearing in mind the times we are referring to and the average culture prevailing among people environment it is very unlikely -in my opinion- that anybody would be paying much attention to their environment.
According to the dictionary Lamarckism [lɑː'mɑːkızəm]is a noun referring to the theory of organic evolution proposed by Lamarck, and based on the principle that characteristics of an organism modified during its lifetime are inheritable.
This is too much a concept for Job to have even thought of it.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Yiddishkeit asked on 02/09/04 - To my Christian friends and Jewish peers... Christian friends:
I've learned that to some adherents of Christianity Jesus was Deity and to others he is the son of Deity...please would the Christian experts explain the differences between the two?
Jewish peers:
Please share with the religion board the Judaism definition of what a prophet is and why.
Thanks,
Bobby
curious98 answered on 02/10/04:Dear Bobby,
Speaking only for the Roman Catholics group (which I belong to, as you know), we do consider Jesus as GOD.
You must not forget that we are supposed to believe in a Holy Trinity, formed by the Father, the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit.
But, that does not mean there are three different Gods, but just one who can take the 3 forms at the same time.
Of course, this is a dogma of our Church and, as such, it has to be accepted without any further considerations.
Earthen logic cannot however easily swallow the concept of the Trinity, or the fact that Jesus was down here at the same time as He was UP THERE, wherever GOD may be.
Mortals that are humble enough to accept their ignorance which is not my own case, unfortunately for me- can conclude, without too many problems, that if GOD created the Universe out of nothing and if GOD ever existed and there is NO beginning and NO end for GOD, then it should not be difficult for GOD to be in several places AT THE SAME TIME, impersonating different personalities, doing exactly as IT pleases, for this is why GOD can just do anything.
You may perhaps agree with me, my dear Bobby, that if you and I admit, accept and try to understand the above idea (and I think we do), all other considerations are just petty problems.
The actual fact must be there is a ONE and ONLY GOD, who, CONSEQUENTLY, is the same for you and me. But GOD (we may call IT Yahweh, Adonai, G-D, Jesus, the Messiah, Allah or what have you) is so far away from our understanding capacity that we must be patient and resign ourselves to digest the concept of GOD until when our soul may have the chance to see IT.
Meanwhile, I can of course try to debate any religious matter from the standpoint of our religious orthodoxy, for the sake of debating ideas and philosophies, which I think is a positive thing to do.
Best regards
Claude
| | Question/Answer | | PraiseJah asked on 02/08/04 - Red Sea or Reed Sea. The famous Red Sea crossing of the Bible - Was it really the deep Red Sea or the shallow Reed Sea ? curious98 answered on 02/09/04:To the best of my knowledge there is only one portion of the Indic Ocean, named in English Red Sea at presebt, and which separates the Arabian Peninsula from Egypt.
Bearing in mind the Jews were living in Egypt and, eventually emigrated to Israel, and the crossing was on foot - not by boats of any kind - it has to be accepted that they- somwhow - crossed that Sea - probably through the shallow part which, at present, is the Suez Canal, by means of a miracle according to the Holy Scriptures, or by other circumstances that some people are trying to explain, with little success so far.
Best regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | PraiseJah asked on 02/06/04 - Rev.22:16-18 and prophets It is clear to me that these verses in the Revelation which Jesus gave to John indicate that there would be no more prophecies from God and no more prophets after Jesus.
What do you believe about later prophets such as Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Ellen G White to name a few? curious98 answered on 02/07/04:
I, of course, deeply respect your opinion re. the above quote of the Revelation Book.
On my side, I cannot share that opinion for I question very much the historical precision of many passages of the Scriptures. Do not take me wrong. Im a Roman Catholic. But I sustain the theory that the Scriptures, through translations and time, have suffered some alterations to suit either the translators or those who ordered those translations.
But this aside, I think Jesus message was rather that He was the announced Messiah, as He declared himself as the Son of the Father, and as such God.
Of course, Judaism does not accept that they are of course entitled to believe what they want and Islam, does consider Jesus as the last prophet before Muhammad, who was the very last one, after them.
In my humble opinion most prophets have mostly been referring to events in such abstract ways that later on, they could have been adapted to what they had said.
Others, have clearly been mistaken, at least so far.
In the case of Mohammad we could never know whether he was actually inspired by GOD remember his God is our GOD too or not. The same happens with Moses. The books they wrote Al Koran, Genesis, etc. can only be approached with faith. Not scientifically.
And even so, we know that Al Koran, for instance, is being constantly modified by the Ulemas and scholars to suit their purposes. Of course, each one pretends they are the exact reproduction of Muhammads original, but the many versions and interpretations existing refute that possibility.
In the world of modern prophets there are some who, probably in good faith, feel they have been somehow inspired while others are simply and clearly fakes. Amongst those, Im just remembering a Hindustani by the name of Sai Baba whom I had a chance to meet a few years ago, while in India who claims nothing but being the new Messiah. I must admit he has done a remarkable job in the area where he lives (northern India), but at the same time he lives like a prince with 2 Mercedes and 1 Rolls...
This matter of prophets is a very delicate one and as I said before it is a matter of faith. And we have to be respectful with what others believe, as we expect them to be respectful with our beliefs.
I know that, in the case of Ellen G. White, many consider her as a saint. She was no question a very special person. But, personally, I have more respect for Mother Therese of Calcutta
But, of course, this is just my opinion
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ETWolverine asked on 02/03/04 - More Jokes --- No offense intended. Donatello, Johnson, Gonzalez and Cohen are sitting around and talking religion.
Donatello says, "I can prove that Jesus was Italian. He was in the building trades and he talked with his hands a lot, and he drank a lot of wine. That proves he was Itallian."
Johnson says, "No way, man. He was Black. He went around calling everybody 'brother'. He was Soul Brother Number One."
Gonzalez says, "Not a chance. He was obviously Hispanic: his name was Jesus."
Cohen says, "I'm sorry to disagree with you all, but Jesus was Jewish. The evidence is irrefutable. He went into his father's business, he lived at home till he was 30, and until his dying day he thought his mother was a virgin, and she thought he was G-d. Case closed."
-----
Feel free to add to the list.
Elliot curious98 answered on 02/03/04:And this one?
As an atheist walked through the forest, he smiled at the beauty that was all around him and said, "What natural wonders the powers of evolution have created." Just then he heard a rustling near the river. He went to investigate and a 7-foot-tall grizzly bear was tearing down the path towards him him. The man took off like a shot, and when he got up the courage to look back, he saw the bear was catching up fast. He tried with all his strength to pick up the pace, but he tripped and crashed to the ground.
As he tried to get up, the bear jumped on his chest and picked up one paw to whack him. The atheist screamed, "Oh my God!!!" ....Time stopped!
The bear froze. The forest was silent. Even the river stopped moving. As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice boomed from the heavens, "You deny my existence for all of these years, teach others I don't exist, and even credit Creation to a 'cosmic accident'. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?" The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps could you make the bear a Christian?"
"Very well," the voice said. The light went out, the river ran again, and the sounds of the forest resumed. And then the bear dropped its right paw, brought both paws together, bowed its head and spoke: "Lord, for this food which I am about to receive, I am truly thankful."
Claude | | Question/Answer | | ETWolverine asked on 02/02/04 - Jokes So... have you heard about the Jewish fast food joint where they do it Yahweh...
Or how about the Budhist fast food joint where they make you One with Everything...
Or perhaps the Christian fast food joint that is staffed by Fish Friars and Chip Monks.
Got any others?
Elliot curious98 answered on 02/03/04:Or that one about 2 jewish lawyers:
"Two solicitors, Levy and Cohen, opened an office in Kilburn. As this was a gentile part of London, they decided to call their firm Christian and Christian in order to attract non-Jewish clients. But on their opening day, they forgot to tell their switchboard operator what to say. When anyone phoned in and asked for Mr Christian, she answered, "Which Christian do you want, Levy or Cohen?"
It's always good to laugh a little early in the morning
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | Yiddishkeit asked on 01/29/04 - Super Bowl... Well I couldn't find a sports board here, so I figured I'd ask everyone that is interested in American football. Who do you think will be this years Super Bowl champion and why?
Bobby curious98 answered on 01/29/04:Hi Bobby,
As a foreigner, living in Spain, but who really likes American Football (and European Soccer) I'll vote for the New England Patriots.
Why? Purely, sentimental reasons! I'va lived in Boston and I've only passed through Carolina.
Best regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | stillwaiting asked on 01/28/04 - am I a Christian? Hi,
My parents had me baptized as an infant. Now I am trying to find faith of my own. Having been baptized, am I a Christian?
,stillwaiting curious98 answered on 01/28/04:Technically, you are!
But that does not mean a thing if your heart is not with GOD and if you do not share the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Once you have decided which is the path you want to follow, if this path goes the same way as the one Christians follow, then you'll be a Christian all right!
Baptism is the key than opens the door to Heaven. But it is up to us whether or not we want to go through its threshold...
God bless you
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | ETWolverine asked on 01/27/04 - To my Jehovah's Witness/Watchtower friends My understanding of your beliefs is that the name "Jehovah's Witness" is taken from the tetragrameton, the ineffible 4-letter name of G-d, Y-H-V-H. Is this correct?
Assuming it is, why has the Watchtower chosen to hand on to the name "Jehovah" over all the other names of G-d? The names of G-d in the OT Bible are numerous. And specifically, the one time G-d was asked for his name, he used a different name than "Jehovah". In Exodus 3:13, when Moses asks G-d "Moses said to God, 'So I will go to the Israelites and say, 'Your fathers' God sent me to you.' They will immediately ask me what His name is. What shall I say to them?'
G-d answers as follows:
3:14 'I Will Be Who I Will Be,' replied God to Moses.
[God then] explained, 'This is what you must say to the Israelites: 'I Will Be sent me to you.' '
In Hebrew, "I will be" is "Eheyeh".
Why are you not, therefore, "Eheyeh's Witnesses"? Why "Jehovah's Witnesses"?
Elliot curious98 answered on 01/28/04:
Dear Elliot,
There is a website in the Net, as follows:
http://www.google.es/search?q=cache:4Kwfka4qWNUJ:www.bible.ca/jw-YHWH.htm+*why+jehovah+witness+chose+name+jehovah&hl=ca&ie=UTF-8
which I would advise you to check, for it deals to a large extent with your question re. the use of the name of Jehovah by the JW.
It starts like this:
I quote:
Jehovahs Witnesses falsely claim that bibles remove YHWH (Tetragrammaton) from the Old Testament. The truth is, they have added the divine name in the New Testament where it is never found in the original Greek manuscripts, and blamed the Bible as being corrupted from the original where YHWH was once found. Rather than trashing their false doctrine, they trash the Bible!
Unquote:
Whay do you think?
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | stillwaiting asked on 01/26/04 - How to decide? I am confused and don't know which church to join.
Most of my confusion comes from (what seems to me) different denominations that claim to be Christian.
How many false Christian churches are there? Each Christian church claims God's truth based on the Bible, yet each church teaches something different.
Which is right? Which one is the true church of God?
They each claim exclusive understanding of God's word.
What is the best way to choose a denomination? How do I pick one from another?
,stillwaiting curious98 answered on 01/27/04:All denominations that believe Jesus Christ is our Lord are rightly claiming their belonging to the Christian faith, for they all accept that Christ died in the Cross, to redeem mankind of their sins.
From what you say I understand your problem is to choose which one of these denominations as the right one.
Well, I think they as I said before- are all following the right direction.
All Christians believe or should believe- in Jesus Christ as our only true GOD.
Maybe you should try to ascertain the minor differences existing amongst the different denominations.
Basically, there are 3 major divisions amongst Christians. Protestants, Roman Catholics and Oriental Orthodox. Among the Orthodox, there are several denominations but the most important are the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches (basically identical). The Pope at the Vatican leads the Roman Catholic and, though there are some factions (Opus Dei, Jesuits, etc.) they all have the same leader, i.e. the Pope.
As for the Protestants, I would say there are Anglican/Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian, as the most important ones.
And by important, I do not mean the best but those which gather more followers.
Im almost sure that if you are an USA citizen you will find close to your home some Churches belonging to one of the above mentioned confessions, so you will not have any problems to make your selection.
But remember that for a Christian- the important fact is to believe that Jesus Christ is the true God.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 01/26/04 - Right/Wrong/Good/Evil God placed Adam and Eve in the garden of eden, with free will to choose. I think most people agree to that (on this board). If you don't, just pretend.
However, God did not give them knowledge (of good and evil, right and wrong). That knowledge, He reserved on/in the tree of knowledge. He then told Adam, essentially "do not eat of that tree". However, Adam did, because Adam didn't know it was wrong to do so.
Granted, I wouldn't put a razor blade in a crib with a baby, tell the child "don't hurt yourself with that blade" and then expect the child not to hurt themselves, but God put two children with no ability to choose between right and wrong into the garden, then told them "It is wrong to eat from this tree". How did GOd expect them to know what "wrong" was, since He created them without that knowledge? Was it really fair to present them with a choice between right and wrong without giving them the ability to choose? curious98 answered on 01/27/04:Ill follow your advice and Ill just pretend for the sake of debating the subject.
I would not go to the extent of comparing the happy couple of Adam and Eve to a baby in a crib. They were supposed to be intelligent enough, at least, to be obedient to the divinity that had created them. That divinity had thought it better not to disclose the good or evil of its prohibition to Adam and Eve for reasons of its own, which we cannot (nor are we able to) prejudge, from our very limited intelligence.
They were just to obediently follow its instructions and refrain from following their instincts.
This situation, however, evidences something that it has taken us thousands of years to realize. That women rule the world (because they use both hemispheres of their brain) while we, poor arrogant men, only use one side of our brain which, obviously, leaves us a little handicapped and without the necessary judgement to decide in delicate situations such as that of the tree of knowledge.
At any rate, we have already been paying a heavy token because of that deficiency of the masculine brain
All the best
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | PraiseJah asked on 01/25/04 - Turn the other cheek - what about self defense? On the Christianity Board a user claims that Jesus when he said to turn the other cheek meant not to fight back if someone assaults you with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Do you agree with that, or if in the event you or a child was being attacked, would it be wrong to strike the assailant, even to the point of causing death? curious98 answered on 01/26/04:
My dear friend,
If you have read some of my previous posts you will now by now that I very seldom like to take what the Scriptures say to the letter.
I sustain the theory that most of their contents has to be taken with the perspective of time and thinking of the possible motives of the writers to say what they say.
The Gospels are somewhat different for they are supposed to transmit to us the teachings and words of Jesus, though they are transmitted through third persons and not by Jesus Himself, with the end result that similar situations are narrated somewhat differently by each one of the 4 evangelists.
Still, here also we are supposed to interpret the message Jesus is trying to convey to us rather than accept it literally.
The Gospels irrespective of whether they exactly represent passages of Jesus life or they have somehow been adapted to their own ideas by the evangelists- they have a common denominator all over, which is a message of Love. Love from Jesus to Mankind and love we should all feel for one another.
This is quite logical if we do not forget that the final act of Jesus life whether we accept Jesus as the Son of GOD or as another prophet- is a supreme act of loving for all of us.
It is under this premise, I would say, we are to contemplate the parable of turning the other cheek, id est, we are supposed to basically love one another, which implies that we try to accept offences without any or too much acrimony.
If a childs life, our own life or any human life for what matters, is at risk it goes without saying we have to take part to the best of our possibilities. For that is also a proof of love towards our fellow creatures.
As for killing anyone in self-defense, I can only accept it as an accident, not on purpose, unless there is no other alternative, of course. But here Im making my own interpretation of the Parable. I know Jesus did nothing to prevent his death. But there was a purpose for His sacrifice, that is to redeem us from our sins, or at least, this is what we Christians are expected to believe. For the non-Christians it could be taken as another one of the millions innocents that have died throughout the years as a consequence of human injustice
We cannot possible tell what Jesus would do if He would suddenly appeared in our century and was confronted to situations of injustice as we are given to see every minute of our daily lives.
In the first place, it is highly possible we should condemn Him to the gas chamber for apology of terrorism and impersonation of a divinity
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 01/24/04 - Modern Prophets: Pat Robertson has said that God has spoken to him, and told him that George Bush is going to win the 2004 Presidential election.
So, since we know that God cannot be wrong (and can see the future events before they occur), and that God rarely lies, then for us here and now, it is pre-ordained that George will be our next President, despite ANYTHING we could do.
So, if George somehow does NOT win the election, can we assume that Pat is a false prophet? And, should I even bother to vote, since it is all a done deal? curious98 answered on 01/24/04:Unfortunately, Im not privileged enough to speak with GOD as religious broadcaster Pat Robertson apparently is.
And yet, I also think Mr. Bush will win the next election
I have known and loved- the USA for the last 50 years, so I have been able to witness its evolution throughout this time. It has changed in many ways. In my humble opinion of someone who had a crush on your country in the late 50s- not necessary for the better but there is something many US citizens will never change, i.e. their gullibility in their governments. I remembered when Nixon was President, how many friends of mine use to heatedly argue with me when I said he was anything but honest. Eventually, Nixon was impeached so I turned out to be right.
But we, Europeans, have had 2000 years of liars governing us and, consequently, have become quite suspicious about our rulers.
I have read quite a few books from reputable US writers who seem to agree on the fact the Bush clan is a definite risk for the USA and, eventually, for the whole world.
However, Im convinced that most US citizens are very proud of the way the Good Lord has armed George Bush jr., with the flaming sword (like the cherubs of the Garden of Eden) of Justice, with the licit purpose of fighting the infidels
And, consequently, he shall win again!
And Mr. Robertson who probably thinks along the same lines as I do- is betting on that possibility, which will procure him a lot of credit for his next December sermons.
If by a remote chance, Bush might lose, Robertson could simply ignore the fact or claim he was misinterpreted.
For another thing I have never understood in your country, is the amount of credibility granted to all these broadcasters and/or persons who, every now and then, come out with new religious proposals.
Best regards
Claude (aka Curious98)
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 01/23/04 - Whatever happened to? At the east end of the Garden of Eden, God placed cherubims with flaming swords to keep man away from the tree of life.
Whatever became of them? Does the Bible say? What do religous people believe? Where are they now? Do they still stand guard at the garden of eden, and if so, why haven't we seen them? If not, when did they get released and where did the garden of eden go? curious98 answered on 01/24/04:Dear Graylin,
Being consistent with my previous posts, and trying to take it lighly, I would say that the poor cherubims with or without flaming swords stood no chances in front of the SkyHawks of the US Army.
As you know, the garden of Eden was supposed
to be located in between the rivers Tigris and Eufrates, right in the middle of present Iraq, and quite close to Baghdad. If the could survive the first Gulf War, Im sure they were fed up this 2nd time and decided to give up their position, After all, what is what they were doing there anyway?
Again, we are faced here with a beautiful story that, unfortunately, has no longer much credibility!
Best regards
Claude
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 01/23/04 - In the Garden of Eden According to my teachers, there were two "special" trees in the Garden of Eden, the tree of knowledge and the tree of life.
Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge, and God sent them from the garden to prevent them from eating of the tree of life. As result of their eating, they introduced death into their world (mortality).
My question: If Adam and Eve were immortal before eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, why the heck did God even have a tree of life in the first place? What was the purpose of having a tree to produce fruit that granted everlasting life to someone who was already immortal?
Your thoughts? curious98 answered on 01/23/04: OK.
You are simply great. Yu always come out with the most glorious questions...
Let's say that GOD, in ITS omniscience GOD already knew poor Adam and Eve would fail to pass the test, and therefore, GOD planted the Tree of Life.
In fact this is one of those beautiful and romantic stories that collapse when scientifically looked at.
Let us assume Adam and Eve might have lived eternally, and with them, all their descendants - Atropos, the Fate cutting the thread of life would be jobless the worlds population would have grown exponentially and the Paradise would no longer be a Paradise, but probably closer to Hell.
This idea is quite all right to explain Heaven. For Heaven been eternal and infinite it can easily accept the concept of Adam and Eve, and all their offspring, being eternal too. But in Heaven, not down here. We are just too ridiculously small for that.
Dont you think so?
Claude
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 01/20/04 - What conclusion should we draw? From the story in 2Kings about the Prophet Elisha, and his cursing of the 42 children?
Elisha is walking along, children tease him about his baldness, and he curses them in the name of the Lord, causing two bears to come from the woods, and attack the children.
What do scholars feel is God's message in this story to us? curious98 answered on 01/22/04:Dear Graelyn,
On the above subject, and to be coherent with my own thinking about passages such as the one you are interested in, I prefer to refer to somebody elses opinion, like this article by Peter J. Leithart, who is a pastor of the Reformed Heritage Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Birmingham, Alabama, and supposedly, a scholar on Biblical Matters.
QUOTE.
Then [Elisha] went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, ne`arim came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, "Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!" When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two yeladim of them (2 Ki. 2:23-24).
The story of Elisha's cursing of 42 "little children" (KJV) in 2 Kings 2:23-25 is a perennial problem passage. Matthew Henry treats the story as a moral lesson on the level of Aesop's Fables: "God must be glorified as a righteous God, that hates sin, and will reckon for it, even in little children. Let the hideous shrieks and groans of this wicked wretched brood make our flesh tremble for fear of God. Let little children be afraid of speaking wicked words, for God notices what they say." Not a bad moral lesson, that. But is it the point of this passage?
For the most part, the best that has been done is to say that the 42 were "young lads," old enough to know that the prophet deserved honor and therefore culpable for their mockery. Others highlight the seriousness of the sin; T. R. Hobbs compares mockery of the Lord's prophet to touching the ark, both apparently minor transgressions that are severely punished (2 Kings [Word Biblical Commentary #13; Waco, TX: Word, 1985]). Still, one is left unsatisfied, both because of the brutality of slaughtering 42 children, and because it seems so odd that the Spirit would choose to record such an event in the first place. Perhaps we are to learn, as Augustine did, that human feeling and the justice of God are two different things.
In his taped lectures on Kings, James Jordan has provided a more satisfactory interpretation of the passage. Jordan points out the exodus-conquest pattern of 2 Kings 1-2. Elijah and Elisha leave the land (through the parted waters of Jordan, just as Israel left Egypt through the Red Sea), Elijah ascends and cannot be found (like Moses), and Elisha returns as Elijah's successor (again through the parted Jordan, just as Israel entered Canaan). Elisha is clearly presented as a new Joshua, who enters the land to heal it and to purge it of Canaanites. He meets the "young lads" at Bethel, a center of the golden calf cult (1 Ki. 12:25-33). Jordan suggests that the "lads" are priests or at least assistants to the priests who serve the shrine at Bethel. Cursing the 42 "lads" is part of the new Joshua's conquest of the land.
Jordan's interpretation is supported by the fact that na`ar ("boy") sometimes carries the connotation of "official" or "steward." It denotes someone who is in a subordinate position without implying anything about age. Mephibosheth's servant Ziba is called a na`ar of Saul's house (2 Sam. 16:1), and he was clearly no "lad," since he had fifteen sons of his own (2 Sam. 19:17). Boaz would have been a fool to put a "boy" in charge of his reapers, but his foreman is called a na`ar in Ruth 2:5-6. These examples suggest that na`ar might be translated as "official" in other passages as well (cf. 1 Ki. 20:13-15).
The same can be said for the other term used to the describe the 42, yeled. While this word normally refers to humans and animals of young age (even fetuses, Ex. 21:22), it is also used in reference to older persons. When Jeroboam led a delegation to Rehoboam to ask for relief from Solomon's heavy yoke, Rehoboam consulted with the yeladim "who grew up with him and stood before him" (1 Ki. 12:8). How old were these young men? Verse 8 indicates that they were about the same age as Rehoboam, and 1 Kings 14:21 tells us that Rehoboam was 41 when he began to reign. Thus, the "young men" were about 40 when they gave their foolish counsel. They are called yeladim both because they were younger than the elders whose counsel Rehoboam rejected and because they were Rehoboam's subordinates; that they "stood before" Rehoboam suggests that they were his personal servants and confidants, holding the office of "prince's friend." In any case, this passage shows that the usage of yeled is not restricted to young children and teenagers.
Elisha, thus, did not instigate a slaughter of babies or infants or little children, but instead called down curses on the "officials" of the idolatrous shrine of Bethel. As the new Joshua, he was beginning his herem war against the shrines of the Israelo-Canaanites who dominated the northern kingdom.
Unquote:
Anyway, and with all due respect, to me this is another instance of how this passage does not necessarily implies a true story. I cannot accept my GOD purposedly slaughtering 42 children, guys or men, for an act of mockery to a prophet
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 01/19/04 - Deuteronomy 23:3 and Ruth Deuteronomy 23:3 states "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:"
and yet, wasn't Ruth a Moabite? Given that she is an ancestor of David (and to Christians, Jesus), wouldn't that require that she enter the congregation of the Lord? How did Ruth get around this ruling by God?
curious98 answered on 01/20/04:Hi Graelyn,
Leaving aside whatever interpretations
Jewish or Christian exegetes may make which are, of course, absolutely worthwhile and to be taken into consideration- my own theory is quite simple. Ammonites and Moabites were most probably hated for whatever reason by whoever wrote those fragments of the Deuteronomy.
Please note that I underline the word wrote for I cannot dispute the fact GOD may have inspired this Book. I only hint that whoever actually wrote that part maybe decided to doom both tribes on his own account.
The reason for this thought which may sound blasphemous to some- is that I cannot believe in a vindictive GOD, as it would take to condemn someone just because he/she was born a Moabite
Many Moslems clearly believe, right now, that neither Christians nor Jews are eligible to enter their Kingdom of Heaven.
But I guess that all of us Jews, Christians and Moslems- do think that the GOD we believe in is perfect in everything. Everything must include Justice and Goodness.
And I can hardly see any justice in segregating anyone for reasons of birth, color or belief. I cannot accept that a Moabite just because he/she was born that- should be an evil person.
When I was a child ages and ages ago- in the Catholic school I went to I was told I could not shake hands neither with Jews nor Protestants because if I do I would go to Hell.
Thanks God, 70 years later (Im now 77) this stupid line of thought seems to have disappeared from most Catholic minds. Even our Pope John gathered the other day with some relevant Rabbis and Lutherans as a continuation of some ecumenical talks that have been developed these last years.
I say that my GOD loves every single one equally even those who offend IT- precisely because ITS love is infinite. A good father loves his children irrespective of whether they are handsome or ugly, intelligent or dumb, good or bad. And he is just a poor, insignificant person
Can we start imagining the kind of love Jehovah, Yahweh, Adonai, Allah or simply, GOD must feel for his children?
What do you think?
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Yiddishkeit asked on 01/15/04 - Communities worldwide... I have a book titled, "Jewish Communities of the World." The book was published in 1997, so it's a little old but still a great source that gives world Jewry population counts country by country. Which countries have the largest populations of residing Christians?
Bobby curious98 answered on 01/15/04:Hi Bobby,
According to Aneki.com, the break down would be this for the 10th largest Christian populations, irrespective of denomination:
Christian Population
1 United States 189,983,000
2 Brazil 170,405,000
3 Mexico 96,614,000
4 China 86,801,000
5 Philipines 72,225,000
6 Germany 60,712,000
7 Nigeria 54,012,000
8 Italy 47,704,000
9 France 45,505,000
10 Congo, Democratic Republic of 42,283,000
In Spain we are supposed to be about 40 million, so we should be within the next 5, possibly after the U,K,
Regards
Curious98. | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 01/13/04 - THE SOUL!
No biblical text authorizes the statement that the 'soul' is separated from the body at the moment of death.
True or False?
HANK
curious98 answered on 01/14/04:Hi HankI,
I have extracted from the Catholic Encyclopeadia the following notes:
Quote:
A. Dogma of Particular Judgment
The Catholic doctrine of the particular judgment is this: that immediately after death the eternal destiny of each separated soul is decided by the just judgment of God. Although there has been no formal definition on this point, the dogma is clearly implied in the Union Decree of Eugene IV (1439), which declares that souls leaving their bodies in a state of grace, but in need of purification are cleansed in Purgatory, whereas souls that are perfectly pure are at once admitted to the beatific vision of the Godhead (ipsum Deum unum et trinum) and those who depart in actual mortal sin, or merely with original sin, are at once consigned to eternal punishment, the quality of which corresponds to their sin (paenis tamen disparibus). The doctrine is also in the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus in 1274, in the Bull "Benedictus Deus" of Benedict XII, in 1336, and in the professions of faith of Gregory XIII and Benedict XIV.
B. Existence of Particular Judgment Proved from Scripture
Ecclesiastes 11:9; 12:1 sq.; and Hebrews 9:27, are sometimes quoted in proof of the particular judgment, but though these passages speak of a judgment after death, neither the context nor the force of the words proves that the sacred writer had in mind a judgment distinct from that at the end of the world. The Scriptural arguments in defence of the particular judgment must be indirect. There is no text of which we can certainly say that it expressly affirms this dogma but there are several which teach an immediate retribution after death and thereby clearly imply a particular judgment. Christ represents Lazarus and Dives as receiving their respective rewards immediately after death. They have always been regarded as types of the just man and the sinner. To the penitent thief it was promised that his soul instantly on leaving the body would be in the state of the blessed: "This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). St. Paul (II Corinthians 5) longs to be absent from the body that he may be present to the Lord, evidently understanding death to be the entrance into his reward (cf. Philemon 1:21 sq.). Ecclesiasticus 11:28-29 speaks of a retribution at the hour of death, but it may refer to a temporal punishment, such as sudden death in the midst of prosperity, the evil remembrance that survives the wicked or the misfortunes of their children. However, the other texts that have been quoted are sufficient to establish the strict conformity of the doctrine with Scripture teaching. (Cf. Acts 1:25; Apocalypse 20:4-6, 12-14.)
C. Patristic Testimony Regarding Particular Judgment
St. Augustine witnesses clearly and emphatically to this faith of the early Church. Writing to the presbyter Peter, he criticizes the works of Vincentius Victor on the soul, pointing out that they contain nothing except what is vain or erroneous or mere commonplace, familiar to all Catholics. As an instance of the last, he cites Victor's interpretation of the parable of Lazarus and Dives. He writes:
For with respect to that which he (Victor] most correctly and very soundly holds, namely, that souls are judged when they depart from the body, before they come to that judgment which must be passed on them when reunited to the body and are tormented or glorified in that same flesh which they here inhabited -- was that a matter of which you (Peter) were unaware? Who is so obstinate against the Gospel as not to perceive those things in the parable of that poor man carried after death to Abraham's bosom and of the rich man whose torments are set before us? (De anima et ejus origine, 11, n.8.)
In the sermons of the Fathers occur graphic descriptions of the particular judgment (cf. S. Ephraem, "Sermo de secundo Adventu" "Sermo in eos qui in Christo obdormiunt").
D. Heresies
Lactantius is one of the few Catholic writers who disputed this doctrine (Divine Institutes VII:21). Among heretics the particular judgment was denied by Tatian and Vigilantius. The Hypnopsychites and the Thnetopsychites believed that at death the soul passed away, according to the former into a state of unconsciousness, according to the latter into temporary destruction. They believed that souls would arise at the resurrection of the body for judgment. This theory of "soul slumber" was defended by the Nestorians and Copts, and later by the Anabaptists, Socinians, and Arminians. Calvin (Inst. III, 25) holds that the final destiny is not decided till the last day.
Unquote:
Although, tecnically speaking, you are right, from the above you may see that, we Catholics, at least, are supposed to accept that the soul separates from the body at the moment of death, as a dogma.
The fact remains this principle comes from very old and it was spread with the clear intention of confirming the reward or the punishment we should deserve after our death.
This point aside, in my opinion, it makes sense that one way or other our soul separates from our dead body, for once we die, what happens to our bodies is irrelevant. Many religions still burn the corpses, and in this case, it is evident that the soul CANNOT be burned along. Hence, it must separate from the body.
Just my opinion, though!
Claude (Curious98)
| | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 01/12/04 - WHO WROTE THE BIBLE?
"Who Wrote The Bible
- Evidence of God"
"Who wrote the Bible" is a question that is undoubtedly asked by many who are familiar with the impact this book has made on people around the world. The Bible gives guidance in our journey through life to eternity, as well as leads us to a relationship with the God of the universe. It is a historical book that is backed by archeology, and a prophetic book that has lived up to all of its claims thus far. In light of all these facts, asking, who wrote the bible, is a vital question that deserves serious investigation and a serious response. The Bible is Gods letter to humanity collected into 66 books written by 40 divinely inspired writers. These writers come from all walks of life (i.e., kings to fishermen) and spans over a period of 1,500 years or more. These claims may seem dramatic (or unrealistic to some), but a careful and honest study of the biblical scriptures will show them to be true.
Who Wrote the Bible - Evidence of Divine Inspiration
Who wrote the Bible is a question that can be definitively answered by examining the biblical texts in light of the external evidences that supports its claims. 2 Timothy 3:16 states that All scripture is inspired by God. In 2 Peter 1:20-21, Peter reminds the reader to know this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of ones own interpretation, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. The Bible itself tells us that it is God who is the author of His book.
God does not leave us with just claims of His divine handiwork in the Bible, but also supports it with compelling evidence. The design of the Bible itself is a miracle. Written over more than 1,500 years by vastly different writers, yet every book in the Bible is consistent in its message. These 66 books talk about history, prophecy, poetry, and theology. Despite their complexity, differences in writing styles and vast time periods, the books of the Bible agree miraculously well in theme, facts and cross-referencing. No human beings could have planned such an intricate combination of books over a 1,500-year time span. Bible manuscripts (remember, there were no printing presses until 1455) have survived despite weather, persecution and time. Most ancient writings written on weak materials like papyrus have vanished all together. Yet many copies of the Old Testament scriptures survived. For instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain all books of the Old Testament, except Esther, and have been dated to before the time of Christ. Consider Julius Caesars Gallic Wars. Only ten copies written about 1,000 years after the event are in existence. In comparison, there are over 24,000+ New Testament manuscripts, the earliest one dating to within 24 years after Christ.
The Bible also validates its divine authorship through fulfilled prophecies. An astonishing 668 prophecies have been fulfilled and none have ever been proven false (three are unconfirmed). An honest study of biblical prophecy will compellingly show the divine authorship of the Bible. Further, archeology confirms (or in some cases supports) accounts in the biblical record. No other holy book comes close to the Bible in the amount of evidence supporting its divine authorship.
Who Wrote the Bible - A Question of Eternal Significance
Who Wrote the Bible is indeed a question that everyone must ask. If indeed it is the Word of the living God, then no other book gives us more insight into our lives, more hope for our future, and a true path to a relationship with God. Search the Bible with openness and honesty and see for yourself what the Creator of the universe wants to tell you!"
Source: http://www.who-wrote-the-bible.com/
Thought you'd like to read this!
HANK
curious98 answered on 01/13/04:Hello HankI,
Yes, certainly an interesting argumentation.
And the one I should believe as a Roman Catholic subject- and, actually, the one that would simplify my life immensely.
However, any historian would claim that while the Bible is extraordinarily consistent, bearing in mind the different writers and the span of time it covers, so the History of our different civilizations that go back to 4/5000 years BC is consistent, too-
Historians would also claim that there are a number of passages in the Book that, apparently, are based on old traditions, legends or books that were written BEFORE the Bible!
For instance, the Epic of Gilgamesh!
However, I have already said time and again that to me, whether or not the Book is inspired by GOD or is a fragment of history of a small part of the world covering a time span of some 2000 years is perfectly irrelevant.
GOD is way over these considerations and, what is more important, we shall all find out eventually who was right and who was wrong.
Meanwhile, and for debating purposes, we can speculate as much as you wish and take sides to make it more interesting.
Best regards,
Claude (aka Curious98)
BTW. How on earth can you answer so many questions to be number one with more than 1200 replies. Congratulations!
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 01/12/04 - Prophecy, preordination, and free will How do those fit together?
For example, if a legitimate prophet (by whatever definition you like) prophecies that a certain person will be born, raised in city X, be tatooed by a mad slave owner when he is twelve, and be killed by knife while saving the life of a princess, Do the events in that person's life become pre-ordained?
For instance, does that person get born, and then his parents are forced by cosmic will/God/Fate to move to city X, and a mad slaver who wasn't going to do anything has his mind changed into giving a tatoo to a young boy? What if no one really wanted to kill this guy when he rescued the Princess... would Fate/Karma/God force someone to kill him in order to create the destiny foretold?
Or, does prophecy give a series of events, and only when, in random occurences, someone meets all of the requirements, does the prophecy become official. In this case, maybe 200 boys are born in the next thousand years and their parents move to city X. but only 3 are marked with tatoos, and of those three, one dies in a horse accident, one lives to a ripe old age, and one is killed by an arrow while trying to rescue a princess.... and so, the prophecy waits.
your thoughts? curious98 answered on 01/13/04:Hi,
If we look at your post from a religious point of view, I have to say that, GOD being omniscient IT can see AT THE SAME TIME, the past, the present and the future. Consequently GOD should have the capacity of knowing in anticipation what the parents of that boy would decide -out of their free will- to do one day, and what would happen to that boy when he, again, out of his own free will, would determine to rescue the princess.
It should be like a movie where you know quite well how it ends up and which you cannot change, because that's the way the movie was filmed.
Then GOD hints the story to some prophet or other, and this prophet comes out with the bright news that he knows the end of the movie...
That's how it should go more or less bearing in mind what I always say that we know nothing at all -though some may say they do- of GOD's plans, and that GOD can do or have things happening as GOD pleases.
Yet, that's not exactly how I would buy your story. I would perhaps feel more inclined to believe your 2nd theory, which ties in better with my rationalistic way of thinking
and also with my theory that GOD is way over our little lives to be concerned by them...
But this is something I'm not supposed to say
Best regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 01/09/04 - Free Will An interesting digression in another thread raised this question for me:
What exactly is "free will"?
Given that definition, how does Free Will work in these examples from the Bible:
Onan (makes a decision, God kills him. Did Onan know that the punishment for his decision was death?)
Pharoah (decides to release the slaves, God forces him to change his mind and keep them. Is it really free will if God can force your mind to change?)
Jonah (decides not to travel, God punishes him. Perhaps Jonah knew the rules and punishment for breaking them?)
Job (God and Satan play havoc with his life. Man goeas along, God and Satan kill everyone around him to test him. Is it really free will if you are a rat in a lab maze?)
curious98 answered on 01/11/04:I think we have Free Will to do as we please with our lives. A good evidence would be the fact we can remove our own life, if we so wish. I cannot contemplate anything more important than that!
According to the different religions we dispose of a set of rules and regulations which we are free to break but we have to face our responsibility.
It is the same with Human Laws.
They tell us what we cannot do, but if despite everything, we prefer not to walk the line we must face the consequences.
Therefore, I can kill anyone if I'm willing to accept going to jail for it.
I can commit suicide if I'm willing to pay for it, eventually!
Best regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | ETWolverine asked on 01/07/04 - To my Christian friends. Hello all,
As you are by now probably aware, I am an Orthodox Jew who does not accept the Trinity or the idea of Jesus as either G-d or Messiah.
However, I am trying to further understand all of YOUR beliefs.
I understand that Trinitarians (and that is most Christians, in my experience) believe that Jesus is G-d or a part or aspect of G-d.
Does this interpretation mean that Jesus created the world in 6 days? Did Jesus split the seas dring the Exodus? Did Jesus bring the flood and save Noah? Did Jesus send the mannah to the Israelites in the desert?
I guess what I'm asking is how far do we take the explanation of Jesus and G-d being one and the same?
Please do not see this question as a criticism of what you believe, but rather as an attempt to understand. I most likely will not agree with you, and I don't expect most of you to agree with me. But this really is just an attempt to understand and question, not criticize.
Looking forward to your responses,
Elliot curious98 answered on 01/09/04:Dear Elliot,
ACTUALLY, THIS IS A POINT OF CONTENTION WITHIN TALMUDIC AND POST TALMUDIC INTERPRETATION. THERE ARE MANY LITERALISTS OUT THERE, PARTICULARLY WITHIN THE CHASIDIC COMMUNITY (BUT LIMITED TO THE CHASSIDIC COMMUNITY) WHO DO INDEED BELIEVE THAT CREATION TOOK PLACE DURING 6 LITERAL DAYS OF 24 HOURS EACH. THERE ARE ALSO THOSE (LIKE MYSELF) WHO BELIEVE AS RASHI, THE GREAT JEWISH BIBLICAL SCHOLAR DID, THAT "YOM" REFERRED TO AN "ERA" OR "PERIOD OF TIME" RATHER THAN A 24-HOUR DAY. SO YES, THERE ARE THOSE WHO BELIEVE EACH OF THESE INTERPRETATIONS.
Far from my intention to molest any member of the Chassidic community that might read this, but how can anyone sustain right now that Creation took place in 6 days of 24 hours each?
Im tremendously curious (hence my aka) and I would like to know how could they start to believe something like that. I could eventually go along with Mr. Rashi and start talking about eras, although here Id have to define eras of different lengths altogether. Not 6 eras of equal length. But, at least, this is debatable. But how can anyone defend the 6 days of 24 hours thesis. This reminds me of the darkness in which the Catholic Church was living in the 16th century when the Inquisition forced Gallileo Gallilei to give up his theories about our Solar system, which were based on those by Nicholas Copernicus
PROBLEM IS THAT SCIENCE HAS NOT MADE THAT 'DETERMINATION'... IT HAS ONLY THEORIZED THAT THE EARTH IS 4 BILLION YEARS OLD. NEVERTHELESS, I TAKE YOUR POINT.
There are bound to be, for the time being at least, some discussions as to the exact age of our Earth. However, the consensus of opinion seems to be inclined towards the 4 billion years, give or take a few millions, which does not make a great difference.
SO WHAT YOU SEEM TO BE SAYING HERE IS THAT JUST AS YOU BELIEVE THAT CREATION DID NOT TAKE PLACE IN 6 LITERAL 24-HOUR PERIOD, SO TOO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE TRINITY IS NOT A LITERAL TRINITY.
Lets be a little more precise about this. I KNOW Creation did not take place in 6 days, as much as I know our Earth is not flat but very much shaped like an orange of sorts; and as much as I KNOW there are billions of celestial bodies (galaxies, stars, planets, etc) in our known Universe.
As for the Trinity, I cannot say I know for I do not. I can say and that is my personal opinion- that Trinity and GOD is the very same concept, which probably means it is not a literal Trinity. I could visualize a big Oak with 3 branches, which nobody could say it is 3 oaks, but just a big one
SO HOW FAR SHOULD WE TAKE THIS CONCEPT OF NON-LITERALISM? SHOULD ANYTHING IN THE BIBLE BE TAKEN LITERALLY? THE 10 PLAGUES? THE EXODUS? THE 40-YEARS IN THE DESERT? THE WARS? WATER FROM THE ROCK? WHICH ITEMS ARE LITERAL, AND WHICH ITEMS SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN LITERALLY, AND HOW DO YOU MAKE THE DETERMINATION OF WHICH IS WHICH?
It all depends on whether you believe like, my French Rabbi friend, that the O.T. is the word of GOD, very much like many Moslems believe the Al-Koran was totally dictated to Mohammed by GOD, or you believe, as I do, that both the O.T. and the N.T. are a set of books written IN GOOD FAITH by a number of men, basing themselves in oral traditions, legends and live experiences with the good intention of helping us and showing us how to walk the line.
Take the Gospels, just to speak of what I believe as a Catholic and you dont as a Jew. To write what it has been written there how it has been written it would have taken a reporter with a tape recorder and a digital camera plus a stenographer following Jesus everywhere and taking notes.
However, the Gospels were written AFTER Jesus DIED and According to Catholic tradition, the four Gospels were written by four individuals called the four Evangelists. Many scholars today, however, argue that the original authors were "anonymous," and that the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were only later connected with these four books. Which opinion is correct? Better yet, what difference does it make?
None whatsoever for the important question is the message transmitted therein.
It is highly possible that the different parables and situations presented by the Gospel were actually lived by Jesus irrespective of whether He was just another prophet or the Son of GOD. The fact remains the message is good and survives ages.
And the same thing happens with the O.T. What difference does it make whether it is literally the word from GOD, or was inspired by GOD or it is a set of good advices plus a number of more or less historical situations plus certain oral traditions transmitted from father to son What matters is its contents, and whether these traditions and messages are worth our following them, which they are.
Do we really think it can make that much difference to GOD whether you believe nearly two million refugees scramble across the Red Sea on a mysterious ridge of dry land--then watched a pursuing Egyptian army drown. and I find it difficult to accept it just like that. Would it add anything to GODs immense power?
Granted, Im too much of a rationalist, but on the other hand, I strongly believe in GODs message of Love thy neighbor If Heaven or Paradise do exist and Im convinced something must exist- Im pretty sure I wont get in through the marble staircase or be given the red carpet treatment. Maybe through the service entrance and even so, after having had to wait for a long while. But this will always be better than nothing at all!
THIS IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM THAT I HAVE WITH NON-LITERALISTS... HOW DO THEY DETERMINE WHAT IS LITERAL AND WHAT IS NOT? AND IF THE BIBLE STORIES ARE ONLY PARTIALLY LITERAL, WHAT OF THE LAWS THEMSELVES? ARE THEY TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY, OR ARE THEY NON-LITERAL LAWS. WHEN WE ARE TOLD TO BUILD THE TABERNACLE, WAS IT A LITERAL TABERNACLE OR WAS IT NON-LITERAL? WHEN WE BROUGHT A SACRIFICE, WAS IT A LITERAL SACRIFICE? WAS IT BROUGHT ON A LITERAL ALTER? WERE THE 10 COMMANDMENTS LITERAL LAWS WRITTEN ON LITERAL TABLETS?
WHERE DO WE MAKE THE CUT-OFF BETWEEN LITERAL THINKING AND NON-LITERAL THINKING WITH REGARD TO THE BIBLE? IS IT ARBITRARY? IS IT A CASE OF "IF I UNDERSTAND IT, ITS LITERAL, IF I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, ITS ALLEGORY"? THAT SEEMS PRETTY ARBITRARY TO ME.
I see your point quite well. But I think you are much better off than little old me! For you already strongly believe with the kind of Faith that is needed for true Salvation, whereas Im constantly submerged by all kind of doubts my rationalism floods me with. I have to keep a constant struggle between what I say and what I do. Between what I have been taught and want to believe in, and what the many books I have read have taught me
>>>Just remember that most wars and conflicts that we have suffered throughout our history have been motivated by religious differences and activated by religious leaders who have taken advantage, for their own benefit, of those differences.<<<
NO. WAR WAS CAUSED NOT BY THE DIFFERENCES IN INTERPRETATION, BUT RATHER BY THE INTOLERANCE OF THE DIFFERENCES. PEOPLE CAN HAVE LEGITIMATE DIFFERENCES OF INTERPRETATION WITHOUT GOING TO WAR WITH EACH OTHER. FURTHERMORE, MOST WARS IN HISTORY HAVE BEEN TERRITORIAL RATHER THAN RELIGIOUS IN NATURE.
AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE GONE TO WAR OVER RELIGION IS THE VERY THING THAT MAKES CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE SO IMPORTANT. CLEAR INTERPRETATION WILL HELP AVOID MISUNDERSTANDINGS IN THE FUTURE.
I agree only to a certain extent. Many wars have been territorial, granted. But, by the same token, many have used religion as an excuse to get started.
Let us just take the Crusades that were launched to reconquer Jerusalem, or the Moorish domination in Spain my country- that lasted well over 6 centuries. Of course, it was territorial, for the different Spanish kings wanted to get rid of the Arabs, but to do that they constantly used the argument of religion. We had to get rid of the Arabs, not because they were Arabs but because they were infidel. In fact, those who wanted to convert to Christianism were allowed to remain.
To such an extent, there was a famous battle (the battle of Clavijo) which the Christians won to the Moors because Saint James riding a White Horse came to help defeating the infidel!!
It is not clear whether all the troops saw the saint or only the king and some priests. But it worked
The problem does not lie with religion per se but with how the religious leaders interpret it, or how those who are ruling us pretend to use it to boost peoples morale.
When your President said on TV, when he was about to invade Iraq that God was behind him and America, how could he made such an assertion? Is he on speaking terms with GOD?
This is what I mean, when I say problems are not with religions but with their leaders, whoever they are!
Best regards
Claude (Curious98)
PS:
Be assured I enjoy tremendously your comments.
| | Question/Answer | | ETWolverine asked on 01/07/04 - To my Christian friends. Hello all,
As you are by now probably aware, I am an Orthodox Jew who does not accept the Trinity or the idea of Jesus as either G-d or Messiah.
However, I am trying to further understand all of YOUR beliefs.
I understand that Trinitarians (and that is most Christians, in my experience) believe that Jesus is G-d or a part or aspect of G-d.
Does this interpretation mean that Jesus created the world in 6 days? Did Jesus split the seas dring the Exodus? Did Jesus bring the flood and save Noah? Did Jesus send the mannah to the Israelites in the desert?
I guess what I'm asking is how far do we take the explanation of Jesus and G-d being one and the same?
Please do not see this question as a criticism of what you believe, but rather as an attempt to understand. I most likely will not agree with you, and I don't expect most of you to agree with me. But this really is just an attempt to understand and question, not criticize.
Looking forward to your responses,
Elliot curious98 answered on 01/08/04:As I have pointed out in my recent post to HankI I have a not very orthodox view of some of our Catholic dogmas, which you have probably ascertained through the many posts I have sent to this forum since it started. Our Trinity is a very difficult to assimilate dogma which justifies why so many theologs have devoted their lives to study it.
Though, in fact, the Trinity concept is older than Christianism.
I prefer simply to concentrate on the Real Mac Coy, i.e. the Big Boss or, more respectfully, GOD.
And consider The Holy Spirit and Jesus, as GODs projections. Particularly, Jesus, who might have been like GODs Messenger (or ITS mental projection, for nothing is impossible for GOD) to redeem Mankind.
If GOD decided to appear before Moses as a burning bush (probably, another GODs projection) I do not see why Jesus could not be another projection of GOD in the form of a Man with some powers.
From that perspective I therefore believe that The Holy Spirit and Jesus are but the same thing as GOD, in different manifestations for the consumption of human race, though as I said, they are not exclusive of Christians.
This said, I would like to think that your paragraph
Quote: Does this interpretation mean that Jesus created the world in 6 days? Did Jesus split the seas during the Exodus? Did Jesus bring the flood and save Noah? Did Jesus send the mannah to the Israelites in the desert?
Unquote:
Is just written as a way of expressing what you want to say, not really because you literally believe those concepts of the Book.
I do not think any Orthodox Jew, no matter how orthodox, do really and literally takes now seriously that Yahweh created the world in 6 days, do you?
Orthodoxy should not mean sticking to old traditions and concepts once they have scientifically been proven wrong or am I wrong?
When science has determined our Earth is about 4 billion years old, it is kind of hard to be speaking in other terms than those, or it is not?
Im, of course, not taking this as an attempt for you to criticize Christians beliefs. After all we share the same Boss (as all of mankind, for what matters), and all the rest is peccatum minusculus which is Latin to describe other comparative insignificant matters.
And by that, like you, I am not intending to offend you or those who believe the rest is not SO insignificant.
What happens is that, for me, the concept of GOD is so unattainable that all the rest surrounding that concept seems rather irrelevant.
I always say to whoever wants to listen that if mankind would manage to understand there is ONLY ONE GOD, WHO IS THE SAME FOR EVERYBODY and would consider the different religions just as if they were different languages to address THIS SAME GOD, getting rid of all those things that separate us, life in this world would be much more peaceful.
Just remember that most wars and conflicts that we have suffered throughout our history have been motivated by religious differences and activated by religious leaders who have taken advantage, for their own benefit, of those differences.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 01/07/04 - REVELATION! Please Read:
Revelation 2:1
"Jesus Christ controls history through positive volition toward Bible Doctrine. Christ controls history by the function of positive believers functioning in the Plan of God.
People are the products of their own decisions.
Exchanging freedom for security causes down trend.
Freedom is the real issue in life.
The demand for power exceeds the need for power.
Innovation without truth is dangerous.
The weak control the strong. There are teenage children which will manipulate there parents as an example of the how the weak can control the strong.
Economic disaster often comes from our own bad decisions. The sky and the ground is bronze symbolically when there is economic disaster. In this country, the world equality is a "buzz word" from the Cosmic System. We cannot have freedom and equality. We have tried in the United States to stop people from failing. We have the option to succeed or we have the option to fail. Socailism and Communism bring the welfare state. Carter legislated against success. Systems of taxation have been set up to destroy success. Nearly every president has tried to legislate against success.
The Bible's system of economics says that the masses do not bring prosperity.
If our emotions become involved in our thinking then we cannot think.
Historical trends are about to bring us into the decade of disaster. There are a lot of people that have not been around here. We need to understand many parts of the scripture before the Book of Revelation will make sense.
God's Knowledge
Billions of years before man existed he had self knowledge. God is soveriegn and is knowledge is much greater than any creature. The future is a clear as the past to God. God acts rationally. God knows himself to be beyond comparision. God existed eternally unsustained by anyone or himself. Christ controls history. Before man existed, God knew what would happen to the United States. God's knowledge is not limited to time and space. God's knowledge exists, in self knownledge, omniscience and foreknowledge. God's omniscience is related to man and history. God's objective knowledge of the universe and all of its creatures is his omniscience. The programming of the Computer of Divine Decress established reality. The computer contains every thought, decision and action of every person in human history. God is soveriegn and he does not interfere in the print out of the Computer. Billions of years ago in eternity past God thoughts new every action of every creature. There are a lot of things that are not entered into the Computer. The alternatives are not entered into the computer. The alternatives are the actions, motives and thoughts that we did not choose. The alternatives are a part of omniscience but they are not a part of Divine Decrees. All of us wether rational or irrational we are responsible for our own decisions. Foreknowledge is different than omniscience. Omniscience prgrammed the computer of Divine Decrees. The foreknowledge is the print out of the Divine Decrees. Nothing is foreknown until it is first decreed. The foreknowledge of God makes nothing certain. When Christ communicates prophecy he is speaking from his foreknowledge. Christ has foreknowledge. The soveriegnity of God may punish man or prosper man. Only man will interfere with the privacy of someone else."
Citation: As taught by R. B. Thieme - REVELATION CHAPTER 2
Any disagreements?
HANK
curious98 answered on 01/08/04:Dear Hank,
"Jesus Christ controls history through positive volition toward Bible Doctrine. Christ controls history by the function of positive believers functioning in the Plan of God.
Im sorry but I do not agree. In the first place we should be speaking about GOD, not Jesus Christ who, according to Christians only, died in the Cross to deliver Mankind of its sins. Then, I do not believe GOD considers us so important as to wishing to control our history.
I know many of my Roman Catholic correligionaries (also many Jews and Moslems) do believe so. But this is only because our Religions, throughout the centuries, have been hammering on us a few things such as man is made in the image of god (gen.) or only man is able to approach and worship GOD and survive the death of the body, ascending to heaven (or descending to hell).
This is probably due to Mans most extraordinary arrogance.
A Spark of Divinity has no doubt touched us when we were created. But no more than everything else in the Universe.
When I wonder about the Magnificent Miracle of our Universe (the little we know of) I marvel at how little importance we in general- grant to this fantastic FEAT.
A few learned people do study our Cosmos trying to find out explanations or facts about how it all started.
But most of us simply take it for granted and do not even stop for a minute to think that, no matter how it all started (Big Bang, or whatever!) it did as a consequence of an act of GODs will. That ONLY GOD WHO WAS THERE BEFORE, IS THERE NOW, AND WILL BE THERE FOR EVER!
Can we absorb that concept?
Of course, if we do not assume this it simply means we do not believe in GOD. Period.
But, no one who believes in GOD, or in some kind of Creator, can ignore this Fact.
And that VERY SAME GOD (for there cannot be but ONE GOD), after our insignificant Earth was formed billions of years after the Big Bang (if that was really the beginning), decided AFTER another few more billion years (something like 4 billion) to send HIS Divine Spark and instill life in our Planet. But the firsts forms of biological life seem to have been some kind of bacteria or germs in the sea, not counting, of course vegetal life, which came first.
And, maybe just one million years ago (less than 0,025% of our Earth supposed age) that GOD decided to send another more perfected Divine Spark to help creating Mans ancestors, although if we stick to the Genesis, we cannot go beyond a tiny wee 0,00025% of the age of our Earth (some 10.000 years ago)
Less than a drop of water in the age of our own planet!
And we still pretend that GOD is in control of our History
That is rather pretentious of us, is not it?
Jesus was GODs messenger (I have got to believe at least that), his Son in a way, and He came to Earth, as I said before, to redeem us from our sins. And to tell us how we should carry on with our small lives
But hardly a few paid any attention to what He said. And hardly a few are now paying any attention to what He then said.
But this is our problem. For we were made free to choose our own destiny.
I do not believe Jesus, after his Ascension to Heaven, took upon Him the task of auditing our books of history...
We should rather ask ourselves, do we even know what GODs plans really are? Because to have the foggiest idea about that we should be able to understand GOD. And right now, I cannot imagine anything farther from our understanding and reach than GOD
So the whole premise of that gentleman of yours is in my opinion false and, consequently, not worth discussing it, though there may be some points that might be true per se.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | bal317 asked on 01/01/04 - God is our Conductor. Happy New Year to All: I live in a small town in Iowa, and on our phone system within our Community, for as long as I can remember, we have a local number to call, which gives us a Daily Thought. I was wondering if any of you have such.
Today's message was: God is our Conductor, speaking about how life is like music and we are lead by the conductor, many high notes and some low, but when we go flat we need a rest and that resting point can be used by viewing back on how to step up to a tone that can be nicely heard. God is our Conductor of life and when we are made to rest because of an illness or whatever should cause us to be still, because God wants us to reflex on how we can come back intune with ourselves and others in a more positive way. Believing in God, when we are at rest, it is for an important reason, as he is our conductor of life.
Those aren't the exact words, but about what it indetailed.
I am asking, do you all have the oppurtunity by phone within your Community, to call up and get some spiritial words? curious98 answered on 01/02/04:
Not quite, but I do benefit of something just as good.
I receive every morning, entirely free of any charge, the daily Gospel, with a commentary written by a different learned person every day.
You, and anybody else, can get it too in English via e-mail, by subscribing to it in the following website:
http://mim.e-cristians.net
As I say this is completely gratuitous, and the only purpose of this web is to spread the Gospel to as many people as possible.
The idea originated in a Christian Spanish group which is not only formed by Catholics, but by people from other Christian confessions, whether Orthodox or Protestant, who strongly preach the ecumenist message contained in the Gospel is valid for every Christian denomination and I would add, for everybody, irrespective of what his or her faith may be.
Although the web is in Spanish, there is a very clear log in place in English, for those English-speaking people who may wish to subscribe. The English translations of the Gospel are, of course, the official ones. As for the commentaries, some USA collaborators who have kindly volunteer to do so, proofread them all.
Though we have started only a few months ago, we have an increasing number of subscriptions from all over the World. Some 27.000 from Spanish speaking people and some 3.000 so far we have started only last October with the English translation mostly from USA and Canada.
Why dont you visit the site and subscribe. It will cost you nothing and, if you do not like it, you can unsubscribe just as easily, for this is not of course- any kind of Spam mail, nor do we include any advertising.
As I say, its purpose is not proselytism but evangelist. And whatever costs we have we gladly pay from our own pockets, for we all believe into what we are doing Spread Gods word!
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 12/31/03 - The Ten Commandments and Christian laws I have heard in the US many Christian groups claiming that the Ten Commandments are the basis for Christian life and laws. They claim that the commandments should be in our courts because they are the basis of Christian law.
But, don't Christians claim that they don't need to follow the laws of the OT? How does a Christian get the right to pick and choose, to follow only those ten commandments, but none of the other 200+ God gave in the OT. By being Christian, aren't they essentially saying "we choose not to follow or believe in the OT laws".
So, how can the 10 commandments be the basis of Christian Laws in this country, when Christians claim that Jesus removed the need to follow the OT laws? curious98 answered on 01/01/04:Dear Graelyn,
My previous answer to Hank can be applied, I believe, to your post too.
Not being an expert on the O.T. I cannot say whether or not there are other 200+ other commandments that are to be followed by Christians and which are they.
But I can tell you right away that ALL a good Christian should do is to follow the teachings of the Gospels, which I'm sure, embrace all the other commandments, whichever they are.
On the other hand, I fail to see which harm would do to Courts and Administrations all over the world, to bear in mind the ten commandments.
I do not give a damnn whether they are the basis of the Christian religion or of the Jewish religion. Or whether Moses just got them out of the blue...
The true fact is that they are damnn good and we should all be better off if we would follow them more closely. Don't you think so?.
Best regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 12/31/03 - OLD TESTAMENT! "The Old Testament (the part of the Bible written before Jesus' birth) was completed in 450BC, hundreds of years before Jesus was born. The prophecies were made in astonishing detail by many people throughout these books.
For instance, the Old Testament indicated Jesus would be betrayed by someone he trusted, "Even my close friend whom I trusted, he who has shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me" (Psalm 41:9). The New Testament, which records Jesus' life and resurrection, reveals that one of the 12 people Jesus chose to be part of his inner circle betrayed him, "Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them" (Mark 14:19).
More than 300 prophecies like this were made in the Old Testament and then fulfilled through Jesus' life, death and resurrection. The chances of one person fulfilling a mere 8 of these prophecies are 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. For one person to fulfill 48 of these prophecies, the number becomes staggering--1 chance in 10 to the 157th power (1 with 157 zeros after it). Add to that the 250 other prophecies and it becomes impossible for any other person except Jesus to ever fit that particular sequence of time and events."
Citation: POWER TO CHANGE (Online)
HANK
curious98 answered on 01/01/04:Dear Hank
Regarding your post, I would like to point out 2 things.
The first one answers our colleague Rosends.
When he refers to the Old Testament as the Only Testament, he, as a follower of the Jewish religion, is perfectly entitled to do so. However, he forgets that Christians are also benefiting of the Books contained in the Old Testament. Consequently, when we refer to the Old Testament, we do it just to separate it from the New Testament. There is no other significance implied. If Rosends estimates there is one, it is his own problem. On the other hand, he can call the Gospels as he wishes; I will not get offended, for the Christian Gospels are way above whatever Mr. Rosends may care to say or think. I think Mr. Rosends shows a certain tendency to a religious fundamentalism of some kind. The kind of fundamentalism also displayed unfortunately by many Christians and Moslems- which pretends they are the owners or proprietors of GODs copyrights.
"The only true God is my God and all the rest are wrong, nutty and they should go to hell! Or, better yet, we can kill them asap, so they do not contaminate this World with their theories about false Gods, and so on and so forth."
It goes without saying that, in my opinion, this is a very poor way to start a new year, when we should all be looking forward to a better and more peaceful year, with love rather than hate predominating, if at all possible!
Which takes me to the 2nd thing.
Those Jews, Christians, or Moslems, who believe their faith is the only true one, are, again, in my opinion, totally wrong.
GOD is the same one for every living soul or thing in this planet and for every moving thing in the entire Universe.
If it would not be like that, GOD could not be the Creator of everything we know and of the many things we ignore!
Consequently, I believe in GOD while simply accepting the fact that throughout history men have felt they have to justify GOD one way or other, when GOD needs no justification whatsoever. Let Jews believe what they want and say Jesus was just another good man while awaiting their true Messiah. Let Moslems claim Jesus was another prophet and stick to Mohammed as their kind of Messiah. And let Christians claim Jesus was the Son of God.
On day, we should all discovered for sure who was right and who was wrong!
But, in the meantime, disregarding whether Jesus was a good man, a prophet or the Son of God, let us try to follow His advice.
Love one another as I love you John 15:12
I challenge Rosends, and anyone else, for what matter, to say this is not a good piece of advice
And let us say with Luke 2:14 "Peace on earth, good will toward men."
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | bal317 asked on 12/30/03 - When is this going to happen? Maybe I am not understanding this, but what is in the meaning of, Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherite the earth.
Thank you,
bal317 curious98 answered on 12/31/03:I agree with Toms777.
Of course, you realize that this is a promise with no time limit. That means that, according to the N.T. Jesus is neither saying when will that happen nor whether he is referring to this or some new Earth, we still do not know of.
However, our present Earth would simply be a beautiful Paradise to live in, if we men would not enjoy ourselves spoiling it or, rather, destroying it with our incredible ambition and thoughtlessness. For if we were ALL meek then, no doubt, the above promise wouldnt be an allegory but a true fact, and we would inherit the Earth.
I think Jesus was sending a subliminal message to Mankind with that promise. Be meek, be humble, love each other, and you will realize you are living in a wonderful World, which will be all yours to enjoy!
Maybe this fragment of a paper written 10 years ago by Archpriest Victor Potapov,
about Parish Life, will help you better understand that promise Jesus made to meek men.
Christ's third Commandment of Blessedness promises the meek that they will inherit the earth. This is true although difficult for contemporary man to comprehend in the context of stormy recent politics. States, parties and people continue fight for land and riches. Throughout history, people have fought over land and resources, making war and other violence, destroying so many human families as well other resources. The violence may well go on. Millions suffer in torment, and cannot see or take delight in the real beauty of our splendid earth, created by God.
Nevertheless, there are people who, as it is said in the Scriptures, have nothing, but posses everything (II Corinthians 6:10). These Christians ascetics live in the bosom of nature in deserts and mountains. Some of them were wanderers, who in Holy Russia went about the country on foot, from monastery to monastery, from one holy place to another. They delighted in the beauty of the land and were nourished by its excellent fruits. They breathed the pure air and drank spring water. They prayed to God beneath the open sky. They worked with their own hands, and they never took away land from anyone. And the land really belonged to them. And they, in their meekness, possessed it.
By the commandment of meekness, Christ foresaw not only such a possession of the earth. The time will come, when the earth in reality will belong to the meek. According to the word of the Apostle Peter, we, according to his promise, look for a new heaven and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness (II Peter 3:13). By God's Judgement, the meek will become citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, which the Psalmist calls the land of the living. I believe that I shall see the good things of the Lord in the land of the living (Psalm 26:15).
Meekness is freedom from this sinful world, but a loving attitude towards it. The world needs healing by meekness. And meekness is readiness to endure suffering patiently and with joy. Only in this kind of meekness, can one win Christian victor: not by self-denial but by sacrificial love. This Christian victory is directly opposite to any worldly victory that suppresses enemies or rivals with vindication of one's purpose and pretension. Christ's victory is to attract to Himself the hearts of men. His victory challenges all worldly wisdom about man and man's futile aspiration. Christ's victory is goodness, self-renunciation, and love.
All earthy experience adds up to a loss in the face of what the Gospel calls treasure in the heavens. The believing mind knows that all things earthly evaporate and lose their power to attract. It believing mind wants heavenly treasure to nourish it fully without fear of loss f any kind.
The commandment the meek shall inherit the earth expresses the existential truth that unselfish love irresistibly attracts the human heart. It is an invincible power. We know that a mysterious law operates. True victors may look like people suffering defeat. The contemporary French writer Albert Camus expresses this truth in these words: I cannot but believe those witnesses who gave themselves up to be killed.
Let us complete our sketch with the prayerful instruction of the contemporary teacher of meekness, the Venerable Siluan of Athos:
The soul of the humble is like the sea; toss a stone into the sea and for a minute it slightly disturbs the surface, and then falls into its depths. So do afflictions drown in the heart of the humble man, because the Lord's power is with him.
Where dwellest thou, O humble soul; and who liveth in thee; to what shall I liken thee?
Thou burnest brightly, like the sun, and burnest not out; but with thy warmth thou warmest all.
To thee belongeth the land of the meek, according to the word of the Lord.
Thou art like unto a flowering garden, in the heart of which there is a splendid home, where the Lord doth love to abide.
Thee do heaven and earth love.
Thee do the holy Apostles, Prophets, Hierarchs and Venerable love.
Thee do the Angels, Seraphim and Cherubim love.
Thee, the humble, doth the Most Pure Mother of the Lord love.
Thee doth the Lord love and rejoice over.
That year 2004 may make us a little meeker and may be we shall make a step forward towards our inheritance.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | PraiseJah asked on 12/30/03 - Islam Do you believe the rise of Islam was foretold in the Bible? curious98 answered on 12/30/03:Dear PraiseJah,
As usual with many history subjects, the answer depend on the source you are consulting.
For instance:
Quote:
In a private note, a prominent member of the Saudi Royal family has asked to be kept in touch with further developments not only regarding the Exodus but also his thesis that the Temples of Jerusalem were never built on the Temple Mount but rather in their more logical position some 600 ft. further south over the Citys only natural supply of water, The Gihon Spring in the City of Jerusalem.
This same prince, writes:
Islam has claimed that the coming of Mohammed was foretold in the Bible in the following verse:
"And this is the blessing wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death and he said, 'The Lord came from Sinai and dawned from Mount Seir upon them; he shone forth from Mount Paran he came from ten thousands of holy ones: with flaming fire at his right hand. Yea, he loved His people; all those consecrated to him were in his hand: so they followed in thy feet, receiving direction from thee, when Moses commanded us a law, as a possession for the congregation of Jacob. Thus the Lord became King in Jeshurun when the heads of the people were gathered, all the tribes of Israel together." (Deuteronomy 33:1-5).
The controversy naturally revolves around any independent evidence that Paran was in the vicinity of Makkah (Mecca).
It has been cited a medieval geographer on that score but one cannot be sure whether the identification was real or an attempt to strengthen the thesis that Mohammed was mentioned in the Bible.
I would expect therefore that Muslims would favor that identification. In fact it is now taken for granted by the Muslim world. Perhaps that is the reason why we Saudis have expressed more interest in the thesis than the Israelis. However it does cause Islam a problem which they have preferred not to address over the centuries. For, if we accept Paran as Makkah, then we MUST at the same time accept that the Exodus took place in Saudi Arabia..
What is puzzling is that we cannot find any Islamic commentator who has taken the next and only logical next step. IF Mekkah is Paran then the Exodus MUST have taken place in Arabia .
I have seen no Islamic commentator make that obvious conclusion.
What is much more startling is that Yemeni Jewish sages also identified Paran with Mekkah, surely against their interests and biases. The argument has been posited that Yemeni Jews for their own protection would not want to rock the boat and that as the rise of Islam was undoubtedly a major world event in history and they believe that all such events are predicted in the Torah, they would have no problem is accepting the Muslim interpretation.
I will leave the reader to decide whether that is sufficient justification for Jewish sages to have accepted the identification that Paran is Makkah.
Unquote:
On the other hand, another member of the Islamic world, by the name of Abdulla Ibrahim, writes:
Quote:
MUHAMMAD (P.B.U.H.) NOT FORETOLD IN THE BIBLE
According to Surah 7, Al A'raf, verse 157, Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) the prophet of Islam is foretold in the Torah and the Gospel. However, a closer look at the context of the Biblical passages commonly referred to by Muslims, will show that they cannot be interpreted that way. The following quotes are all taken from the N.I.V. translation of the Bible:
1)
The Lord had said to Abram, "...I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." (Genesis 12:1-3)
Dr. Jamal Badawi and some other Muslims claim that God would bless the whole earth through Muhammad (p.b.u.h) the descendant of Ishmael. (see "What the Bible says about Muhammad" (peace be upon him), IPCI, pages 26-27)
After all, he was the firstborn to Abraham through Hagar, an Egyptian maidservant, and the traditional rights the first son had as heir is, according to the law, not depending on the social status of his mother. However, the Bible is very clear in saying that God, by his sovereign choice, would fulfill his covenant through the seed of Isaac, the son given to Sarah, Abraham's first wife:
And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!" Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will ake him into a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year." (Genesis 17: 18-21)
Deuteronomy 21:15-17 assures the rights of inheritance to the firstborn son, to the one who literally was the first to be born. Since Abraham lived about 600 years before God gave the Israelites this law through Moses, it is not applicable to him. This rule was also set aside with divine approval in Jacob's and Solomon's cases. Even in the Quran certain laws, such as to how many wives one is allowed to marry, did not apply to Muhammad (p.b.u.h.)
For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. (Galatians 3:18, see also 3:6-23)
His situation also has to be understood in the light of an ancient custom, illustrated in Old Assyrian marriage contracts, the Code of Hammurapi and the Nuzi tablets (mid-2nd millennium B.C.). There we find that if a wife could not bear children to her husband, she was allowed to give him her maidservant to provide an heir. Every legal right of a child that was born in that way was passed on to the real wife. These laws allowed her to turn a mother of such a child again into her former state of a servant. In case the wife would suddenly be able to bear children she could disinherit the child of the maidservant. This is exactly what happened to Ishmael, the son of Abraham, born by the maidservant Hagar:
The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast. But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, and she said to Abraham, "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac." The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring." (Genesis 21:8-13, see also 25: 1-6)
God in his sovereignty chose to bless the whole world through Isaac's line. Surah 29, Al 'Ankabut, verse 27 (see also Surah 45, Al Jathiyah, verse 16) confirms this by stating that the prophethood and the scripture are to be found in Isaac's and Jacob's line, with the children of Israel. Nowhere in the Quran is it written that from Ishmael's seed too there would one day rise up a prophet. As seen above, this is confirmed in Genesis 17:20-21 where we read that God will fulfill his covenant through Isaac only. God remains faithful to his promise even though the Israelites have disobeyed him many times during their history. They were and are being severely punished for their stubbornness, yet God has still not chosen to reveal himself through prophets coming from outside the line of Isaac and Jacob.
The following verses verify this:
But Zion said, "The Lord has forsaken me, the Lord has forgotten me." "Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I (God) will not forget you! See I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me." (Isaiah 49:14-16)
If we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself. (2 Timothy 2:13)
What if some (Jews) did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Not at all!... Romans 3:3-4
2)
The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the Lord your God has not permitted you to do so. The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me (Moses) from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. For this is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, "Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die. The Lord said to me: "What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth and he will tell them everything I command him. If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." (Deuteronomy 18:14-20)
Because Ishmael was Isaac's half-brother, Muslims interpret the words "from among your own brothers" to mean "from among the descendants of Ishmael. They conclude that since Muhammad (p.b.u.h) was a descendant of the Ishmaelites this prophecy must speak about him. The preceding chapter shows clearly that this is not the case. By defining the very words on which the Muslim argument is built we will see that they refer to a brother Israelite not to a brother Ishmaelite:
Be sure to appoint over you the king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite. (Deuteronomy 17:15)
Even though this verse refers to a different incident, nevertheless the words under question are used again. It is a normal exegetic procedure to define a phrase according to how it is used in the close context, especially so if it is explained there. When it comes to a choice between accepting the interpretation of men or the Bible the latter must naturally be given preference.
This explanation is the only one that can be accepted in the light of Deuteronomy 18:14. There Moses tells his brothers, the Israelites, not to follow the detestable practices of the nations in regard to having contact with the supernatural world. At that time everybody else, including the Ishmaelites, belonged to those nations! Therefore, if verse 15 would refer to a prophet coming from the Ishmaelites, this surely would have been clearly stated!
The verses 20-22 (they mention the criteria for "a" not "the" true prophet) which follow after Deuteronomy 18:15 disclose that it is first and foremost a collective reference to all true prophets who will follow. They all, like Moses, were to act as mediators between God and the people. The Israelites had a frightening experience with the Creator on Mount Sinai and since then they did not want Him to speak to them personally. (Exodus 20:18-21) At their request God would send prophets who will speak in His name to them. In this way they will hear the words God put into the mouths of His prophets. In Acts 3:13-26 we read that Jesus was the unique, messianic fulfillment of that prophecy:
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed,...this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer. Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out,...and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you-even Jesus. He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. For Moses said, "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you"...When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you...
John 6:14 confirms that fact: After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world."
He (John the Baptist) did not fail to confess but confessed freely, "I am not the Christ." They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the prophet?" He answered, "No". (John 1:20-21)
Ahmed Deedat believes this verse to be a sign that Jesus is not the prophet who was to come since it speaks about three different persons. ("What the Bible says about Muhammad (Peace be upon him)," IPCI,pages 17-19)
However, John 6:14, in which the Jews identify Jesus to be this prophet, shows that there were different opinions among them with regard to his identity. As seen above under 1), in Acts 3:13-26 the matter is clarified and he is identified to be Jesus. Deedat further thinks that there is a contradiction between John 1:20-21 and Matthew 17:11-13 where Jesus, in opposite to John the Baptist, declares the latter to be Elijah. (Ibid. page 18)
The solution to this apparent contradiction is found by turning to Luke 1:17 where John the Baptist is described as coming "...in the spirit and power of Elijah..." Since Elijah did not die (2 Kings 2:11) the Jews were thinking he would come back in the flesh, literally being the same prophet. John denied being Elijah in that sense. Since John functioned like that Old Testament preacher of repentance, in the spirit and power of him, Jesus affirmed him to be Elijah in that spiritual sense.
If the words in Deuteronomy 18 "...a prophet like me..." are not examined in relation to their neighboring verses, as explained above, they give raise to all kinds of speculations. Some Muslims say Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) was like Moses because, unlike Jesus, they both had a father and a mother, both where born in a natural way, both married and had children, etc. What they fail to conclude is that many prophets can be paralleled to Moses in some things but not in others. One could just as well say Jesus was the promised prophet because, like Moses but unlike Muhammad (p.b.u.h.), he was saved from death as a baby (Exodus 1:17, 2:2-10, Matthew 2:16), transfigured (Exodus 34:29, Matthew 187:1-7), preached about sacrifice being the way to get forgiveness of sins (Leviticus 4, Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 9:22), and called himself a Jewish prophet (Luke 4:16-24); Jesus too spoke in God's name (John 17:8) and performed many miraculous signs (See also Luke 8:48-55) In contrast to him, there is no sign recorded of Muhammad (p.b.u.h) in the Holy Quran that would be accepted as such by his enemies:
The Unbelievers say, "Why is not a Sign sent down to him from his Lord?" Say, "Truly God leaveth, to stray, whom He will; But He guideth to Himself those who turn to Him in penitence.." (Surah 13, Ra'd, verse 27, see) also verse 31)
To say that the Quran was a miracle given to Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) is unreasonable because many could write a piece of literature and then claim it miraculously came from God. Neither its poetic beauty nor the fact that it has been faithfully recorded down the ages would support such a claim. Otherwise, Shakespeare who wrote the best English prose and whose work has not suffered any change could be called a prophet of God as well in a few hundred years.
Deuteronomy 34:10 which reads, "Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face," can not be taken to mean that the promised prophet was to come from outside Israel. It refers only up to the time when Deuteronomy was written, about 1400 B.C.
The phrase, "...I will put my words in his mouth..." (verse 18), is used when other prophets are mentioned, such as Jeremiah (1:9) or Balaam (Numbers 22:38). It describes in a figurative way the form of divine inspiration that is common to the prophets in general, including Jesus (John 8:25-28) They are to pass on the words given by God only.
The prophets were to speak in God's name only. (Verse 19) God has many different names, the most common among whom are:
His general name "Elohim" (Hebrew) occurs 25550 times in the Bible. It is translated "God" in English and "Allah" in Arabic.
His descriptive name "Adonai" (Hebrew) is used 340 times and is translated "Lord" in English and "Rabb" in Arabic.
His specific, personal name is "Yahweh" or "Jehovah", depending on which transliteration is used for "YHWH" (Hebrew). It's occurrence is with 6823 times by far the most. The literal English rendering is "I am". When Jesus told the Jews that he was the great "I am" the Jews wanted to stone him for blasphemy (John 8:58-59). In Deuteronomy 18:21-22 "Yahweh" is used to identify the name of God in whom a prophet was to speak! Since this name was never used in the Quran and has no equivalent in Arabic one has to come to the conclusion that Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) did not fulfill this requirement of a true prophet!
3)
This is the blessing that Moses the man of God pronounced on the Israelites before his death. He said: "The Lord came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir, he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones from the south, from his mountain slopes." (Deuteronomy 33:1-2)
Bashir Ahmad claims that verse two speaks about three different manifestations of God's glory. (see "The Holy Quran" with English Translation and Commentary", by Bashir Ahamad, second head of the Ahmadiyya community, Islam International Publications, Tilford, Surrey, 1988, general introduction, page lvii) The first one took place on Mount Sinai, when the law was given to Moses. The second one, from Seir is identified with Jesus and his work in Palestine. The third one, from Mount Paran, is perceived to be the revelations given to Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) in Arabia.
Verse one provides the context for the correct interpretation. Moses is said to bless the tribes of Israel. Surely, Islam, the advent of which is allegedly mentioned in verse two, can not be considered to be a blessing to the Israelites! He begins by speaking about the place where God gave His law to them. In putting it as an introduction to the individual blessings, he indicates that obedience towards the law received on Mount Sinai is the source from which the blessings flow. The passage is further written in a poetic stile in the Hebrew language, known as synonymous parallelism. The second or subsequent line repeats or reinforces the sense of the first line. (For another example of this kind see Isaiah 44:22)
"Like the sun when it rises, and fills the whole of the broad horizon with its beams, the glory of the Lord, when He appeared, was not confined to one single point, but shone upon the people of Israel from Sinai, and Seir, and the mountains of Paran, as they came from the west to Sinai...Seir is the mountain land of the Edomites..." (see "Commentary on the Old Testament", by Keil-Delitzsch, W.B. Eerdmanns Publishing, Michigan, Reprinted 1991, "Deuteronomy", page 497)
Edom, located South East of Israel, did not belong to Palestine in Jesus' time. It was occupied by the Jews only during the reign of David and Solomon in 1010-930 B.C.
4)
An oracle concerning Arabia: You caravans of Dedanites, who camp in the thickets of Arabia, bring water for the thirsty; you who live in Tema, bring food for the fugitives. They flee from the sword, from the drawn sword from the bent bow and from the heat of battle. This is what the Lord says to me: "Within one year, as a servant bound by contract would count it, all the pomp of Kedar will come to an end. The survivors of the bowmen, the warriors of Kedar will be few. The Lord, the God of Israel, has spoken." (Isaiah 21:13-17)
This passage describes, according to Badawi, the incident of the migration of the prophet and the battle of Badr. (Ibid. page 29) But the departure of Muhammad (p.b.u.h) took place on 20st June A.D. 622 and the battle was fought in March A.D. 624, one year and eight month later. (see "Dictionary of Islam", "Badr" and "Hijrah", by Thomas P. Hughes, Asia Publishing House, 1988) This time stands in contradiction to the "within one year" of the text! The Muslim interpretation does not fit their own historical dates! This prophecy speaks in reality about the attack on the Arabs by the Assyrians in 732 B.C, and the Babylonians did the same under Nebuchadnezzar.(see "NIV Study Bible", Footnotes to text, Zondervan Corporation, 1985)
5)
"Who is it he is trying to teach? To whom is he explaining his message? To children weaned from their milk, to those just taken from the breast? For it is: Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule a little here, a little there." Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people,... Isaiah 28:9-11
Badawi wants to make his readers believe that the "strange" (other translations have "stammering") tongues, describe Muhammad's (p.b.u.h.) "...state of tension and concentration he went through at the time of revelation." The words "a little here, a little there" supposedly speak about the Quran which was revealed in piece meals over a span of twenty three years. (see "What the Bible says about Muhammad (Peace be upon him)", IPCI, page 29)
In reality these verses are part of a prophecy against Samaria and Jerusalem later fulfilled through the Assyrians. The drunken Israelites (verse 7) mocked the prophet Isaiah. God would speak to the scoffing people of stammering tongue a language of the same kind, since he would speak to them by a people that stammered in their estimation. The Assyrian Semitic had the same sound in the ear of an Israelite, as a provincial dialect has in the ear of an educated man. (see "Commentary on the Old Testament", by Keil and Delitzsch, Eerdmans Publishing, Reprinted 1991, notes on verses)
6)
10 The Lord has brought over you a deep sleep: He has sealed your eyes (the prophets); he has covered your heads (the seers). 11 For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll. And if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say to him, "Read this, please," he will answer, "I can't; it is sealed." 12 Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, "Read this, please," he will answer, "I don't know how to read." 13 The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men. (Isaiah 29:10-13)
Ahmed Deedat singles out Isaiah 29:12 in an attempt to make it look like a prophecy about Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) After all, he used the same words when first confronted with revelation by the angel Gabriel. (Ibid, page 15)
A closer look at the whole chapter 29 shows that the subject under consideration is God's judgment on the disobedient people of Jerusalem. Because of their stubbornness He has hardened their hearts so that they can not understand His words. Verse 13 describes the low spiritual maturity of him who is told to read but cannot. This should not be said about the prophet of Islam, should it?!
7)
Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight: I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations...Let the desert and its towns raise their voices; let the settlement where Kedar lives rejoice. Let the people of Sela sing for joy... Isaiah 42:1-2,11)
In another desperate attempt to find the messenger of Islam foretold in the Bible, Dr. Badawi tries to apply the verses above to him. He connects the awaited one as coming from the descendants of Kedar, the second son of Ishmael, the ancestor of prophet Muhammad. (Ibid, page 28) What he fails to see is that the first two verses are applied to Jesus in Matthew 12:15-21! Badawi does not mention that Isaiah 42:11 also speaks about the people of Sela, the capital of the Edomites whose father was Esau (Genesis 25:29-30), son of Isaac! Both people will rejoice not because the Saviour came from them but to them!
8)
His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely. This is my lover, this is my friend,... (Song of Songs 5:16)
Some Muslims claim that Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) is mentioned in this passage. The Hebrew word for "altogether lovely" is "Mahammaddim". The plural ending "im", also known as the royal plural, is allegedly given to pay the respect that is due to the prophet of Islam.
Dr. Alex Luc, an eminent Hebrew scholar at the well known Columbia Biblical Seminary in U.S.A has this to say about the argument:
"The word under consideration is plural. So is the word 'sweetness' in that verse. It is not to be labeled as royal plural like 'elohim (God); rather, it is common for abstract nouns or adjectives to be in a Hebrew plural form, e.g., 'adulterous' in Hosea 1:2 is plural, so is a 'faithful' man in Proverbs 28:20 and 'understanding' in Isaiah 27:11. Even allowing the way the Muslims are turning a non-prophetic text into a prophetic one, they will face the great challenge to see the Hebrew word Mahammaddim as Muhammad, a term usually used in a negative context, representing something destroyed and punished because of God's wrath on his people." (see Isaiah 64:11; Hosea 9:16; Lamentations 2:4)
It can also not be said that the same word used in two different languages has the same meaning. The word "bank" for example has different significations in English. However none of them can be compared to one of the meanings given in the German language. There the word "bank" can also be used to describe a bench to sit upon. Usually only what comes before or after a word will determine what it is intended to communicate.
Song of Songs 5:10-16 describe the man's beauty in poetic terms. The words "altogether lovely" in verse 16 are used to summarize verses 10-15. He who still thinks verse 16 applies to Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) will have to explain verse one of the same chapter. It refers to the one who is called "altogether lovely" in verse 16 and describes him as someone who has drunk wine! This, according to Islam, is considered to be a great sin!
9)
God came from Teman, the Holy One from Mount Paran. His glory covered the heavens and his praise filled the earth." (Habakkuk 3:3)
Dr. Badawi thinks that the Holy One to appear from the land of Teman and Mount Paran is the Holy Prophet Muhammad. But chapter 3 and the very verse 3 of Habakkuk identifies the Holy One very clearly as being God Himself! God's identity is also confirmed in verse 8 of the same chapter! Like in Deuteronomy 33:2, here too, the Hebrew language uses a poetic stile, synonymous parallelism, to express one and the same truth in different words. Teman means "Southland". God is described as coming from the area south of Israel of which Mount Paran is a part.
The passage in Isaiah 21:13-17 which supposedly mentions the migration and the battle of Badr is in reality referring to an invasion within the Assiryian era.
Let us now look into the passage of the Gospel that is supposedly speaking about the coming of Muhammad (p.b.u.h):
10)
But I (Jesus) tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away the Counsellor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. (John 6:7)
The Gospel was first written down in the Greek language. The argument is put forward that the Greek word for "Counsellor", "paracletos", is very similar to the word "periclytos" that can be translated "the praised one." Because this is the meaning of the name "Muhammad" it is concluded that three letters were altered and Jesus was really speaking about the prophet of Islam.
However, there is not even one Greek manuscript with the word "periclytos" in existence. This truth is further confirmed by looking at the circumstances in which the word "Counsellor" is used. About him we read in the verse quoted above, that he is sent by Jesus, in His name. Certainly, every Muslim believes that his prophet was sent by Allah rather than by Jesus or in His name!
And I will ask the Father and he will give you another Counsellor to be with you forever- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you...But the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. (John 14:16,17,26)
Muhammad (p.b.u.h) has not remained with us forever; he is nowhere called the Spirit of truth; the world has seen him; he has not lived with the disciples and he will not live in them! It is impossible to spiritualize all these marks of recognition of the Counsellor, especially in the light of the above definition of the Counsellor, being the Holy Spirit! On one occasion, while he (Jesus) was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Hoy Spirit. (Acts 1:4-5)
The Ahmadiyya Muslim community has a few more passages through which they try to claim that Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) is found in the Bible. They are not so well known to other Muslims and are therefore dealt with in a separate paper entitled, "Ahmadiyya claims about Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) in the Bible." It can be ordered by the same author at 100554,1546@compuserve.com
There is no prediction about Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) found in the Bible. Therefore Muslims are left with no Biblical evidence that would validate the authority of their prophet. This problem leads to another difficulty that is just as serious. It is described in Surah 4, Al-Nisa, verse 82:
Do they not ponder over the Quran? Had it been from any other than Allah, surely there would have been many contradictions in it.
Since the Quran says Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) is foretold in the Bible but as this study clearly shows, he is not, we are faced with the fact that this is a contradiction!
Unquote:
So there you are. It is up to you to decide. And I can point out there are many more versions favoring either one of the two possibilities.
So the debate is open!
Happy New Year
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 12/20/03 - definitions: killing and murder Much has been made about the commandment "thou shall not kill", and that we should understand that G*d meant one thing, and not another.
So, my learned teachers, what is the difference between killing and murdering? With your definition in hand, use it to judge these examples. In these examples, is the action one of killing or murdering? Is the example provided "okay" under the eyes of the commandment or proscribed by it?
a police sniper shoots a person holding a hostage.
a woman kills her husband who was threatening her with a weapon.
a soldier kills another soldier who was shooting at him.
a soldier kills another soldier who was walking on sentry duty.
a soldier kills another soldier who was taking a shower.
a civilian kills a soldier who was threatening his family.
a pilot/bombadier drops a bomb on a village with civilians and soldiers
a policeman shoots and kills a drunk driver who would not stop.
a policeman shoots/kills a known drug dealer
a drug dealer laces his drugs with rat poison
a soldier fires an artillery shell at a crossroads, killing a civilian and an enemy soldier.
a soldier fires an artillery shell at a target, and kills a soldier on his own side
a soldier plants a bomb by the side of a road, killing another soldier.
a soldier plants a mine field, and kills other soldiers.
a civilian leads enemy soldiers into a mine field, allowing them to die
curious98 answered on 12/26/03:
Hi Graeylin,
Hope you enjoyed your Christmas with your beloved ones.
It is indeed very encouraging and stimulating to see how we are able to develop an interesting debate out of a simple question posed by you.
In fact, I would say you are specially gifted to provoke these kinds of debates.
And I think this is quite positive, too.
However, referring to your question whether soldiers who kill and die in combat should be condemned by GOD, I wish to just say: lets not take too much for granted about GODs decisions as far as we are concerned and going by the Book.
You know I strongly believe contrary to what my Religion teaches - we are just like wee tiny microbes that were put for reasons unclear to me, although may be crystal clear for others in the tiniest and most insignificant of all the flying bodies of the Universe we are given to know so far.
Under this assumption I do not dare taking anything for granted when it comes to saying what GOD will do or will not do in our respect.
I do now want to sound disrespectful with anybodys beliefs, which should be also mine.
All I say is that when, on a clear night, it is given to me the pleasure of contemplating the magnificence of the skies above with its myriad of stars and worlds, I cant help wondering whether we do not really take too much for granted!?
This said, I hope your soldiers will not be condemned thanks to GODs mercy
Happy New Year 2004
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 12/20/03 - definitions: killing and murder Much has been made about the commandment "thou shall not kill", and that we should understand that G*d meant one thing, and not another.
So, my learned teachers, what is the difference between killing and murdering? With your definition in hand, use it to judge these examples. In these examples, is the action one of killing or murdering? Is the example provided "okay" under the eyes of the commandment or proscribed by it?
a police sniper shoots a person holding a hostage.
a woman kills her husband who was threatening her with a weapon.
a soldier kills another soldier who was shooting at him.
a soldier kills another soldier who was walking on sentry duty.
a soldier kills another soldier who was taking a shower.
a civilian kills a soldier who was threatening his family.
a pilot/bombadier drops a bomb on a village with civilians and soldiers
a policeman shoots and kills a drunk driver who would not stop.
a policeman shoots/kills a known drug dealer
a drug dealer laces his drugs with rat poison
a soldier fires an artillery shell at a crossroads, killing a civilian and an enemy soldier.
a soldier fires an artillery shell at a target, and kills a soldier on his own side
a soldier plants a bomb by the side of a road, killing another soldier.
a soldier plants a mine field, and kills other soldiers.
a civilian leads enemy soldiers into a mine field, allowing them to die
curious98 answered on 12/21/03:In my humble opinion, the differences may be established only by using jurisprudence, and bearing in mind this may vary among Countries.
Going by GOD's law, however, I do not think -maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong- GOD ever established any difference between killing or murdering.
I think GOD refers only to "depriving someone of his/her life", no matter how or why!
I do not know anybody right now who mostly deserves to be executed than Saddam Hussein.
And yet, if I'm to be consistent with what I have been saying so far in this or previous posts, I must say "let him be rotten in jail" for we have no right before GOD to kill him...
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 12/17/03 - Generations and prophecy? In Genesis 15:16, it seems that Abraham is having a dream (or prophecy) that says that in 4 generations, his descendants will return. "But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full."
I understand this that they will leave Egypt (a stranger in a land that is not theirs, shall serve a nation, etc.).
Did the Jews 'come hither' in 4 generations?
curious98 answered on 12/18/03:Hy Graylin,
I cannot but fully endorse the learned answer Elliot has given you.
I'm, however, at your disposal for any further clarification you may require
Best regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | Fr_Chuck asked on 12/16/03 - Do we share the same God I know, esp since 9/11 that most will not agree that the Christian God, is the same God as referenced in the Quran and the God of the Muslims. ( although they have false teachings, no form of salvation, where is the base for the God they call God)
So lets further this discussion.
There are many Christians that claim that the Christian God is also "NOT" the God of the Mormons, not the God of the JW.
But how about the God of the Jews. They have never accepted Christ as thier savior, the Jewish faith has no method of Salvation, The people are lost without Jesus, but is not thier God, also our God too.
All of the early Church were Jews, they even required new members at first to become Jewish to be Christian.
So would you agree that the Jewish God, is the same God as the Christian God??? curious98 answered on 12/17/03:Dear Chuck,
I have just posted the following answer to one of those Christians you are referring to:
"Im a Christian Roman Catholic and I agree with you in all your statements but one. That Allah is a false god.
In the first place, Allah is Arab for God, as Gott is German for God, Dios is Spanish for God or Dieu is French for God too. The English language has not the property of the word meaning our Supreme Creator
Secondly, you, as a Christian, have no right to call the God more than 1 billion persons in this World believe in, a false God.
Jesus died in the Cross for all of us, whether white or black, yellow or red, Christians or anything else.
We, Christians, are not better because we are so. We shall be better when as you said- we accept the gift Jesus made ALL of us and we start practicing His Message of Love, indiscriminately.
I cannot help being surprised that a Christian ordained Minister shows what it looks to me as a certain amount of disdain towards those who do not share our own beliefs, when Jesus, by His supreme Sacrifice embraced all Mankind.
Furthermore, when He died, Christianism did not even exist as such. It came out later, after people started to swallow and digest what He had done for us, and He had Resurrected, for His Resurrection is supposed to be the pillar which Christianism is based upon, or is it not so?
Consequently, if we start considering Jesus died only for a chosen minority we should easily arrive to the conclusion he died for the Jews His contemporaries- who didnt even accept him as the Messiah.
We are approaching the most important Christian celebration that of the Nativity of He, who came to save us. And the implicit message is "Glory to God in the highest,
and on Earth peace to men of good will."
Lets not spoil this message with discriminations amongst ourselves.
For, I sure, the GOD I believe in, considers ALL of us ITS children and LOVE ALL of us equally, as a good father loves equally his own sons regardless of whether one if better than the other.
Merry Xmas. and Happy New Year
Curious98"
You are a pilot and you claim you love to fly... Which I think is stupendous. When you are up above, by yourself, dont you ever think of Whoever is responsible of that wonderful World below you? A World you can admire in his total beauty
And, dont you ever think of Whoever is responsible for the miracle that is the rest of our Universe, being youre closer to it than the rest of us?
Well, if you have, how many gods do you think can there exist who are able to create all those marvels?
And if you conclude there must be ONLY ONE, dont you think it makes sense this GOD is the SAME FOR ALL OF US, irrespective of our beliefs, ethnical origins or culture?
Merry Xmas. to you and Happy 2004, and be careful least you would fly too high!
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | revdauphinee asked on 12/12/03 - not a question but an answer to Aton! My God is not the same God as the Allah of the moslems many people think they are the same they are not allah is a false God I worship the God if Israel and no he did not "need" a son he needs nothing he is supreem and almighty he himself chose to take Human form and come to earth to take the place of the sacrificial scape goat and took upon himself all the sins of mankind so that by his death on the cross all could be forgiven if they so choose !A gift is not a gift if the recipient chooses as you seem to have done not to accept it !As for me I choose to I understand your desire not to embrace Christianity however for those of us who do please do not demean us and let us (if you feel its so)have our own idiocincracies!I am a believer in the God of the Jews and in Jesus his son and no one will ever change my mind on that no matter what ! curious98 answered on 12/17/03:Im a Christian Roman Catholic and I agree with you in all your statements but one. That Allah is a false god.
In the first place, Allah is Arab for God, as Gott is German for God, Dios is Spanish for God or Dieu is French for God too. The English language has not the property of the word meaning our Supreme Creator
Secondly, you, as a Christian, have no right to call the God more than 1 billion persons believe in, a false God.
Jesus died in the Cross for all of us, whether white or black, yellow or red, Christians or anything else.
We, Christians, are no better because we are so. We shall be better when as you said- we accept the gift Jesus made ALL of us and we start practicing His Message of Love, indiscriminately.
I cannot help being surprised that a Christian ordained Minister shows what it looks to me as a certain amount of disdain towards those who do not share our own beliefs, when Jesus, by His supreme Sacrifice embraced all Mankind.
Furthermore, when He died, Christianism did not even exist as such. It came out later, after people started to swallow and digest what He had done for us, and He had Resurrected, for His Resurrection is supposed to be the pillar which Christianism is based upon, or is it not so?
Consequently, if we start considering Jesus died only for a chosen minority we should easily arrive to the conclusion he died for the Jews His contemporaries- who didnt even accept him as the Messiah.
We are approaching the most important Christian celebration that of the Nativity of He, who came to save us. And the implicit message is "Glory to God in the highest,
and on Earth peace to men of good will."
Lets not spoil this message with discriminations amongst ourselves.
For, I am sure, the GOD I believe in, considers ALL of us ITS children and LOVE ALL of us equally, as a good father loves equally his own sons regardless of whether one if better than the other.
Merry Xmas. and Happy New Year
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 12/11/03 - Aethiests in prison: your theory? I do not have the numbers at hand (i will research them tomorrow at work again), but the gist of the article I read stated that aethiests are very under-represented in prison populations in the US. Less than 1% of the criminal population in prison is aethiest, while over 15% of the US population is credited as such. One would expect, then, that somewhere closer to 15% of the prison population would be aethiest as well.
What is your theory as to why very few aethiests are in prison? Do aethiests commit less crimes? Get caught less often? Are better criminals? Don't get sentenced as much? Convert to religion once they get inside?
Does anyone have any other 'group' statistics? I always wonder about Jews... are they under-represented in US prisons as well? Muslims? Krishna's? Scientologists? Anyone with other information, please join in and share. curious98 answered on 12/12/03:
Hi Graylin, long time no hear!
Statistics are not always the answer or, at least, the only answer.
Statistics may say that in a certain village there live 100 people who have 1000 chicken in total, and therefore, statistically, each person has an average of 10 chicken, which is totally false, for in the village in question out of the 100 persons, 1 has the 1000 chicken and the 99 remainder have none
If 15% of the US population is supposed to be atheist, and the other 85% is having a of religion of some kind, it does not necessarily follow that the same proportion has to be maintained in the US jails, nor in any other activity (like the US army), for what matters.
It is not written anywhere that I know of that religious people is better than non-religious one.
It is true that MANY persons considering themselves religious and believers in one confession or other DO think they are definitely BETTER than the rest. And that rest does not ONLY and SOLELY refers to all atheists, but generally to those NOT sharing their own faith.
This, of course, is due to the extraordinary egocentrism and arrogance of all of us. This is a clear case of seeing the straw in your neighbors eye while not seeing the beam in your own.
Atheists are, in principle, as normal as you and I (who belong to the religious clan and both probably feel we are great) may be. If they chose the wrong way and end up in prison the reason will have to be sought maybe more in their lack of morals than in their lack of faith. Christian, Jewish and Islam morality, for instance, if properly practiced, should help us to walk the line alright, and yet, with well over 1/3 of the world population sharing one of these 3 major religions, we all can see how our world is going on.
Im a Roman Catholic as you know, and Im far from considering myself anything close to a good Christian, but I cannot help being ashamed by the recent sexual scandals that have shaken the Catholic community in the Boston area because of the behavior of a number of priests who very much enjoyed themselves a lot by practicing pederasty. In my opinion, they should be sent to Sing Sing and yet, I suppose they still keep their parishes
So, please, do not prejudge people because of their religion. Not all atheists or Moslems should be bad, and by the same token, not all others are necessarily good, or as good as we should be.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | bal317 asked on 12/08/03 - Does anyone know? I know the late Bob Hope, had many celebs. entertaining the troups during many hard times, but out of all the singing and all, does anyone know if any big named Religious Leaders ever gone to host Prayers,and put themselves in harms way to give of themselves in such manner, like the ones we can see on tv holding services.
If not- why?
If so-who? curious98 answered on 12/09/03:I would like to stick up for the thousands of priests, pastors, nuns and sisters, of most Christian denominations who risk their lives on a daily basis in God forgotten countries, under unhealthy conditions, just trying to bring some relief to sick, ailing, starving and dying people of the so called 3rd World
What they all do is no piece of news for the media, unless they get killed or raped by some drunken soldier
But they didnt go there in the first place seeking the honors of the TV or the International Press. They just went there because of their love for Mankind
And, thus, my friend, with all due respect to Bob Hope whom I was a fan of- or to Dinah Shore, or to all the rest, in my humble opinion, they cant hold a candle to the least known of these missionaries
Best regards,
Curious98
PS: The only one of those stars that actually died in a plane, while going from Paris to London, during WWII, was Glenn Miller.
| | Question/Answer | | Bradd asked on 12/05/03 - Your message at Christianity Sure, be glad to help in proofreading your translations. My e-mail is xdel4@yahoo.com curious98 answered on 12/06/03:Thank you so much. Will be getting in touch
Best regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | HANK1 asked on 11/29/03 - DIFFERENCE!
What's the difference between religion and spirituality? (No myths, please!)
HANK
curious98 answered on 11/30/03:Religion is a system of beliefs and practices shared by a community of people. These beliefs and practices nurture a relationship with a supreme being, give moral guidance and provide meaning of life.
Spirituality is the way we live out our deepest beliefs, values, and convictions in our daily life. It is the way we live out our search for peace and meaning.
Our everyday choices reveal glimpses of our spirituality by pointing toward what we value most in life and what ethical principles we follow
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | Fr_Chuck asked on 11/15/03 - Hello I hope I have done this correct, and this will come to you privately. If not I am sorry.
All of the Martal Arts, are based on Eastern Religions, of Mind and Body. On the surface what we see in the US are just exersise and self defense, but the true study, and for those that really learn to practice the arts, it deals with a form of religion.
The schools in the US don't like to make this known, it could be bad for business if Christians started to question them about this.
But many have different levels, one of them on the last Campus I worked at, had levels of mental training, that went along with the physical, and in its fullness, would be contrary to Christian belief. curious98 answered on 11/18/03:As I said in one of my previous posts
"oriental martial arts were not meant to hurt or attack others but to be used in self defence. what happens is that, gradually, many are using them to abuse those who do not know them.
kung fu where most martial arts come from- is probably the most effective one and possibly the most dangerous one when ill used.
kung fu means "skill and effort" and can describe anything that one needs to spend time training in and becoming skillful in. when it means "martial art," kung fu refers to the hundreds of styles of martial arts in china, all of which are different.
however, there is one thing that all chinese martial arts have in common and that is the idea that kung fu itself is merely skill, not an instrument to kill or hurt.
the real value of chinese martial arts goes beyond self defense. it lies within the strong traditional training that all kung fu styles emphasize: training that teaches the student to respect the teacher and the teacher's advice; to be respectful towards other kung fu styles and to only use kung fu in a morally correct manner."
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | rgant asked on 11/14/03 - Getting started blogging I want to have a Catholic News blog. How do I go about that?
Richard Gant curious98 answered on 11/18/03:While you're at it, you may also visit these webs.
http://www.google.es/search?q=cache:pN0dR88Fwm8J:www.religionnewsblog.com/category-cat%3D35.html+*catholic+news+blog*&hl=es&ie=UTF-8
http://www.google.es/search?q=cache:3hxLQJGyJRgJ:www.truthlover.com/news/+*catholic+news+blog*&hl=es&ie=UTF-8
http://www.google.es/search?q=cache:qHvlxnFDSjUJ:www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm+*catholic+news+blog*&hl=es&ie=UTF-8
http://www.google.es/search?q=cache:XonzGK9VRAAJ:www.apologeticsindex.org/rnb/archives/00002386.html+*catholic+news+blog*&hl=es&ie=UTF-8
http://www.google.es/search?q=cache:Z-EW7hgU7ekJ:markshea.blogspot.com/+*catholic+news+blog*&hl=es&ie=UTF-8
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | Yiddishkeit asked on 11/11/03 - Veterans' Day in the USA Thank you to all who served in our countries Armed Forces. Special thanks to our soldiers (my brother) currently involved in conflicts abroad, and to our allies.
G-d bless,
Bobby curious98 answered on 11/18/03:As an European who have directly or indirectly beneficed from the sacrifice of thousands of USA forces in 2 World wars I salute all those veterans and wish to express my most sincere condolences to all those who have lost dear ones in these combats.
Which does not imply that I strongly oppose to those senseless wars like present war conflicts in Middle East-, which have lost their initial meaning while producing a constant drain of human lives for no licit purpose whatsoever.
Cruous98
| | Question/Answer | | Ruckus asked on 11/11/03 - Do Jehovahs witnesses believe in Using Karate or for exercise? Why or why not? Thank you in advance.
curious98 answered on 11/18/03:im sorry to disagree, but in my opinion, its not a matter of being passive but, rather, of believing in violence or not believing in it. which does not entail being passive. it is licit to defend oneself when attacked.
oriental martial arts were not meant to hurt or attack others but to be used in self defence. what happens is that, gradually, many are using them to abuse those who do not know them.
kung fu where most martial arts come from- is probably the most effective one and possibly the most dangerous one when ill used.
kung fu means "skill and effort" and can describe anything that one needs to spend time training in and becoming skillful in. when it means "martial art," kung fu refers to the hundreds of styles of martial arts in china, all of which are different.
however, there is one thing that all chinese martial arts have in common and that is the idea that kung fu itself is merely skill, not an instrument to kill or hurt.
the real value of chinese martial arts goes beyond self defense. it lies within the strong traditional training that all kung fu styles emphasize: training that teaches the student to respect the teacher and the teacher's advice; to be respectful towards other kung fu styles and to only use kung fu in a morally correct manner.
kung fu underwent its early development within the walls of the chinese monasteries. the monks possessed the time and learned natures to refine and synthesize these defense arts.
northern style of kung fu developed in the most famous monastery in china called shaolin (young forest). this is where all kung fu first developed in about 500 ad. the monks developed and catalogue techniques based on the movements they studied from the tiger, crane, leopard, snake, and dragon for health and self defense.
kiao yuan expanded the shaolin movements to 72, and later he extended them further to 172. he classified them into the five formed fist: tiger, crane, leopard, snake, and dragon. each of these animals symbolized something from a corner of man's mind or spirit as well as his physical self, which also had to be developed. tiger emphasized the use of the hands (claws) and man's intention. crane, punches and strikes and man's concentration. leopard, footwork and agility and mentality. snake, hard work and development of chi. dragon, the twisting and turning of man's movements and of his spirit. from these theories developed three other concepts: hei lek, man's natural strength; gin lek, man's refined force or chi; and the center point at which gin lek originated from tan tien, the sea of chi.
nearly two-thirds of the shaolin systems seem to have come from these animals and they were further systematized by men who originated and performed profusely in one or more of these. from them arise the five names which are now famous: hung, fut, mak, choy, and li.
hung is based primarily on power and long hand techniques. fut is primarily short hand with slicing and tripping. mak is long hand style with kicks and breaking. choy is speedy maneuverability with hand and body movements like those of a snake. li represents short hand movements with many pokes and slaps.
in the middle 1600's the manchu dynasty overthrew the ming empire and subjugated the chinese people to foreign rule. because of the native resistance to foreign rule, men with power, such as martial artists, were hunted and killed by the manchus in an effort to break the back of the resistance. monasteries were burned and the monks were forced to flee for their lives, but with them they took their art.
but neither in shaoling nor in any other monastery will they teach you kung fu, nor any other martial art to harm others.
generally speaking all religions preconize non-violence. judaism, like christianism and islam, too.
it is men who by ill-using them, and by misleading their correligionaries with false promises or words coming all the way from god, corrupt those religions with violence, lies, corruption, etc., etc.
regards
curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 11/07/03 - God or Gods/gods? Do you believe in one single God, or do you think there are more than one god? The Bible speaks of other gods, what do you think is meant by those verses? Are there other omnipotent beings out there (gods)? What evidence do you use to make your decision? curious98 answered on 11/10/03:I don't know why, but this question of yours reaches me only now!!??
I do believe in one single GOD. I'va simply come to that conclusion (irrespectectively of my Christian education) by just watching the sky on a starry night, or by contemplating tha marvels science discovers every day about us...
All this has to be the work of ONE and ONLY GOD.
If by any chance GOD relied on any Assistants of sorts (do not understand by that the Holy Trinity, according to Catholicism) those must have been, or are, minor divinities; therefore, not at GOD's level.
In fact, such a Force or Energy capable of creating the Universe should be self sufficient and need no outside help other than His WILL.
In any case, that's the way I figure it out.
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | Bradd asked on 11/08/03 - Religion defined? Question Details Asked By Asked On
Tao and Religion Bradd 11/08/03
The question on Tao prompts my question. Just what is a "religion"?
Tao (and Buddhism, e.g.) seem to be psychologies more than religions. Or philosophies. Is belief in God required for a religion to be a religion? Tao, as originally formulated, has no God. Buddha himself avoided the question as being irrelevant. Jainism is often called an "atheistic" religion (oxymoron?).
Life after death? Again, some religions deny this, others are vague on it - returning to a stream of cosmic non-consciousness or something.
God and life after death are clearly fundamental to Christianity and Islam, life after death somewhat less so in Judaism.
Is there one characteristic that would apply to all religions that would define the term?
(Just thought - this cudda gone on to the religion board, but I don't want to re-type the thing, and besides there's nobody there. This board is more fun).
curious98 answered on 11/09/03:Religion could be defined, in my opinion, as the set of rules and rites men have deviced to adore God, irrespective of whether men believe in one God or in one hundred divinities.
For man, from the very beginning of his existence, has always felt the need to explain the unexplainable by means of God.
The existence of God is too evident to need any arguments. Some saintly scholars have even stated that God is more manifest than any other being, but that those who lack insight cannot see Him. Others have said that He is concealed from direct perception because of the intensity of His Self-manifestation.
However, the great influence of positivist and materialist schools of thought on science and on all people of recent centuries makes it necessary to discuss this most manifest truth. As this now-prevalent scientific worldview reduces existence to what can be perceived directly, it blinds itself to those invisible dimensions of existence that are far vaster than the visible.
Let us reflect on one simple historical fact: Since the beginning of human life, the overwhelming majority of humanity has believed that God exists. This belief alone should be enough to establish Gods Existence. Those who do not believe cannot claim to be smarter than those who do. Among past and present-day believers are innovative scientists, scholars, researchers and, most importantly, saints and Prophets, who are the experts in the field. In addition, people usually confuse the non-acceptance of somethings existence with the acceptance of its non-existence. While the former is only a negation or a rejection, the latter is a judgment that requires proof. No one has ever proven Gods non-existence, for to do so is impossible, whereas countless arguments prove His existence. This point may be clarified through the following comparison.
Suppose there is a large palace with 1,000 entrances, 999 of which are open and one which appears to be closed. No one could reasonably claim that the palace cannot be entered. Unbelievers are like those who, in order to assert that the palace cannot be entered, confine their (and others) attention only to the door that is seemingly closed. The doors to Gods existence are open to everybody, provided that they sincerely intend to enter through them.
The most important factor leading many, especially those under the spell of materialistic science and its worldview, to fix their eyes on the apparently closed door is causality. Causality leads to the vicious chain of cause and effect, for each cause is also an effect. Moreover, the effect is totally different from the cause. All things and effects are usually so full of art and beneficial purposes that even if all causes gathered they would be unable to produce one single thing, let alone their simple immediate causes.
In order for a cause to produce an effect, it has to be able to produce the whole universe in which that effect takes place, for that effect cannot exist without the whole universe. Nor can they exist separately. Materialist scientists imagine powerless, dependent, and ignorant causes to be responsible for the existence of beings and things, and thus fancy them to possess absolute qualities. In this way they are implying (tacitly believing) that each of those causes possesses qualities that only can be attributed to God.
However, the latest discoveries of modern science, like the universes unity and its parts inseparability, exclude the possibility of all the explanations put forward by materialistic science. They demonstrate that all entities, whether in nature or in the laws and causes attributed to them, are devoid of power and knowledge. They are contingent, transient, and dependent beings. But the properties attributed to any of these entities need infinite qualities like absolute power and knowledge.
This shows that causality is by no means necessarily linked with objective study or neutral scientific investigation. It is no more than a personal opinion. Moreover, it is an opinion that is irrational and devoid of sense.
When we study the universe, we see that all beings utterly refute the false claims of materialist and atheistic reasoning through their order, mutual relationship, and duties. They affirm that they are nothing but the property and creatures of a Single Creator. Each rejects the false notions of chance and causality, ascribes all other beings to its own Creator, and proves that the Creator has no partners. Indeed, when the Creators Unity is known and understood correctly, it becomes clear that nothing requires that causes should possess any power. Thus they cannot be partners to the Creator, for it is impossible for them to be so.
The universe is a document for believers to use. The Scriptures and the Quran inform us that believing in God is to assent with ones heart to the Creator with all His Attributes supported by the universes testimony. The true affirmation of Gods Unity is a judgment, a confirmation, an assent, and an acceptance that can find its Owner present with all things. It sees in all things a path leading to its Owner, and regards nothing as an obstacle to His Presence. If this were not the case, it would be necessary to tear and cast aside the universe in order to find Him, which is impossible for us.
The universe has been made in the form of an intelligible book so as to make known its Author. The book, which addresses our humanity -and, maybe others in pther worlds too - seeks to make this humanity read the book and its parts, and respond with worship and thanks to its Authors will. Humanity attains to that worship by uncovering the order in the Book of the Universe through scientific study and displaying the functioning of the universes beings and workings.
The universe is not passive or neutral. We cannot interpret it as we wish, for there is only one correct way of looking at the world, one universal worldview common to all humanity. This means that most religions worldview recognize that the perception of the world differs relatively from one person to another. It allows for plurality within unity so that a universal dialogue is possible. This worldview contains no fragmentation or conflict, only harmony, assistance, peace, and compassion.
The materialist scientific worldview is based on radical fragmentation, for it views nature as a mechanism with no inherent value and meaning. It isolates an object by cutting off its connections with the rest of the world, and studies it within its immediate environment.
But our perception of ourselves tells us that we are meaningful and part of the whole universe, and that everything must have a meaning and be part of the universe. Materialist science has left the subjecthumanityout of the universe and, insofar as this science is taking over, people feel that they have no place in this world. Thus they are isolated and live lives without meaning, except in a very limited, egoistic sense. People are alienated from their environment and from themselves.
The universe is an inseparable whole. Indeed, the unity observed in its totality, including humanity, is so clear that no one can deny it. Thus the materialistic approach to the scientific method has to be reconsidered. This method is reductionist, for it reduces every thing to fragments and then attributes each fragment to causes. But in reality, all things are interconnected and interdependent, for it is impossible to attribute anything, however small, to causes that are themselves transient and contingent. Since whatever is responsible for one thing must be responsible for everything, we cannot have one thing without the whole.
Why can we ascribe a thing to its antecedents in time but not to its neighbors in space? Why should a thing be able to produce another thing just because it happened before? All modern scientists know that space and time are fully equivalent and unified into a four-dimensional continuum in which both here and there and before and after are relative. In this four-dimensional space, the temporal sequence is converted into a simultaneous co-existence, the side-by-side existence of all things. Thus, causality appears to be an idea limited to a prejudiced experience of the world.
Causality does have some meaning. Opposites are mingled in this world: truth with falsehood, light with darkness, good with evil, white with black, and so on. Since people have ingrained inclinations toward both good and evil, they are tested in this world to determine whether they will use their free will and other faculties in the way of truth and good or otherwise.
Like a mirrors two sides, existence has two aspects or dimensions: one visible and material, and the transparent, pure, and perfect spiritual realm. The material dimension mustand doescontain events and phenomena that appear disagreeable to us. Those who cannot perceive the Divine Wisdom behind all things may even criticize the Almighty for those disagreeable events and phenomena. To prevent that, God uses natural laws and causes to veil His acts. For example, so that we do not criticize God or His Angel of Death for the loss of our beloved ones or our own death, God places diseases and natural disasters (among other agents or causes) between Himself and death.
On account of this world of testing and trials essential imperfection, we encounter and suffer from many deficiencies and shortcomings. In absolute terms, every event and phenomenon is good and beautiful in itself or in its consequences. Whatever God does or decrees is good, beautiful, and just. Injustice, ugliness, and evil are only apparent or superficial and arise from humanitys errors and abuses. However, those who lack the necessary sound reasoning and judgment to understand the Divine Wisdom behind events and phenomena may impute directly to God the apparent ugliness or evil, imperfections and shortcomings, experienced in worldly life, even though God is absolutely free of any defect or imperfection.
Therefore, so that people do not ascribe any ugliness or evil to God, His Glory and Grandeur require that natural causes and laws be a veil before His acts, while belief in His Unity demands that those causes and laws should not be ascribed to any kind of creative power.
If God Almighty acted in the world directly, and not through causes and laws, we would be unable to develop scientific knowledge or live even an instant of a happy life free of fear and anxiety. We can observe and study patterns in phenomena thanks to Gods acting from behind natural causes and laws. Otherwise, each event would be a miracle. The regularity within the flux and mutability of events and phenomena makes them comprehensible to us, and so awakens within us the desire to wonder and reflect, which is a principal factor in establishing science. For the same reason, we are able to plan and arrange our future affairs to some degree. Just consider how life would be if we did not know whether the sun would rise tomorrow!
Whoever owns such attributes as beauty and perfection desires to know them and make them known. God owns absolute beauty and perfection and is independent of all things. He also owns a holy, transcendent love and thus a sacred desire to display His Beauty and Perfection. If He showed His Names and Attributes directly, without the medium of causes and laws, we could not endure them. He manifests them as he does and by degrees within the confines of time and space so that we can connect with them, reflect on them, and perceive them. The gradual manifestation of Divine Names and Attributes is also a reason for our curiosity and wonder about them.
Consequently, the above considerations, whether, you consider them philosophical or not, are applicable to all who believe in GOD, independently of how they may decide to adore Him.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Bradd asked on 11/08/03 - Religion and Power A response on the Christianity board that went something like this "Extreme intolerance has no place in Christianity" made me wonder if this individual has ever picked up a history book.
So, to my question. Why do religions, when they gain political (State) power, become so extremely intolerant of other minority faiths?
From the execution of Socrates for his religious questions, through the Middle Ages when the Church changed from a pacifist group to the dominant religious power and immediately began persecuting (often killing) those who believed differently, the New England theocracy that punished and sometimes killed non-believers, the English who persecuted non-conformists, and on and on through the ages.
Even the Hebrews, we are told in the Old Testament, thought it perfectly proper to murder and pillage those tribes with different gods. To this day, there are restrictions on non-Israelis living in Israel.
Fundamentalist Christians send people to eternal damnation for not believing as they do. Well, they don't actually DO it, but they believe it.
What makes it even more startling is that most religious founders are big on brotherhood, love thy neighbor and all that. Where did it all go wrong?
curious98 answered on 11/09/03:
I do not know who wrote that "Extreme intolerance has no place in Christianity" but I can assure you he didnt write anything out of context.
Violence and intolerance cannot have any place in a religion whose founder, Jesus Christ, died in the Cross by aying :
"Father, forgive them for they do not know what they do.",
and whose main message all along, was a message of love and peace!
And more or less, the same thing can be said out of all other main religions, including contrary to what many think. Islam.
A different thing altogether is what they do, those who claim to be Christians, Moslems, Jews, etc.
Religions are good for mankind. But, mankind is bad for religions.
Violence and intolerance are both components of human nature, not of religion, and though religion tries to fight them, more often than not, it fails.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 11/03/03 - Was solomon commanded? Was solomon commanded by God to create the graven images he displayed in his temple? THe 12 oxen, the sea of brass, etc.?
If not, was he punished according to the laws of the time for violating the commandment? curious98 answered on 11/04/03:According to the Scriptures, the answer to your questions is Yes to the first one and, No to the second one.
There is something peculiar about your questions if you allow me to say so. That is, you post them as in this case- as if the answer would be an incontrovertible certitude. When you say Was Solomon commanded by God You seem to be implying that there may be someone who knows what God might have ordered Solomon to do, if anything
When it comes to History, I have said more than once, it all depends on who has written it. There are, of course, historical facts that have been proven beyond any doubt, such as the fact that Solomon existed. But, from there to stating what was Solomon thinking or saying at a given moment, or whether he was on speaking terms with GOD Himself, there is a world of speculation.
The first part, i.e. was there ever a person named Solomon has been historically proved. The second part is just a matter of believing or not in the Scriptures. Which means someone may just answer to your question by saying thats just a legend while some other, may mention the Books where this is written.
So it is just a matter of faith. And, unfortunately, faith requires no proofs. Either you have it or you do not, although, of course, one can always become a strong believer in things that previously he/she didnt believe in.
This is why I answer you by saying according to the Scriptures
In the meantime, Im sending you an article on the subject I have found, which you may be interested in reading
The Sanctuary of God contained idolatrous images that God commanded to be included in the Tabernacle! This preliminary statement may surprise some people who study and love the biblical revelation because of its widespread condemnation of idolatry and its outward teaching of Gods adamant strictures against depicting Him in any physical fashion (that is, by making idols, images, statues, pictures, icons, etc.). So stringent is the biblical theme of avoiding idolatry (or, idolatrous ways) that the Israelites were ordered even in the Ten Commandments NOT to make similitudes of ANYTHING in the heavens, of ANYTHING in the earth or of ANYTHING under the earth (that is, of ANYTHING within the seas and oceans) and they were ordered NOT to devote those images to any religious activity in any ritualistic manner.
Though we read throughout the Bible that God loathes idolatry in any form, still the introductory statement of this research article is absolutely true. God actually commanded the Israelites to accept idolatrous rituals in the time of Moses that led the Israelites directly into the practice of idolatry (at least that is how Israel interpreted those commands of God). What we all need to learn is the fact that there is always a particular right manner in which to interpret or to understand a command of God, and the manner should never be twisted to produce opposite effects that will evoke diametrically opposed views as coming from God.
This teaching that I am referring to is in the Bible but many people have passed right over some of its most important doctrinal statements regarding Gods commandments. This is usually because of preconceived (and often erroneous) ideas on what they think the Scriptures teach (or what they think the Scriptures ought to teach). But strange as it may seem, even God Himself, through the words of one of His most powerful prophets in the Old Testament, made the judgmental appraisal that the Israelites were commanded by Him to perform certain rites and to involve certain images that caused them to commit idolatry. And, even God admitted that those commands of His were NOT GOOD. Furthermore, the prophet who stated these things was backed up by another who even named the images that the Israelites were commanded by God to recognize. Amazingly, those images that became idolatrous were ordered by God to be located within the very Temple of God.
That command of God concerning the introduction of those images into the Tabernacle and later Temple remained in force for almost a thousand years. And, interestingly enough, even the first martyr of the Christian Ekklesia (who was Stephen the Deacon) referred to this early period of time when the Israelites were practicing a form of idolatry that involved certain spiritual beings that God had commanded to be used in His worship in the Sanctuaries (Acts 7:41-43). The fact is, the Israelites were so endued with the practice of idolatry when they came out of Egypt that they were not prepared (or spiritually ready) to adopt more mature and advanced teaching in which idolatry became a prime transgression. Only later, in the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel do we find God finally having such images banished from the Temple. It was then that Jeremiah and Ezekiel got rid of much of the idolatry that stemmed from initiating the earlier commands of God as they related to the Tabernacle in the wilderness and finally in the Temple at Jerusalem.
But in the early age of Israel being a nation (at the time of their Exodus from Egypt), the conduct of the Israelites showed they were so prone to accept idolatrous principles that even God felt He had to give them some idolatrous teachings in order for them to comprehend what little spiritual truths the Israelites had mustered while in Egypt. God, in a sense, went to the "bottom of the barrel" and gave the Israelites some commands that finally resulted in them accepting a vast amount of idolatry into their mainstream teachings involving the Tabernacle (and later, the Temple). Or, as the Holy Scriptures relate it, we find God commanding Israel to accept doctrines and to perform religious rituals that were NOT GOOD for the Israelites to practice at the time. Yes, even God Himself recognized that some of those commands that He gave to the Israelites were NOT GOOD they turned out to be commands that led Israel into full-scale idolatry. That is precisely what the Scriptures teach us, if one will read the Word of God at its face value and try not to interpret away what the plain words state. Most people, however, are not aware of these commands of God that are recorded in the Bible because most (it seems) read right over them quickly without pausing to ask why in the world were they first given by God Himself.
The Strange Commands of God that Led to the Practice of Idolatry
Although God in the Ten Commandments utterly condemned any form of idolatry and He placed His proscription against the practice in those early constitutional commands, God still taught the Israelites to perform commands that were NOT GOOD for them. These commands concerned the introduction of Cherubimic images in their worship within the Tabernacle (the portable Temple). God even allowed it to happen again in the time of Solomon where images of Cherubim and twelve bulls were outwardly displayed in the Temple (I Kings 6:24-29; II Chronicles 4:15). Indeed, God even approved of this image display that Solomon continued when he built the Temple in Jerusalem. This was a violation of the strict wording of the Second Command. Did you read me correctly? I stated that God not only allowed a certain amount of violation of the Ten Commandments in the Tabernacle and later Temple, but God even commanded that those Cherubimic and bovine images be introduced even though His commands finally led Israel into idolatrous practices that were contrary to the plain statements of the Ten Commandments! Now, WHY would God "command" these things in the knowledge we should seek to understand these things. The fact is, the real truth of the matter is that anything can be made to say what a person wishes the "truth" to say, and usually it can occur quite easily. And a rational person might argue that a mere image of itself does not mean that the person uses it in an idolatrous fashion. Yes, but still it often takes an image to show outright idolatry in action. So, while images need not of themselves be idolatrous, the temptations are strong to make them such by most human beings who come in contact with (especially if the images are God ordained).
Those commands of God to build images within the Temple are an action that should not be taken by us in a frivolous manner (or an oversight on Gods part). Gods commands should always be taken seriously and they should not be jettisoned into oblivion as a mere sideline issue and without any formal significance for us as is often done by some theologians, preachers and priests. These commands of God also should not be explained away as irrelevant (as do many modern exegetes who merely do not understand why God did what He did). The foolish attempts to get rid of these explicit commands of God should never be looked upon as simple allowances by God to accommodate the weak character traits of the early Israelites at the time of the Exodus or in the period of Solomon. As a matter of fact, it was the prophet Ezekiel that God inspired to record His final displeasure at having had commanded the early Israelites under Moses to observe and to recognize images in the Temple that led them into abject idolatry (and even to the practice of evil idolatrous worship) and these idolatrous results were witnessed within the precincts of the Tabernacle that God commanded in the wilderness.
Thats right, dear folks, God Himself commanded (this means, God actively ordered the Israelites in the wilderness at the start of the Exodus period) to make images that proved to be idolatrous and to place them within the Holy Sanctuary. Now is the time to read those commands concerning this research paper. I deliberately took a considerable introductory space of narration in order to show the seriousness of those "bad commands of God" (or, at least, Ezekiel said under inspiration that the commands of God concerning this research WERE NOT GOOD). God introduced commands that were not good once the Israelites showed very early in the Exodus period that they were not willing to practice all of the "good commands of God." Note carefully these negative commands of God in Ezekiels prophecy that the Israelites were expected to obey. Indeed, what do some of you think about the majestic ARK of the Covenant? Is it a piece of architectural junk from the the Age of Idolatry, or is it to you the replendent symbol of the holy presence of God himself within His divine Glory? You may come to an opinion about this before you finish this article. Let us now read the biblical texts on these important and significant matters. The Prophet Ezekiel stated:
"I lifted up my hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries; because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths [these were "good commands], and their eyes were after [they pined away for] their fathers idols. Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live [that is, God gave them commands which resulted in them NOT living in a righteous and proper manner]; and I polluted them in their own gifts [in their sacrificial gifts that they gave to God], in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord " (Ezekiel 20:23-26).
In the plainest of language, we read in Ezekiel that God gave them commandments that were not good and that those negative commands led the Israelites into presenting paganized sacrifices in the Temple and even to the practice of killing one or more of their children as a human sacrifice (usually the sacrifice of the firstborn was the normal heathen method). Yes, the commands that God gave them led them in the final outcome to commit human sacrificing of children "they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb"). Some humanitarian parents, according to Maimonides, the great Jewish authority in the time of the Crusades, did not kill their children at all, though they "pretended" to. They seemed to have the idea that this pretended sacrifice of the firstborn son as in some way reflecting what God would do in the world when the Messianic period would come at the End of the Age. The pretence was to wrap the child and bundle it carefully (so that not even a spark of actual fire would hit the childs skin). This, according to Maimonides was the final ritual. In some cases, the old practice of the Amorites persisted. Of course, God did not intend that introducing those images into the Tabernacle rituals would lead to infant sacrifice. They did! Give an inch, and the people take a mile. This type of accumulation of pagan teachings is by the attrition method a little at a time.
"And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin" (Jeremiah 32:35).
"For when ye offer your gifts, when ye make your sons to pass through the fire, ye pollute yourselves with all your idols, even unto this day: and shall I be enquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will not be enquired of by you" (Ezekiel 20:31).
"That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them. Moreover this they have done unto me: they have defiled my sanctuary in the same day, and have profaned my sabbaths. For when they had slain their children to their idols, then they came the same day into my sanctuary to profane it; and, lo, thus have they done in the midst of mine house" (Ezekiel 23:37-39).
What we read in Ezekiel Twenty is the appraisal of God Himself (stated through His prophet) that His initial commands in some contexts proved in later times to be "commands that were not good." The outcome was very bad indeed. But what were those commands that God at first gave to the Israelites that turned out to be so very bad for them? Before I answer that question precisely, we should be aware of what God did not mean. It is plain that God did not mean in Ezekiel Twenty that He simply ALLOWED the Israelites to continue in their heathen ways.
This is what God did with the early Gentiles according to Paul. He "gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another.and even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind" (Romans 1:26,28). This was God ALLOWING the Gentiles to do wrong WITHOUT THE PERMISSION of God. But in the section of Ezekiel Twenty, the texts state in the clearest of Hebrew (and also in the clearest of English translation) that GOD COMMANDED (not simply "ALLOWED") the Israelites in the wilderness to practice the commands of God that led them finally into idolatry.
These odious and bad commands given by God to the Israelites (remember, it was God who said they were NOT GOOD) were given in the precise manner (and with the same wording in the Hebrew even the vowel points are identical) in which He "gave them my statutes, and showed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them" (Ezekiel 20:11). These commands that were NOT GOOD were also written in the Scriptures (with the exact Hebrew words and even the same vowel points) as when God gave Israel His positive commands that they should keep His sabbaths. Notice how this is the case in the same chapter in the Book of Ezekiel. "Moreover also [God said], I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign, between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord [YHVH]" (Ezekiel 20:11,12). These were positive commands that God gave to those Israelites. And in the same manner (and with same wording in the Hebrew) God gave the Israelites commandments that WERE NOT GOOD. God does not say the commands turned out to be bad ones in the end. He stated dogmatically that some of His early commandments to the Israelites were simply NOT GOOD to begin with. True, they turned out to be worse than God intended (indeed, they turned out to be far worse).
The reason this occurred is because of the nascent proclivity for the early Israelites to rebel against the basic commands of God that He intended for their good. It seemed to be in their very nature to want to be idolaters. Recall that when Moses was on Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments and some subsidiary laws, the Israelites clamored for Aaron to make them a molten calf as an image of their "God" who brought them out of Egypt, and Aaron went along with the endeavor (Exodus 32). Moses was infuriated at their example of patent idolatry and the Israelites were punished for this error. This, however, did not stop their inclinations to sway toward image-making and the production of human artifacts to "aid them" in their worship. So ingrained were their emotions to gravitate toward idolatrous ways that God finally gave them commandments that were NOT GOOD that led them into further debauchery with those images.
What was it that God commanded that turned out to be very bad commands to the Israelites? The context of Ezekiel (along with the teachings and example of Jeremiah and the prophet Amos) showed that it was Gods command to place images within the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle (and later to allow or command Solomon to do the same thing). What is remarkable in all of this is the fact that those commands of God to make images of Cherubim and place them in the Tabernacle were given to the Israelites in spite of the Second Command of the Ten Commandments which stated: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Exodus 20:4). The rest of the Second Command states that Israelites should not bow before such images or idols nor to serve them. But when the Israelites in the wilderness blatantly refused to keep the commands concerning the sabbaths and other statutes and judgments, and that they continued in their idolatrous practices of their own accord, He then "gave them statutes that were NOT good, and judgments whereby they should NOT live" (Ezekiel 20:25).
God gave these later commands even though He had just deposited the Ten Commandments into their hands that proscribed such idolatrous acts. But, and in accord with Gods threat as we read in Ezekiel, God commanded exactly five chapters and sixteen verses after giving the Second Command of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt make two cherubim of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat [that is, "Seat of Covering" or what later became known as the Ark of the Covenant]. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy [covering] seat shall ye make the cherubim on the two ends thereof. And the cherubim shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy [the covering] seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy [covering] seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Exodus 25:18-29). Later God commanded Moses to make even more images of cherubim and to place them on the veil in the Temple (Exodus 26:31) and on the curtains (Exodus 36:8). These images were forbidden by the Second Command of the Ten Commandments. These commands God later said were "NOT GOOD."
But there is even more. About 39 years after God gave Moses the Ten Commandments to present to Israel as His law, God then commanded Moses to make a brazen image of a snake (which is a clear violation of the Second Command of the Ten Commandments). It should be understood that if God wishes to change (or even to violate) a former command that He made (even if it were one of the Ten Commandments) God has the power and authority to do such actions. After all, it was He who gave the laws in the first place, and He has the right and the prerogative of changing or eliminating such laws at any time He chooses. So, God in the year 39 of the Exodus gave a command that was contrary to the Second Command of the Ten Commandments. He ordered Moses to make an image of a poisonous snake and to hang that snake/image onto a pole that the Israelites could look toward for a physical remedy in the wake of being bitten by poisonous snakes (Numbers 21).
Let us understand once more that God can change any law He wishes and at any time He chooses. He has done so in the past and He can do it in the future. If God wishes to introduce idolatry into the Tabernacle (His divine Temple) even though it is a violation of the Second Commandment, God can do as He jolly well pleases. This is a principle that must always be understood and recognized by Gods own children and His people. God is in charge, not us!
So, near the end of the 40 years of wilderness journeys by the Israelites, God decided to adopt some idolatrous ways to teach the immature Israelites what calamitous consequences would develop by their insistence on having images of Cherubim in the Temple and also having an idolatrous brazen snake on a pole. And true to form, the Cherubim and the snake/image later became so idolatrous to the Israelites, that in the time of Hezekiah the snake/image had to be destroyed because of the rampant idolatry that it provoked (II Kings 18:4). But that did not end the matter. We find that the Israelites also began to worship those two cherubim that God had placed in the Holy of Holies associated with the Ark of the Covenant. Even in the wilderness the Israelites had commenced their worship and adoration of those two Cherubim (and others that were depicted on the veils and curtains within the Tabernacle and the Temple that Solomon built). Do these words not smack of a clear violation of the Second Command (of the highly prestigious "Ten Commmandments." It seems they languish the very spirit and the meaning behind the Second Command.
What is important to realize is the fact that these commandments of God ordered that the Israelites make the images of the Cherubim and also the image of the snake on a pole (which we find in our modern caduceus symbol which identifies the medical profession). Yes, this was the case in the time of Moses. In doing this, one might think that IT WAS NOT ALWAYS INEVITABLE THAT IDOLATRY WOULD EMERGE. Yes, but it almost always did! But what happened to the Israelites in their appreciation of these images of the Cherubim associated with the Ark of the Covenant? They soon (even while they were still in the wilderness) began to worship those statues and images. This infuriated Jeremiah at a later time as well as Ezekiel. So, when the Temple was just on the verge of being destroyed by the Babylonians, the prophet Jeremiah decided to get rid of the Ark of the Covenant and the worship of it by the Israelites. He felt the best thing to do was to bury it and then to tell the Israelites to forget it and its place of burial. Jeremiah knew the evil that those images in the Temple caused.
Jeremiah (who was a priest, as well as with the confirmation of Ezekiel) took the Ark of the Covenant with its idolatrous depiction of Cherubim out of the Holy of Holies and (according to Second Maccabees) deposited them in a cave on the east side of Jordan (opposite Jericho) near the area where Moses was buried. Notice the reference in this historical work that was written about a hundred years before the birth of Christ.
"One finds in the records that Jeremiah the prophet ordered those who were being deported to take some of the fire [from the altar of the Temple], as has been told, and that the prophet after giving them the law instructed those who were being deported not to forget the commandments of the Lord, nor to be led astray in their thoughts upon seeing the gold and silver statues and their adornment [that were discovered within the Temple itself that is, there were images and idols in the Temple and some God had commanded to be there]. And with other similar words he [Jeremiah] exhorted them that the law should not depart from their hearts. It was also in the writing that the prophet, having received an oracle, ordered that the tent and the ark [of the covenant with the two cherubs] should follow with him, and that he went out to the mountain where Moses had gone up and had seen the inheritance of God. And Jeremiah came and found a cave, and he brought there the tent and the ark [of the covenant with the two cherubs] and the altar of incense, and he sealed up the entrance. Some of those who followed him came up to mark the way, but could not find it. When Jeremiah learned of it, he rebuked them and declared: The place shall be unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows his mercy. And then the Lord will disclose these things, and the glory of the Lord and the cloud will appear, as they were shown in the case of Moses, and as Solomon asked that the place should be specially consecrated. It was also made clear that being possessed of wisdom Solomon offered sacrifice for the dedication and completion of the temple. Just as Moses prayed to the Lord, and fire came down from heaven and devoured the sacrifices, so also Solomon prayed, and the fire came down and consumed the whole burnt offerings" (2 Maccabees 2:1-7 RSV).
So exasperated was Jeremiah about the penchant of the Israelites (both those of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah) to turn physical things that God ordained even in the Temple into idolatrous artifacts that Jeremiah prophesied that in the future NO TEMPLE OF GOD would ever have an Ark of the Covenant again (with its permitted image of two Cherubim blazonly depicted). That is the main reason that Jeremiah took the Tent that housed the Ark and the Ark of the Covenant itself (with its two Cherubim) out of the Temple to hide them so that they would not be found to be placed in any Temple after the Babylonian Captivity was over. Note what Jeremiah the Prophet predicted would occur (and his prophecy was uttered under the inspiration of God Almighty).
"Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding. And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it [the Ark of the Covenant] come to mind: neither shall they remember it [the Ark of the Covenant]; neither shall they visit it; [the Ark of the Covenant] neither shall that be done any more" [allowing images of Cherubs for an Ark of the Covenant]. At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart. In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers" (Jeremiah 3:14-18).
The Two Cherubim with the Ark of the Covenant Had Personal Names
We now come to an interesting fact that many of you may never have seen before. Do you realize that the two Cherubs that made up the one image in the Holy of Holies had personal names and that the Israelites called them by those individual names? Thats right. Those names are revealed in the Holy Scriptures. Recall that Jeremiah (according to the historical account given above from Second Maccabees) said that he took the Tent (or Tabernacle) that housed the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies (this was a small tent that covered the two Cherubs and the Ark, and it is not to be confused with the large Tent (or Tabernacle) that made up the whole of the portable Temple in the time of Moses and lasted until the time Solomon took the Ark of the Covenant into his Temple building in Jerusalem. This separate "Tabernacle" is mentioned in First Kings 1:39. This was a small Tent that became associated always with the Ark of the Covenant. This is the Tent that Jeremiah took along with the Ark to bury across the Jordan River east of Jericho (the Tent and Ark never went to Ethiopia as some people have imagined, nor were they buried in the bowels of the Temple precincts in Jerusalem as some later Jews speculated).
These factors concerning the small Tent that accompanied the Ark of the Covenant becomes a major key in identifying the names of the two heavenly Cherubim that the two images (soldered together as one image) depicted on earth. That key comes from Amos 5:25 and 26. Notice this scriptural indication.
"Have you offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O House of Israel? But you have borne the Tabernacle [the special Tent] of your Moloch and Chiun your images [there were two images], the star of your god [the Star a single "star" of your "gods"], which you made to yourselves."
What kind of a Tent (or Tabernacle) contained two images that were indeed a single "Star" (an image molded together into one image of two heavenly beings)? This was the special Tent that was erected over the Ark of the Covenant that contained the two Cherubim that faced one another with their wings outstretched toward each other over the Mercy [Covering] Seat that contained the sacred items within the Ark of the Covenant. In the plainest of language, we have the two Cherubim named by the Israelites. One of them was Moloch (which is the Hebrew word for "King" or "King Star" which was the name given to the planet Jupiter). The other was Chiun (which was another name for the planet Saturn, the furthest planet observable by the naked eye in our solar system). Now note this. When the two Cherubim were first constructed at the beginning of the forty years wandering of the Israelite Exodus period, Moses was told to have the two Cherubs facing one another. This represented Jupiter (a closer planet to earth) facing Saturn (the furthest visible planet from earth) in a conjunction with each other in the sky. Now Jupiter takes about 12 years to traverse the path of the Sun (which means to orbit the Sun) while Saturn takes about 30 years to do the same thing. If the two planets are shown in conjunction with one another (that is, as the Cherubim were shown in the Tabernacle and Temple) facing one another, it will take just over 20 years for the two planets to be exactly in the same position of the sky together and in conjunction again.
It is interesting that the great Massing of the Planets in Taurus (the Bull) that happened on May 5/6 of this year (2000 A.D.), and which I mentioned last year in a Prophetic Report, was also a time when Moloch (Jupiter) and Chiun (Saturn) once again "faced each other" as they did in the time that Moses ordered the Ark of the Covenant to be placed in the Holy of Holies at the beginning of the Exodus. At that time in May of this year, Jupiter and Saturn (as seen from earth) were about 2 degrees from each other, and both (of course) were in Taurus (the Bull) and very near "facing each other" after an absence of just over 20 years. But precisely on May 27, 2000, the two planets came to an exact "facing." They "faced each other in a marvelous conjunction" (only about one degree latitude separated them). As just mentioned, this would have been like the two planets were situated when Moses had the Ark of the Covenant constructed. Then they had 2 times 20 years (or 40 years) for the period of the Exodus that Amos 5:25 mentioned. There was then to be a period of 480 years (I Kings 6:1) for the start of Solomon building the Temple in Jerusalem (that is 24 times 20 years a significant biblical number).
The next time in our modern period that Jupiter and Saturn (or Moloch and Chiun) "face each other" will be on December 21, 2020 when they appear at the very beginning of the sign Aquarius (not Taurus). So, in just over 20 years we find that Jupiter (Moloch) and Saturn (Chiun) "face each other" again to become like a "Single Star." [Whether these indications can be used in a prophetic sense is another question altogether and it takes too long for me to discuss this possibility in this Prophetic Report of my Temple Update. I do plan to write a book on the Chronology of the Bible as it relates to prophetic events for the future when I can spare the time.]
The early Israelites noticed this remarkable astronomical phenomenon of these two planets and they gave religious value to it. Indeed, they began to worship the two Cherubim (named Moloch and Chiun that symbolized Jupiter and Saturn) and they fell into an idolatrous worship of those two Cherubs (and their images in the Holy of Holies) for the whole period of the forty years wandering in the wilderness. They were even continuing the practice (and even with worse consequences) in the time of the prophet Amos (Amos 5:25,26). Stephen even referred to the same practice in his discourse before the Sanhedrin in the year following Christs crucifixion (Acts 7:43 and note that Stephen then called Saturn by the name "Remphan" which is a Greek translation of the earlier Semitic term "Chiun"). Those images of Cherubs did great harm.
There are people today who are still enamored with this Ark of the Covenant (and its two Cherubs named Moloch and Chiun). Without doubt, if the Ark could be once again discovered, they would readily place the two Cherubs right back in any newly built Temple in Jerusalem. The human tendency is strong to do it. The fact is, however, Jeremiah saw the idolatry that had developed over the two Cherubs so he (under inspiration of God, in my view) took the special Tent of the Cherubs as well as the two images of the Cherubs molded into one image and hid it away. Then he wrote Jeremiah 3:14-18 that the true people of God would no longer require the Tent or the Ark of the Covenant in which to worship God. And, as a matter of fact, there was another reason why Jeremiah took those two images out of the Holy of Holies. That is because ONE OF THOSE VERY CHERUBS became a sinner of the first magnitude. That one Cherub had done such evil in heaven that he had been thrown out of his exalted position next to the throne of God and was in the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel considered by God as an evil angel a Cherub that had gone wrong. Which of the two Cherubs was the one who went wrong? The prophet Ezekiel tells us.
One of the Cherubs Depicted on the Ark of the Covenant Had Fallen From Grace
Notice what Ezekiel had to say about one of the Cherubs who had formerly been a righteous angel of very high rank in the heavenly hierarchy of divine beings associated with the very Throne of God Himself. This particular Cherub had become rebellious and as a result God had rejected him. Which Cherub was it?
"Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king [Moloch or Melek] of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou [Moloch] sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed [Messianic] cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire [to mimic this, the Israelites caused their firstborn to "pass through the fire"]. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God [Moloch would be jettisoned from Gods Holy Temple in heaven and on earth]: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire [where the children sacrificed to Moloch were supposed to go]. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness [Moloch was a bright planet in the heavens at times]: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries [both in Jerusalem and in Tyre] by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee [like the firstborn children of Israelites were burnt to ashes in sacrifice]. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more" (Ezekiel 28:11-19).
There you have it! It was Moloch (represented by the planet Jupiter) that was the sinning Cherub. The other Cherub was named Chiun (represented by the planet Saturn with the Sabbath being his day of consecration for worshipping him). But the Sabbath was made by God for His people to rest, and it was not made for Chiun (Saturn). The early Israelites took the command of God to make the images of the Cherubim and place them in the Holy of Holies as an example given by God to worship those Cherubim (named Moloch and Chiun). This was one of the commands that God gave to the Israelites in the time of Moses that WAS NOT GOOD for the Israelites because it led them into idolatry (Ezekiel 20:25,26). It would do the same today.
But with Ezekiel condemning the practice of having the Ark of the Covenant (and its two Cherubs named Moloch and Chiun) in an idolatrous form of worship, and with Jeremiah even hiding the Ark of the Covenant with its special Tent east of Jericho and across the Jordan River, that put an end to such false worship in the Temple built by Zerubbabel. Even the Temple of Herod (which was in existence in the time of Jesus), there was no Ark of the Covenant displayed in physical form in the Holy of Holies. Though the actual Ark of the Covenant is still in heaven (Revelation 11:19), it was not looked on as proper by God-fearing people to have the Ark again placed in a Temple at Jerusalem since we find Jeremiah and Ezekiel objecting to its placement in the Temple. However, at our end of the age, we are told in the Book of Revelation that there will once more be an image of a wild beast (remember that the Cherubs are shown as having four faces: one of a man, an eagle, a bull and a lion which equals a "wild beast"). This image of the wild beast (probably in the form of Moloch the King) will again be placed in a Temple in Jerusalem that we find described in Revelation 11. This "Image of the Beast" (or, it means that one or both of the Cherubim will be replaced in a new Temple remember that there were two images of the Cherubs but they were molded together to form one image) will be again placed in a new Temple in Jerusalem (Revelation 13:11-18). There will also be a "Mark of the Beast" associated with this new Ark of the Covenant. So, the rebellion to God of replacing the Ark happens at the End Time.
Questions to ask: Will this new Ark of the Covenant (which will be the Image of the Beast mentioned in the Book of Revelation) be the one that Jeremiah buried east of Jericho and across the Jordan River? That is possible. As far as Jeremiah is concerned, he stated that the ideal Temple in the future would NEVER AGAIN have an Ark of the Covenant in it (Jeremiah 3:16). This is the position that I personally take. In fact, God was honest in His statement in Ezekiel that His commands "were not good." If anyone wants to replace the Ark of the Covenant back into a renewed Temple, what he or she will be doing is placing the Image of the Beast mentioned in Revelation 13 back into the Holy of Holies. While God did allow that to happen in the time of Moses (though remember that even God said that command to put those images in the Temple contrary to the Second Command of the Ten Commandments), was one of those commands that Ezekiel 20:25 and 26 said God gave that "were not good." It led them directly (and very quickly) right into idolatry of the most serious kind. I am certain that if the Ark of the Covenant were once again found (or even a new one made by the Temple authorities), it would lead the people back into the kind of idolatry that the early Israelites engaged in, and what the Book of Revelation states this evil world will adopt when the Beast and the False Prophet are on earth. Ever since I discovered that the Image of the Beast was indeed the reintroduction of the Ark of the Covenant into an End Time Temple (I came to this conclusion well over twenty years ago), I have turned all my emotional connection with a physical Temple in Jerusalem (or eve with a physical Jerusalem) and I now have more important things to be concerned about. True, I plan to give more information on the Temple site as it becomes available, but I have written my book (and with the other articles on our Internet Web Page), I believe I have done my duty to God and to my readers in this matter for the present.
As for me, I have no need for any Ark of the Covenant in my worship. I have only one mediator between the Father and me and that person is Christ Jesus (I Timothy 2:4-6). As for Temples that are made by the hands of human beings, I have the express teaching of the Holy Spirit that came from the mouth of Stephen. Stephen boldly told the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem (and quoting teachings directly from the Old Testament): "the Most High dwells not in Temples made with hands [that is, human hands]" (Acts 7:48). I have not the slightest need for a physical Temple (with its Moloch or Chiun the two Cherubs that Moses placed in the Tabernacle). All I need (and I already have Him) is Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
Indeed, when one reflects upon the teaching of the Second Commandment of the Ten Commandments (and applies what the words state explicitly and without preconceived notions), it could be argued that even the building of a Temple is prohibited in the strict sense of the word. This is because the Temple represents an image or similitude of the House of God in which God resides in heaven. Do we not read in the Second Commandment that Israelites should not make an image of ANYTHING in heaven (or in earth or under the earth)? Thats right! Even the building of a physical Temple on earth is getting close to breaking the Second Commandment. Of course, it must be realized that God did in fact order Moses to construct the Tabernacle and later He told David to have the Temple built by Solomon. Yes, indeed, but still we are later told that God does NOT dwell in Temples made with human hands in an actual sense (Acts 7:48). Whatever the case, we Christians do not need a physical Temple in any manner whatever
1976-2003 Associates for Scriptural Knowledge
Here again, you find another opinion from someone I consider a somewhat pretentious studious of the Bible, insofar he affirms he knows for sure GODs intentions. Amazing, how many pretend to be receiving messages directly from GOD, even now, like President Bush jr.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | bal317 asked on 10/31/03 - Are we missing something from each other? I was wondering about the different arguments concerning other religions, and wondered. What are we missing by not seeing what other's bring about, in order to help us understand things we are going through.
Such as: Suffering, who are we to deceide when someone is suffering too much? Isn't that why healthy people go into missionary positions, to help and understand those who are faced with this problem, to get right into the meat of situation, by offering themselves to live among the most deficet conditions? Is that why Catholics have their nuns,priest,and monks only live by limited financial means?
Or any other religions that live by certain givings of themselves, so they can truely pass on, what this suffering is all about, and how to accept what God can bring forth for them. As we see them get through their deeds and still go on in life, but it seems they have more full fillment from the experience.
Listening and really soul searching: Is it something that we are shown by certain religions, having silent days? Giving themselves a chance to go over in their own minds their problems or taking care of themselves in a way, many of us don't begin to do this, and much gets so over-whelming.
Fasting, certain dressing apparals, many other things. Could it be, that maybe, we, that don't study or learn from other's religious practices, on how they are showing other avenues of putting themselves into those areas we come across in our life, and don't know how to handle, or want a quick fix to the problem by ending it right now, as easy as we can just to put it to rest, would truely benefit if we would give ourselves the chance to observe and realize their quality of how not only their religion helps them, but can be of assistance to us all. But it takes many of us to come off of the "my way or the highway attitude".
What do you all think, better to learn about each other, or go on in life and keep to yourself even tho other ways could help? curious98 answered on 11/01/03:Hi,
When we do not listen to what others have to say, in any field of knowledge, we may always be missing something. But, as I have often said in these posts, mans arrogance is incredible, and in religious matters, even more so. Michael Servetus was a Christian living in the 1500's who incurred the wrath of John Calvin and was murdered by him and his cronies for illegitimate reasons. He was accused of heresy, railroaded through a mock trial and put to death, being burned alive at the stake, in Geneva. His sin, the discovering of the pulmonary circulation. Doctors of that time, could not simply accept that discovery Yet such an atrocity was praised by even well known Calvinists as Bullinger and others for generations. . Galileo Gallilei suffered the wrath of the Inquisition for similar reasons
Bigotry, currently expanding in all religions, does not accept that others may have something to say worth listening to. The one and only truth is MY truth. All the rest are wrong.
On the other hand, to measure what is going on in our Planet we can only use our earthen yardsticks.
To define sufferings we have to use what the dictionary says, i.e. feelings of mental (psychological) or physical pain. That much we understand.
Missionaries go to foreign countries because of a very peculiar motivation. That of loving Mankind in general, and most of them, gladly risk their lives not only to bring relief and consolation to others who need them, but also to try to spread their own faith. They certainly follow the Gospels message, irrespective of whether they are Christians or not
As for Catholics having nuns, priests and monks living with limited financial means, let me just say (and Im a Roman Catholic) that this is not a privilege of Christians; in fact, you find nuns and monks among Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc
Again, let us not incur in the error to believe we Christians are the only good ones, not to say the very best of them all
These persons (nuns, monks, missionaries) have chosen to give themselves either directly to GOD through prayer or to GOD through others, by loving them. In any case they have clearly discovered one can certainly get more happiness out of giving than out of receiving
And they certainly find fulfilment in their lives. Some even find ecstasy! I remember, for one, Mother Therese of Calcutta
It is not very complicated. We should basically limit ourselves to help others, to love our neighbour, and forget or minimize all the other paraphernalia
But, as I say, our arrogance does not let us to.
And do not believe Im a saint. For Im not. Im just like the rest. I do not want to give up my way of life, my comfort. Nothing that represents sacrificing myself for the others. But, at least, I think I know the way. And I listen, for there is something good in practically everybody And, if I do not help, at least I try not to hinder, hamper or question others beliefs. And, eventually, GOD may also help me to be slightly better.
But to answer your basic question, if you are strong enough to overcome your own defect, try to help others as much as you can. Youll be happier that ever, I assure you
And do not fall in the temptation to believe your GOD (whatever your faith) is the only true one. Thats just a fallacy. There is ONLY ONE GOD, and its everybodys GOD, irrespective of what we may believe.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ATON2 asked on 10/29/03 - Not a question, just an explanation. To the 'friend' who directed a question to me on the Religion forum and requested that my response be kept private: hope you read this. I am not trying to dis-honor your request, or to ignore it. There simply seems to be some technical glitch with my page that does not allow me the privacy option. I have tried a number of times to understand this glitch and correct it, but no matter what I do, I cannot get the privacy box to appear on my page. No privacy box, no way to check it!! Hope you understand. Perhaps you can depersonalize your question and post it on the open forum, so I can respond to it. Otherwise, I will try to contact Jay and find out the cause.....until then, be patient.
ATON curious98 answered on 10/29/03:DOn't worry too much. I do not have it either.
This belongs to the mysteries of Computerland.
I've changed 2 days ago my operating system from Windows 98 to Windows XP, and you have no idea how much I'm suffering.
I've lost all my e-mail addresses and pending mail I had.And nobody knows how I can retrieve them.
In fact I'm going to ask those who are expecting some private answer from me, kindly to repeat it and send it to
curious98@telefonica.net
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | *Karrisa* asked on 10/28/03 - Not an expert but try this ..... Aton, there is a small box at the bottom of your answer to keep it private, just like there is at WeTellYou, click it and lo and behold, for your eyes only.
;-)
Test this lil box with this note before you answer whoever, if it works with this one it will work with ...whoever. curious98 answered on 10/29/03:Holy Mackerel,
Like my friend Aton, I'm also being discriminated.
I cannot fin any sort of boxes at the bottom of my answer...
Iknow I'm shortsighted but all the same, if there was one, I should see it, with my amplifying glass...
I could use one of yours, maybe the jade one...
LOL and reLOL
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | Laura asked on 10/28/03 - Okay, you can try it on me check the box that says do you wish to change or keep this private or whatever it says.. It doesn't matter what kind of message you get just make sure the privacy box is checked.. if this gets public you will know you SCREWED up!! LOL curious98 answered on 10/29/03:Hi LauraLee,
Good to hear from you; hope you and your family go well.
I do not think there is any such facility in this program, or is it?
I have never seen it
All the best
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | shekinah07 asked on 10/28/03 - Do you believe the Bible is God's Word? Please give reasons for your answers curious98 answered on 10/29/03:Thats a question I have often asked myself. My rationality and common sense sustain the belief that we were created by GOD along with the rest of the Universe- as an insignificant part of a project which we have no idea of. Which is only natural bearing in mind that GODs plans should be inscrutable
On the other hand, its nonetheless true that a Man-God, or a God-Man, or simply another Saint and Prophet Jesus gave his life for all of us, which because of my Catholic background- I quite accept. Thus, I suppose that, after all, we might be a part of GODs creation, which GOD may have a certain interest in
This said, we have to consider the Bible in its 2 parts.
Obviously, the New Testament was written by (or credited to) the Evangelists Luke, Mark, Matthew and John, plus some others if we take into account the Apocryphals. Same with the Acts of Apostles In any case, these people stuck to saying what they have heard from others, or perhaps, witnessed, and, most surely, they might have even exaggerated some passages a little bit to provoke a bigger impact in his readers, as seems to be case with Saint Paul.
Latter on, it is highly possible that parts of the Gospels may have been manipulated by exegetes and translators to adapt texts and situations to changing times. So it is evident that only mans hands are responsible for the N.T.
However, this is not too important in my opinion, for what really matters is the message implicit all the time, i.e. the message of love for thy neighbour, and whether inspired by man or by GOD, there is no question this message is sound enough
As for the Old Testament, we have the Pentateuch, which some Christians, and certainly many Jews (their Torah) do believe was practically dictated by GOD.
I prefer to believe, at the very best, that it was inspired by GOD in accordance with the times when it was written.
I will try to explain this. It should be obvious for those who are not atheists, that GOD being Eternal, IT must know the past, the present and the future, for time as we know it- should not exist nor mean anything for GOD. Consequently, all the technological advances we have achieved with so much effort lately, all the knowledge we have so painfully acquired in these last centuries, was no mystery for GOD. GOD already knew when IT was inspiring the Torah to Moses, about how the Universe was created (most certainly, as IT was sole responsible for it), and about TV, Internet or our going to the Moon, and naturally, about all the rest that is to come, and which we are completely unaware of.
Yet, GOD preferred to speak of Creation in 7 days
If GOD inspired Moses, GOD knew quite well what people of Moses times could assimilate and what they could not.
And if Moses, just wrote the Torah all by himself, then he probably just put in writing a summary of the old legends and narrations he might have heard while in Egypt
And same for the rest.
The Old Books were undoubtedly written by men who else? - and they might have been inspired by GOD or just the product of the imagination of a number of writers, prophets and saint men, or transmissions of older oral legends put in writing.
But now I ask you, so what?
A considerable amount of what is written in the Old Testament and in the New Testament is either History or the expression of a way of life we should all follow, for it certainly leads to our peace of life and happiness!
GOD exists maybe not as some like to imagine IT, but IT does, even by looking at it rationally. GOD is a necessary MUST for man.
Therefore, if we have some Books (inspired or not) which tell us about our ancestors lives (btw., in a very small portion of the world as was Israel) and their problems to believe (very much as ours, now-a-days) they experienced, why struggle so much trying to find out who is actually responsible for what is inside.
We should just ask ourselves whether what is said (the majority of what is said there, anyway) is worth our listening to or, on the contrary, it is just a futile sort of tale!
If we believe the former, and I do, lets not give too much of our time, trying to find out about the actual author, for, in any case, we shall never know for sure. Only our Faith, if we have it, may convince us. Otherwise, we stick to sheer speculation one way or other.
Maybe, when we are no longer here, we shall know for sure but then, most probably, we wont care any more
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | paraclete asked on 10/20/03 - The rhetoric of a meglomaniac revisited.
"US President George W Bush has condemned as "reprehensible" and "hateful" claims by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad that Jews control the world, a senior White House official said today".
""Everyone thinks the comments were hateful, they are outrageous," US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told reporters covering the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit".
"Bush "thinks those remarks were reprehensible," Rice said on the opening day of 21-member summit, attended by both Mahathir and the US president."
""I do not think they are emblematic of the Muslim world," she added."
"Mahathir was criticised internationally last week after he made the comments in a speech in Malaysia to the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the world's largest Muslim leadership group".
How many times does the lion need to roar before we understand that when the lion roars the pride gets ready to hunt. These are not the comments of an isolated muslim leader, but deeply held beliefs among muslims and no amount of appeasment will change this.
It's like Chamberlain on the brink of WWII "peace in our time" while Hitler laughed. This week we heard again the lion roaring "juden, juden" again but we arn't listening. Even the jewish representatives on this Board have said we have heard this before.
curious98 answered on 10/21/03:
You are of course realizing that, in a way, your are sponsoring the new scheme of protective war Mr. Bush Jr. is trying to present to the UN.
What is what you are suggesting?
a) that the USA declares war on Malaysia and, subsequently, proceeds to throw a few thousand tons of bombs to kill as many Muslims as possible since These are not the comments of an isolated Muslim leader, but deeply held beliefs among Muslims and no amount of appeasement will change this
b) by the same token, and since Syria is also a Muslim country and they probably protect terrorists from AlQaeda, proceed to destroy it too.
c) And get together with Russia on a mutual plan to attack and bomb all ancient Muslim ex-soviet republics of the Caucasus
But, let us not forget, meanwhile, that at present Muslims number some 1.300 billion spread all over the world, and no matter how powerful the USA may be at present, they should probably have to start by burning the close to 1.300 mosques you have in the States, plus killing the more than 1.3 million people (most of the US citizens, that have embraced that religion in USA), for a Muslims loyalty goes first to his/her God and then to his/her country.
I think that you are calling us all to a Christian Jihad against Islam, without considering the consequences it would have on the world.
In any case, this is not what Jesus was preaching and what He died in the Cross for.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 10/20/03 - To my Catholic friends What is the layman's scoop on the Mother Teresa miracle? The Vatican claims to have proof that light from a picture of mother teresa cured a woman in India of a cancerous growth. The light shone on the growth, and it went into remission and disappeared.
However, the woman's own doctor states that the growth was tuberculosis, not cancer, and was treated conventionally. In his opinion, it was the treatment of medication she was on that caused the growth to recede, just as expected.
How does the 'proving' of a miracle work in the Church? What evidence is needed to judge a true miracle? Does the medical opinion of the doctor weigh in at all in such a case? Does it weigh more or less than that of the woman/claimant? What facts are considered in such an event? Who decides when a miracle has taken place?
Thanks in advance for your answers! curious98 answered on 10/21/03:
To the best of my knowledge the beatification process of the Catholic Church is, generally, very slow and full of hindrances and obstacles. These are normally put up by a person, in principle, a priest who is called the devils advocate and is supposed to investigate the life and so called miracles of the subject under consideration. This person is supposed to be totally critical of the smallest defects he can find in referred subject to the point of exaggeration.
This is just to state that, basically, the Church is very cautious about accepting miracles and prodigies.
The apparitions of our Lady of Fatima (Portugal) in May 1917, witnessed by 3 shepherd children, were not accepted but after a long period of time. As for 2 of the children Francisco and Jacinta Marto, who died of influenza within a few years of the apparitions, their beatification became possible after a miracle was attributed to themMaria Emilia Santos, a 47-year-old Portuguese woman who was cured of paralysis after 22 years and suddenly regained the ability to walk, and this happened, if Im not wrong, about eleven years later. At least one more miracle is needed for the two children to be canonized.
And, as far as I know, out of the thousands of many inexplicable and most extraordinary healings that have happened along the years in Lourdes (south of France), where more than 6 million pilgrims go every year! the Church is considering only less than 10! As true miracles. On the other hand, the resident Doctors every year consider as miraculous several scores of cures. Which shows that conventional medicine is more lenient than the Church to accept some of these cures as properly incredible.
Just the fact that thousands of people bathe every day in the pools, where the water is not changed, at least not while they are open to the public at large, and which therefore should be infected by all kind of germs, but nobody seems to get any infections, rather on the contrary, some appear to be cured, is quite an extraordinary event per se. Something similar can be accounted for in Vanarasi (India) where in the gats by the river Ganges, thousand of persons bathe every day, to achieve Heaven when they die
When I literally saw corpses drifting down the river and the amount of filth the ones alive were pouring on the river banks, one wonders And yet nothing happens.
In the case of Mother Therese, I think that what has sped her beatification is how she lived her life (entirely devoted to help the lowest of the lowest and most miserable people of Calcutta, of every condition and belief), the roaring clamour of hundreds of thousands of non Christians Hindis demanding her beatification by the Catholic Church and, perhaps, too, the fact that the Pope had met with her several times and seen how she was .
Best regards
Curious98
PS. I saw the beatification on TV. There assisted more than 350.000 people, out of which, Italian TV estimated than there were ate least, 20% of non catholics such as Muslims (she was born in Albania), Hindus, Orthodox and Protestants of different denominations, currently living in India.
| | Question/Answer | | paraclete asked on 10/21/03 - The unrepentant meglomanic "Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad today renewed his attack on "arrogant" Jews, saying reaction to his recent controversial comments confirms "they do control the world".
The veteran leader, who retires later this month, also criticised Western media, who he said took his comments at last week's summit of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Malaysia out of context.
"In my speech I condemned all violence, even the suicide bombings, and I told all Muslims it's about time we stopped all these things and paused to think and do something that is much more productive," he told the Bangkok Post.
"That was the whole tone of my speech, but they picked up one sentence where I said that the Jews control the world.
"Well, the reaction of the world shows they control the world."
The comments attracted a volley of international criticism, led by US President George W Bush, who yesterday pulled Mahathir aside at the APEC summit to denounce his "wrong and divisive" charge.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon yesterday slammed the remarks as "slanderous".
However, Mahathir was unrepentant and launched a fresh broadside today.
"Israel is a small country. There are not many Jews in the world," he said in the interview.
"But they are so arrogant that they defy the whole world. Even if the United Nations say no, they go ahead. Why? Because they have the backing of all these people.""
What is made clear by this is that repentance isn't a concept readily understood by Islam. Only a meglomaniac will not back down when he has offended many nations by his ill timed and ill considered comments.
curious98 answered on 10/21/03:
I have commented enough on this character and have expressed my opinion about him.
So I'll say no more.
However, I do wish to say that, in my opinion, your last paragraph expresses part of the problem we are facing with Mahathir, i.e. when we take for granted that what a certain person may think about a certain subject, represents the entire group of people sharing his faith, and therefore, is applicable to all of them, I think we are committing a serious mistake.
Neither Mahathir's words are representative of the more than one billion Muslims there are in the world, nor his lack of repentance
"isn't a concept readily understood by Islam"
There are good and bad Muslims, as there are good and bad Jews, good and bad Christians, and, in short, good and bad human beings, no matter their origin, beliefs, colour, or social status.
I do condemn Dr. Mahathir's way of thinking, which I find extremely dangerous, but I cannot condemn Islam for the commentaries of an embittered old man who is, probably, afraid of dying, without having achieved a certain notoriety.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 10/16/03 - Isaiah prophecy? Did Isaiah prophecy that Damascus would be destroyed forever?
Isaiah 17:1-2
An oracle concerning Damascus. See, Damascus will cease to be a city, and will become a heap of ruins. Her towns will be deserted forever... curious98 answered on 10/17/03:
17:1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from [being] a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.
17:2 The cities of Aroer [are] forsaken: they shall be for flocks, which shall lie down, and none shall make [them] afraid.
17:3 The fortress also shall cease from Ephraim, and the kingdom from Damascus, and the remnant of Syria: they shall be as the glory of the children of Israel, saith the LORD of hosts
Again, as I said in one of my previous posts today, these prophecies were not intended for us, but for the people of their times.
Damascus is a beautiful city right now, but assuming Mr. Bush might decide to declare war on Syria, it might be destroyed very much as Baghdad has been. In which case, some might say the prophecy had been fulfilled.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 10/16/03 - More prophecies Jeremiah prophecies that Jehoiakim will have no heirs that become kings.
Jeremiah 36:30
Therefore thus says the Lord concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah, he shall have none to sit on the throne of David.
But II Kings 24:6 seems to imply that he did have a son who inherited the throne.
So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead.
Is that a different Jehoiakim? Is that not a throne of David? What's the official explanation of this conundrum?
curious98 answered on 10/17/03:You might wish to read this excerpt from the The Department of Jewish History, Tel-Aviv University
1. Introduction
1.1. The variety of reports about the circumstances of the death and burial of Jehoiakim, along with the striking contradictions that exist among them, has no parallel in the history of Judah. According to 2 Kgs 24:5-6, the king died peacefully and slept with his fathers. A similar description appears in the LXX version of the parallel account in 2 Chr 36:8. There a comment is added, he was buried in the garden of Uzza. [1] The Luc. version of 2 Chr 36:8 seems to carry the same meaning but expands yet further, adding that Jehoiakim was buried with his fathers. The MT 2 Chr 36:8 does not contain any of these comments about Jehoiakims death and burial place. Moreover, the impression from MT 2 Chr 36:6 is that the king met an entirely different fate. He did not die in Jerusalem at all, but was exiled from it (and he [Nebuchadnezzar] bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon). [2]
1.2. In contrast to all these traditions, Jeremiah prophesies (22:18-19) that no one will lament for the king, and that with the burial of an ass he shall be buried, dragged and dumped beyond the gates of Jerusalem (cf. 36:30). Josephus in Ant. X, 97 advances an echo of Jeremiahs prophecy, along with an attempt to reconcile it with a description of the Babylonian siege in 2 Kings. According to this text, the Babylonians put Jehoiakim to death, and his body was cast in front of the walls of Jerusalem, with no burial.
1.3. The existence of multiple and contradictory reports about Jehoiakims death and burial place has led to a considerable scholarly controversy on the matter of how to reconstruct the historical circumstances surrounding his death and burial. This situation is actually exacerbated by the description of the Babylonian campaign and the precise chronological data about this period in the Babylonian chronicles, despite the fact that they allow us to reconstruct the chronology of the campaign to suppress Jehoiakims revolt, define quite precisely the time of his death, and raise various hypotheses regarding the circumstances that led up to it.
1.4. The purpose of this article is to reconstruct the historical circumstances pertinent to the end of Jehoiakims rule. To that goal, I will analyze the various descriptions of the kings death. This analysis leads to the conclusion that he died a natural death even before the Babylonian army reached Jerusalem and that he was buried in his forefathers burial tomb. Moreover, I will contend that the omission of any reference to his place of burial in the book of Kings was deliberate and stemmed from the authors historiographic distress that resulted from the curses against the king that Jeremiah uttered prior to Jehoiakims death. Later writers were forced to cope with the absence of a description of the kings burial and tried to explain it in various ways, according to their own conceptual attitudes and historical worldviews.
2. Eleven years of Jehoiakims rule: historical background
2.1. Jehoiakim was appointed king by Necho II, King of Egypt, upon the latters return from the battle in Haran, three months after he had killed Josiah at Megiddo (August/September 609 BCE). [3] Nechos action rendered null and void the rule of the younger brother Shalum/Jehoahaz, [4] who was anointed king after the death of their father Josiah (2 Kgs 23:30). [5] Nothing is known of events in Judah during the first four years of Jehoiakims rule. During these years the Egyptians firmly established their rule over Syria and Palestine, in preparation for the decisive struggle with the Babylonians over control of the Euphrates region. The proximity of the Kingdom of Judah to Egypt and the latters control of the entire region did not allow the tiny kingdom any leeway for either political or military maneuvering. One may assume that Jehoiakim had no choice, but to remain loyal to Egypt. [6]
2.2. The great upheaval of 605 BCE had an impact on Judah. [7] The armies of Nebuchadrezzar defeated the Egyptian legions at Carchemish and broke through into Syria. Egypts rule over other territories in Syria and Palestine was challenged. One must assume, however, that the actual subjugation of Judah to Babylon took place during the Babylonian campaign into Syria and Palestine (the attu-Land in the Babylonian chronicles) in the second half of 604 BCE, after five years of Jehoiakims reign as an Egyptian vassal. [8]
2.3. Nebuchadrezzars policy was to maintain the geopolitical arrangements that he found before him when he conquered the area. [9] He allowed Jehoiakim to remain as king of Judah, even though King Necho II of Egypt had appointed him. This measure reflected the premise that a king who had accepted the Egyptian yoke was probably clever enough to accept the Babylonian yoke too. It is conceivable that the Babylonians hoped that these actions would preserve the stability of the region. Moreover, they could have anticipated that the kings whose rule they confirmed would feel gratitude towards the Babylonian king, and that such gratitude would lead to loyalty towards the new sovereign.
2.4. The rapid takeover of attu-Land by the Babylonians, and the Egyptian retreat from the region, left the small kingdoms along the coast and the interior regions with no room for maneuvering. One may assume that the first three years of Babylonian rule were quiet. Although there is no information about events in Judah during that time, it seems that Jehoiakim remained loyal to Nebuchadrezzar (and Jehoiakim became his vassal for three years; see 2 Kgs 24:1). [10] Only the failure of the Babylonian invasion into Egypt in the month of Kislev (November/ December 601 BCE), [11] undermined the Babylonian control of the area. At that time, Necho II had an opportunity to renew his influence on the region. Against this background, one may understand the brief report about Jehoiakims rebellion against Nebuchadrezzar in 2 Kgs 24:1 (Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him). It is hard to imagine that Jehoikaims revolt have taken place without the support of Egypt. Moreover, although we have no information about the historical circumstances of the period, it is clear that if Egypt did return to a position of influence in the region, then Jehoiakim, most likely, had no choice, but to offer his loyalty to his former master. [12]
2.5. Only after three more years, in the month of Kislev (between mid-December 598 and mid-January 597 BCE) Nebuchadrezzar set out to re-establish his rule in the attu-Land. [13] The conquest of the city of Judah (i.e., Jerusalem) stood at the center of this Babylonian campaign. According to the Babylonian chronicle, Jerusalem surrendered to the Babylonians on the 2nd of Adar (March 16th/17th, 597 BCE). [14] At that time, the three-month reign by Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim came to an end. [15] The young king went into exile, and Nebuchadrezzar appointed in Jerusalem a new king of his own choice (lit. heart), namely, Zedekiah. [16] Nebuchadrezzar also levied a heavy tax on the city and returned to Babylon. [17]
2.6. The Babylonian chronicle shows that from the beginning of the Babylonian campaign, at some stage in the month of Kislev, until the city surrendered on the 2nd of Adar, three months at most had passed. In light of this information, one may assume that the Babylonian campaign was initially intended to suppress the revolt by Jehoiakim. If we accept the chronological delineation of the three months of Jehoiachins rule, [18] then Jehoiakim was still alive when the Babylonians planned their campaign and he died close to its beginning, or immediately after the Babylonian force set out. [19]
2.7. The Hebrew Bible does not offer any clear-cut information about the circumstances leading to the death of Jehoiakim. It is hard to ignore, however, the chronological juxtaposition of events. One must remember that since the king of Judah violated his vassals oath to Nebuchadrezzar, his death was one of the only resolutions that could have brought about the salvation of Jerusalem. [20] Against this background, one may wonder whether Jehoiakims death was due to natural causes, and its timingjust as the Babylonian army set out on its Jerusalem campaignwas a mere coincidence, a testimony to historical fate. Or did those who understood that his death was the only way that would allow Jerusalem to be spared destruction murder the king? Or, alternatively, did Jehoiakim take his own life? There is no unequivocal answer to these questions but an analysis of the Biblical descriptions shows that there is no evidence supporting the latter alternatives. Jehoiakims death may have, and most likely, died of natural causes, as it will be shown below.
3. Biblical Descriptions of the Death of Jehoiakim
3.1 Do the curses of Jeremiah (22:18-19; 36:30) reflect historical reality?
3.1.1. Jer. 22:13-17 contains a report of the prophets sermon of exhortation for the injustices practiced by Jehoiakim. Following this admonition, Jeremiah prophesizes about the retribution that is to befall the king. Verses 18-19, with supplementary text based on the LXX version, [21] read: Therefore thus Yahweh has said of Jehoiakim son of Josiah, king of Judah: [Woe to this man!] They shall not lament for him, Alas, my brother, and alas, my sister! They shall not [burn spices] for him, Alas, lord, and alas [lady!] With the burial of an ass he shall be buried, dragged and dumped beyond the gates of Jerusalem. Similar words were said of the king also in 36:30, namely, therefore thus Yahweh has said concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah: He shall not have anyone sitting on the throne of David and his corpse shall be thrown out to the heat by day and to the frost by night. At least the first part of the curse did not materialize, for Jehoiachin ascended the throne upon the death of his father. [22] The lack of fulfillment of these words proves that they were uttered before the kings death, and perhaps during the first five years of Jehoiakims rule, even before the subjugation to Babylon. [23] They certainly do not reflect the events as they actually occurred. [24] The prophet was not describing an actual reality that he personally witnessed, but was cursing the king and prophesying the punishment that is destined to befall him.
3.1.2. Jeremiahs words and the language of his curses correspond to those in the dtr. law, namely those who do not heed the word of God to obey to all of his commandments and statutes (Deut. 28:15) are cursed with your dead body shall be food for all of the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and there shall be no one to frighten them away (verse 26). Threats of this kind are quite common in dtr. historiography, [25] in the prophetic literature, [26] and in Psalms. [27] There is, however, a close connection between the words of Jeremiah and the punishment as defined by the Deuteronomistic law. [28] The curse against Jehoiakim also corresponds to well-known images in neo-Assyrian literature of the ultimate fate of rebels and treaty violators. [29]
3.2 What were the circumstances of Jehoiakims death according to 2 Kgs 24:6? Does the absence of a description of his burial reflect the historical reality?
3.2.1. The description of the last years of the kingdom of Judah in 2 Kgs 23:26- 25:21 expresses the idea that the process of deterioration that led to the destruction of the kingdom accelerated since the death of Josiah. Because the composition of this work was written ex post facto, and with knowledge of the outcome of events, a worldview was shaped in which the die had already been cast in the time of Manasseh and even the righteous king Josiah was unable to change the fate of the kingdom. [30]
3.2.2. According to the viewpoint of the author of the book of Kings, the last four kings of Judah were wrongdoers. All of them are given negative evaluation in the introductory formulas of their respective reigns (see 2 Kgs 23:32, 37; 24:9, 19). Nonetheless, there is no doubt that to the author, Jehoiakim was the worst offender of all these kings. He was the link that connected the sins of Manassehi.e, the reason for Gods decision to put an end to the kingdom of Judahand the destruction that took place at the end of the days of Zedekiah. The author created the textual link by adding theological explanatory notes that connected the sins of Manasseh (21:1-9) with the decision of God to destroy Judah (verses 10-16), and with the sins of Jehoiakim (24:2-4). [31] In addition, a second theological explanatory comment that associated the sins of Jehoiakim with the revolt of Zedekiah, which was the last step on the path to the destruction, [32] was added in 24:20.
3.2.3. The guilt of Manasseh and Jehoiakim and the desire to absolve Josiah of all blame is also reflected in the introductory formulas of the last four kings of Judah. [33] In the introductory formula of Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, collective blame is directed at the kings of Judah who preceded them, rather than at their father Josiah (and he did evil in the sight of Yahweh according to all that his fathers had done, see 2 Kgs 23:32,37). In contrast, the blame in the introductory formula of Jehoiachin is directed at Jehoiakim, his father (and he did evil in the sight of Yahweh according to all that his father had done, see 2 Kgs 24:9). [34] This is even more striking in the introductory formula of Zedekiah. Here Jehoiakim, his brother, is accused directly (and he did evil in the sight of Yahweh according to all that Jehoiakim had done, see 2 Kgs 24:19). [35]
3.2.4. Jeremiah also came out against the sins of Jehoiakim (22:13-17). He blamed the king and stated: But you eyes and a mind for nothing but gain, for shedding innocent blood, for oppression and the cruel misuse of power(v. 17). Nevertheless, it seems that the major problem confronting the author of the Book of Kings was that Jehoiakim was the only king of all the last four kings of Judah who did not meet his punishment at the hands of a foreign king through exile and death on foreign soil. [36]
3.2.5. In historiographic terms, the author solved this problem through his report of the attack of the bands against Jehoiakim. This attack was an attempt to suppress the rebellion, before the arrival of the main Babylonian forces headed by Nebuchadrezzar. One may then assume that even before the arrival of the main Babylonian forces, auxiliary forces were sent against Judah. According to 2 Kgs 24:2 these forces included bands of Chaldeans, [37] Aramaeans, [38] Moabites and Ammonites. [39] These auxiliary forces compelled some of the residents of Judah to flee from the border areas to Jerusalem. [40] Only at a later stage did the main Babylonian army arrive, as stated and Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon came against the city when his officers were besieging it (2 Kgs 24:11).
3.2.6. The story, however, portrays the actions if the bands not as the prelude to the conquest of Jerusalem in the time of Jehoiachin, but as Jehoiakim's punishment and as that which led him to his death. [41] For that reason the report in Kings claims that Yahweh is the one who sent the bands against Jehoiakim (And Yahweh sent against him). [42] Moreover, these bands were sent to Judah with the aim of destroy them (24:2). Verses of theological explanation (vv 2-4) were added to the basic account of this punishment. They connected the punishment, linguistically and conceptually, to the divine judgement against Judah that is presented as a consequence of the sins of Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:11-16), and the continued wrath of the LORD (23:26-27). These verses lead directly to the description of Jehoiakims death. [43] Thus, the death of Jehoiakim is presented as a result of divine retribution.
3.2.7. This characterization of his death reinforces the assumption that Jehoiakim did indeed die in Jerusalem, and from the authors viewpoint, a natural death. For one may assume that if he had information on other, special historical circumstances that attended the kings death, it would have been described here as conclusive evidence of his sins and the punishment that befell him.
3.2.8. Moreover, the authors awareness of the place and circumstances of Jehoiakims death explains why the description of the years of his reign ends with the same standard closing formula, like most of the Judean kings, and unlike the other three among the four last kings of Judah. Nonetheless, despite the uniform nature of most parts of the formula in Jehoiakims case, [44] there is a conspicuous change in the fourth part of it, i.e., at the point in which the kings death is reported [45] along with his burial in a definite site, usually with his fathers. [46] The usual formula is only partially cited. His death is reported (and Jehoiakim slept with his fathers, 2 Kgs 24:6a), but any reference to the burial or the site of his grave is omitted. There are also no additional comments about any events that may have been associated with his death. [47] These facts reinforces the position that, from the authors point of view and insofar as he knew the circumstances of Jehoiakims death, the king died a natural death, which was not associated with any unusual circumstances. [48] One may assume that if his death had not been of natural causesthat is, if he had met a fate similar to those of his father Josiah and his grandfather Amonthen a report about the circumstances of his death would have been included in the closing formula of the account of his reign in Kings. [49]
3.2.9. There is no explanation, however, for the lack of reference to his burial and his gravesite in the closing formula. The omission may be a reflection of the historical reality and relate it to the events that were taking place in the Jerusalem area at that time, when various bands of mercenaries were preparing the way for the onslaught of the Babylonian army. [50] However, even if we accept this explanation, it is still unclear why the reference to the burial is missing from the account, and particularly so since such a reference could have served the theological inclinations of the author towards Jehoiakim, by demonstrating the fulfillment of Jeremiahs prophecy and highlighting the punishment that the king incurred because of his sins.
3.2.10. Some scholars have explained the omission of the reference to the kings burial by maintaining that the details were unknown to the author when he wrote of these events in Babylon, after being sent into exile with the exile of Jehoiachin. [51] This explanation seems forced and somewhat problematic. It is doubtful whether methodologically it would be correct to explain gaps in information and missing details in this case to the lack of sources available to the author and his lack of knowledge. Even if we accept the premise that the book was written by one of the exiles sent to Babylon with the exile of Jehoiachin, it is still hard to accept his lack of knowledge of the matter. For these events occurred only a few months before the city surrendered to the Babylonians and the people went into exile. The author should have had knowledge of, even from what he had personally witnessed or heard. [52]
3.2.11. If the lack of reference is not the result of a copyists error or an omission, it is preferable to explain it in terms of the historiographers aim. It is hard not to draw a parallel between the omission of a description of Jehoiakims burial and the authors inclination to depict him as a sinner who is justly punished by God, and to further connect these themes with Jeremiahs grim prophecy, according to which with the burial of an ass he shall be buried, dragged and dumped beyond the gates of Jerusalem (22:19, also cf. 36:30). This is the place where the author could emphasize the punishment of the sinful king. He could not describe it in his closing formula because insofar as he knew the details of the burial, it simply was not so. However, omitting a description of the burial from the formulaic ending leaves a gaping vacuum in the description, which the readers could not ignore or avoid connecting with the words of Jeremiah. Furthermore, it would seem that from the authors viewpoint he could not have acted differently, for if he had described Jehoiakims burial and thus contradicted Jeremiahs curse, he would also have had to explain why the prophecy was not fulfilled.
4. The Sources for the Reference to Jehoiakims Exile (2 Chr 36:6) and to his Burial in the garden of Uzza (LXX version of 2 Chr 36:8).
4.1. According to the description in 2 Chr 36:6-7, Nebuchadrezzar exiled Jehoiakim. The text states: [Nebuchadnezzar] bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon. And Nebuchadrezzar carried some of the vessels of the house of the LORD to Babylon. [53] Various scholars have claimed that this account provides reliable historical information that supplements the information in 2 Kings 24. [54] They found such corroboration for their position in Dan. 1:1-2. The text there states: In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadrezzar came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And Yahweh gave Jehoiakim the king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God
4.2. It seems, however, that the description in the book of Daniel relies on that in 2 Chronicles. Moreover, the date reported in Daniel does not correspond to the well-grounded historical reconstruction of the days of Jehoiakim. One may assume it was taken from 2 Kgs 24:1, and certainly it cannot be used as the basis for any historical reconstruction. [55]
4.3. The description in Chronicles is brief, slightly contradicting the information available from the other biblical sources. It should be treated as a secondary description that its only source is the account in Kings, and which designed to express historiographic and ideological aims that belong to a time much later than that of the events themselves. [56] Many scholars have noted that the Chronicler made extensive use of descriptions of the death and burial of kings and fashioned them to comply with his own worldview, and to serve as a testimony to direct divine retribution for the deeds of the kings. [57] Not only he wished to shape the description of the last kings of Judah to fit the basic principles of his doctrine of reward and punishment, but also wished to draw a parallel between the fate of Jehoiakim and that of Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. [58] According to the picture he presented, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin were exiled from their land (2 Chr 36: 4; 6; 10). One should assume that in spite of the general description of the punishment of Zedekiah in collective terms (verses 17-20), his fate was well known to the Chronicler and to his readers. [59] Because of this, there is also no description of the death and burial of the last four kings of Judah. It seems that the Chronicler wished to leave the fate of the House of David as an open question. [60] According to his doctrine, as soon as these kings were exiled from their land, there is no longer any reason to be preoccupied with their fate. [61]
4.4. It is not clear what is the source of the tradition in the Luc. version on 2 Chronicles regarding the burial of the king in the garden of Uzza and of its reliability. Some scholars assigned great reliability to the tradition, particularly in view of the fact that it contradicts Jeremiahs prophecy. [62] However, it seems that it should be seen instead as the later addition by someone who was trying to create a correspondence between the description of Jehoiakims burial and Jeremiahs prophecy, according to which the king was given an ass burial outside of the walls of Jerusalem. [63] The additional comment in the Luc. version according to which Jehoiakim was buried with his fathers was written by someone who was trying to integrate the secondary tradition with the information stating that Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:18) and Amon (21:26) were buried in the garden of Uzza.
5. Summary
5.1. An attempt to synthesize all of the accounts of the death and burial of King Jehoiakim, together with the chronological manipulations regarding the date of his death, can serve as a basis for fascinating historical reconstruction. However, an independent investigation of every source, together with an evaluation of its time, the purpose for which it was written, and the level of historical reliability, are a precondition for any reconstruction, and at times can take the sting out of such reconstruction.
5.2. In the case of the death of Jehoiakim, it seems that the simplest and least speculative reconstruction of all that is the most likely and most appropriate for the complex of historical data that have been preserved. Insofar as the author of the description in the Book of Kings knew about events in Judah in the last years of the kingdom, the kings death was not attended by any unusual circumstances. He died after an eleven-year reign and was buried in Jerusalem, exactly on the eve of Nebuchadrezzars campaign, which was aimed at suppressing the revolt and destroying the city. His death saved the city from destruction and enabled the small kingdom an additional eleven years of rule.
5.3. Did secret events take place in the royal palace that were unknown to the residents of the city? Was Jehoiakims death the result of a sophisticated conspiracy whose perpetrators or circumstances were not revealed and not known to his contemporaries? This may be the case, but it is better to remember that there is no contemporary information of that kind, and later accounts of it are filling in the gaps and try to create harmony between the lacunae in the Book of Kings and the curses of the prophet Jeremiah as to the fate of the sinner king.
6. Bibliography
Ackroyd, P.R. 1967. History and Theology in the Writings of the Chronicler.Concordia Theological Monthly 38: 510-515.Ahlstrm, G.W. 1993. The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander`s Conquest. Sheffield.Albright, W.F. 1932. The Seal of Eliakim and the Latest Preexilic History of Judah. JBL 51: 77-106.Albright, W.F. 1942. King Joiachin in Exile. BA 5 (no. 4): 49-55.Alfrink, B. 1943. LExpression ākab 'im ābŏtāyw. Oudtestamentische Studin 2: 106-118.Barkay, G. 1977. On the Problem of the Burial Place of the Last Davidic Kings. apud: Broshi, M. (ed.). Between Hermon and Sinai Yad Le Amnon. Jerusalem: 75-92 (Hebrew).Barthlemy, D. 1982. Critique textuelle de lAncien Testament. Vol. I: Josu, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Nhmie, Esther (OBO/1). Fribourg.Baumgartner, W. 1926. Neues keilschriftliches Material zum Buche Daniel. ZAW 44: 51-55.Begg, C. 1987. The Fate of Judahs Four Last Kings in the Book of Chronicles. OLP 18: 79-85.Ben Zvi, E. 1991. A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah. Berlin and New York.Bright, J. 1959. A History of Israel. Philadelphia. (2nd ed. 1972).Bright, J. 1965. Jeremiah. New YorkBurney, C.F. 1903. The Book of Judges and Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings. New-York.Carroll, R.P. 1986. Jeremiah. London. Clines, D.J.A. 1972. Regnal Year Reckoning in the Last Years of the Kingdom of Judah. AJBA 5: 29-32.Cogan, M. 1971. A Note on Disinternment in Jeremiah. Gratz College Anniversary Volume. Philadelphia: 29-34.Cogan, M. and Tadmor, H. 1988. II Kings. Doubleday.Cortese, E. 1990. Theories concerning Dtr: A Possible Rapprochement. apud: Brekelmans, C. and Lust, J. (eds.). Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies, Papers Read at the XIIIth IOSOT Congress, Leuven 1989. Leuven: 179-190.Cross, F. M. 1973. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge. Curtis, E.L. and Madsen, A.L. 1910. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. Edinburgh.Dahhod, M. 1961. Two Textual Notes on Jeremiah. CBQ 23: 462-464.Delcor, M. 1971. Le livre de Daniel. Paris.Dietrich, W. 1972. Prophetie und Geschichte Eine Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. Gttingen.Gray, J. 1964. I and II Kings. London.Grayson, A.K. 1975. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Locust Valley.Green, A.R. 1982. The Fate of Jehoiakim. AUSS 20, no.2: 103-109.Halpern, B. and Vanderhooft, D.S. 1991. The Editions of Kings in the 7th-6th Centuries .B.C.E. HUCA 62: 179-244.Hillers, D.R. 1964. Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets. Rome.Holladay, W. L. 1989. Jeremiah II. Minneapolis.Horn, S.H. 1967. The Babylonian Chronicle and the Ancient Calendar of the Kingdom of Judah. AUSS 3: 12-27.Hyatt, J.P. 1956. New Light on Nebuchadrezzar and Judean History. JBL 75: 277-284.Japhet, S. 1977. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought. Jerusalem.Japhet, S. 1993. I & II Chronicles, A Commentary. London.Joon, P. 1937. Un Parallle la Spulture dun ne de Jrmie (XXII, 19) en arabe moderne de Palmyre. Recherches de science religieuse 27: 335-336.Lipschits, O. 1997. The 'Yehud' Province under Babylonian Rule (586-539 B.C.E.): Historic Reality and Historiographic Conceptions. (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation), Tel-Aviv. (Hebrew).Lipschits, O. 1999a. Nebuchadrezzars Policy in Hattu-Land and the Fate of the Kingdom of Judah. Ugarit-Forschungen 30: 467-487.Lipschits, O. 1999b.The Formation of the Babylonian Yehud Province. Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division A, The Bible and Its World. Jerusalem: 115-123 (Hebrew).Lipschits, O. 1999c.The History of the Benjaminite Region under Babylonian Rule. Tel-Aviv 26 (2): 155-190.Liver, Y. 1959. The History of the House of David. Jerusalem (Hebrew).Lowery, R.H. 1991. The Reforming Kings. Cult and Society in First Temple Judah. Sheffield.Malamat, A. 1950. The Last Wars of the Kingdom of Judah. JNES 9: 218-227.Malamat, A. 1968. The Last Kings of Judah and the Fall of Jerusalem: An Historical-Chronological Study. IEJ 18: 137-156.Malamat, A. 1990. The Kingdom of Judah Between Egypt and Babylon. Studia Theologica 44: 65-77.McKane, W. 1986. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. Edinburgh.McKenzie, S. L. 1984. The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History. Atlanta.McKenzie, S. L. 1991. The Trouble With Kings The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History. Leiden.Mercer, M.K. 1989. Daniel 1:1 and Jehoiakims Three Years of Servitude. AUSS 27: 179-192.Miller, J.M. and Hayes, J.H. 1986. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. Philadelphia.
A rather extraordinary list of bibliography to refer to on the subject. Don't you think so?
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | paraclete asked on 10/16/03 - Fulfilled prophesies? Greylin You asked what prophesies were fulfilled
ISA 11: 12 He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth.
Fulfilled with the return of the Jews to Israel.
ISA 25:3 Therefore strong peoples will honor you; cities of ruthless nations will revere
you.
Fulfilled today in the position the Stae of Israel holds among the nations.
ISA 43:9 All the nations gather together and the peoples assemble. Which of them foretold this and proclaimed to us the former things? Let them bring in their witnesses to prove they were right, so that others may hear and say, "It is true."
Fulfilled in the creation and continuation of the United Nations.
ISA 8:9 Raise the war cry, you nations, and be shattered! Listen, all you distant lands. Prepare for battle, and be shattered! Prepare for battle, and be shattered!
Fulfilled in the defeat of each nation that has attacked Israel.
ISA 17:12 Oh, the raging of many nations-- they rage like the raging sea! Oh, the uproar of the peoples-- they roar like the roaring of great waters!
Fulfilled in the many voices who are raised up against Israel among Muslim nations.
curious98 answered on 10/17/03:
ISA 11: 12
FULFILLED WITH THE RETURN OF THE JEWS TO ISRAEL.
To a certain extent only, not because we are speaking of 4000 years later, but because nobody can tell for sure what is going to happen in Israel.
Besides, Isaiah was most probably thinking of the return of the Jews to Israel from Babylonia
ISA 25:3 Therefore strong peoples will honor you;
FULFILLED TODAY IN THE POSITION THE STAE OF ISRAEL HOLDS AMONG THE NATIONS.
For you truly believe what you say? cities of ruthless nations will revere you.
I remember a city of ruthless nations, Berlin, in Hitlers Germany, not too long, and hoe did they revere the Jews
ISA 43:9 All the nations gather together and the peoples assemble. Which of them foretold this and proclaimed to us the former things? Let them bring in their witnesses to prove they were right, so that others may hear and say, "It is true."
FULFILLED IN THE CREATION AND CONTINUATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS.
Sorry, but since they were created they have turned out to be a great fiasco, maybe with one single exception. And certainly the most powerful country nowadays, the USA, pays absolutely no attention to them as it have been recently proved on occasion of the Iraq war
ISA 8:9 Raise the war cry, you nations, and be shattered! Listen, all you distant lands. Prepare for battle, and be shattered! Prepare for battle, and be shattered!
FULFILLED IN THE DEFEAT OF EACH NATION THAT HAS ATTACKED ISRAEL.
As I said, I hope you are right. History is still been written
ISA 17:12 Oh, the raging of many nations-- they rage like the raging sea! Oh, the uproar of the peoples-- they roar like the roaring of great waters!
FULFILLED IN THE MANY VOICES WHO ARE RAISED UP AGAINST ISRAEL AMONG MUSLIM NATIONS.
This prophecy has been fulfilled many times. For instance, when 6 million Jews were killed by Hitler and Stalin
You should read a book by the name of The errand Jew, by French writer Eugene Sue, a saga of a Russian Jewish family stretching along 2000 years
But above all, I would like to emphasize, if you dont mind, that Old Testament prophecies and many scholars and exegetes agree on that were not intended to be projected to our times.
The reason, if that would be so, Isa: 11. 12
Would not have been fulfilled only 70 years ago, nor all the others, and people them might have rightly said Isaiahs prophecies were full of air
How have we have to interpret them now, and not then, or 50 years from now?
Those prophecies were basically, and most probably, meant for their contemporanies not for us, people projected in the future 40 centuries.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | paraclete asked on 10/16/03 - The rhetoric of a meglomaniac?
The Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad yesterday called on the world's 1.3 billion Muslims to unite against "a few million" Jews, whom he alleged ruled the world by controlling the strongest nations,
Mahathir Mohamad was speaking at the Organisation of the Islamic Conference in Putrajaya.
Dr Mahathir, who is chairing the biggest summit of Islamic leaders in three years, urged Muslims to ignore teachings by religious fundamentalists that scientific studies were somehow un-Islamic.
"We need guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships for our defence," Dr Mahathir told leaders from 57 nations gathered for a two-day summit of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference in Putrajaya, Malaysia's new capital.
"But because we are discouraged from learning of science and mathematics . . . we have no capacity to produce our weapons for our defence," he said.
He launched a blistering attack on what he described as Jewish domination of the world and Muslim nations' inability to adequately respond to it.
"The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy," he said. "They get others to fight and die for them.
"We are up against a people who think. They survived 2000 years of pogroms not by hitting back but by thinking," he said.
"They invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so that they can enjoy equal rights with others.
"With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries and they, this tiny community, have become a world power."
Dr Mahathir said that .3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way".
He suggested new tactics other than lashing out violently against "the enemy", including leveraging the political, economic and demographic forces at the disposal of Muslim nations, calling for a "strategic retreat" and reassessment that would lead to "final victory".
For Dr Mahathir, a senior statesmen in the developing world who has turned his country into the world's 17th-ranked trading nation, the summit marks one of the last opportunities to take the podium on the world stage before retiring on October 31 after 22 years in power.
US Ambassador to Malaysia Marie Huhtala declined to comment on the speech.
Washington was angered over a speech he made in February, as host of the Non-Aligned Movement of 117 countries, in which he described the looming war against Iraq as racist.
Mohammed al-Farra, a Palestinian delegate, said he supported Dr Mahathir's analysis.
"If we are weak, nobody will respect us," he said. "In this world, the Israelis only respect the strong, so we have to unite to be respected by the other side."
The summit, held every three years, is the first since the September 11 terror attacks reshaped global politics and comes at a time when many Muslims - even US allies - feel the war on terrorism has become a war against them.
AP "
What I find suprising about this is that he is calling on Muslims to unite against jews. I wonder what he thinks they have been doing for the last fifty years, sitting on their hands? has he stopped to think that God might not want his people defeated? Has he read in the Old Testament the penalty for opposing God's people?
curious98 answered on 10/17/03:What all this mean is that while there are guys like this Malaysian Primer Minister on one side and the USA General of your previous post, we are heading for an immense amount of trouble.
And we are falling back to the Middle Ages but with highly sofisticated weapons...
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | paraclete asked on 10/16/03 - On a mission for God?
Is this man truely on a mission for God or has the war on terrorism taken on the lunatic fringe?
"By Richard T. Cooper
October 17, 2003
Print this article
Email to a friend
The Pentagon has given the job of hunting down and eliminating Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and other high-profile targets to a general who believes he is on a mission from God.
Lieutenant-General William "Jerry" Boykin, the new deputy under secretary of defence for intelligence, has made it clear that he sees the war on terrorism as a clash between Judeo-Christian values and Satan.
The much-decorated veteran of covert military operations also believes that radical Muslims who resort to terror are not representative of Islam and compares them to Ku Klux Klan members.
In June, General Boykin told a religious group in Oregon that radical Islamists hated the US "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian . . . and the enemy is a guy named Satan".
Of his role in the battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia, he told another audience: "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."
Last year, he said: "We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God, have been raised for such a time as this." He has also said of President George Bush: "He's in the White House because God put him there."
But General Boykin's penchant for casting the war on terrorism in religious terms appears to be at odds with an Administration that insists it is nothing of the sort.
Mr Bush has made a point of praising Islam as "a religion of peace" and has hosted Muslim clerics for Ramadan dinners at the White House. He has also criticised evangelicals who brand Islam a dangerous faith.
Independent experts see General Boykin's remarks as sending exactly the wrong message to the Arab and Islamic world.
Stephen Cohen, president of the Institute for Middle East Peace and Development in New York, said: "The phrase 'Judeo-Christian' is a big mistake. It's basically the language of bin Laden and his supporters.
"They are constantly trying to create the impression that the Jews and Christians are getting together to beat up on Islam. We have to be very careful that this doesn't become a clash between religions, a clash of civilisations."
A pollster, John Zogby, said surveys throughout the Arab and Islamic world had shown strong negative reactions to statements by US officials suggesting conflict between religions or cultures.
"To frame things in terms of good and evil, with the United States as good, is a non-starter," he said. "It is exactly the wrong thing to do." "
curious98 answered on 10/17/03:
That this General is saying what he is saying and that hes been appointed by Bush as the official hunter of all big terrorists, just show where the USA are heading to, should Mr. Bush be re-elected for another term.
In the first place, with all due respect, this general is nuts. Anybody actually believing he is on a godly mission to kill satanic evil forces, is out of his mind and should visit quickly a psychiatrist. He is, in fact, proclaiming a Christian Jihad against Islam, no matter what he says, which is exactly what we resent some bigot Muslims preach in their mosques, against Christians.
How can anyone say in the 21st century, that GOD has appointed him to destroy other people, even if they were celebrating satanic rites every day, which is not, of course, the case?
Satanic rites are celebrated, perhaps, in some big western city by some western sect
This general probably believes himself to be a reincarnation of Richard Coeur-de-Lion to the rescue of Christians in Jerusalem, in the 12 century...
As I assume this fellow to be a Christian, may be someone should give him a copy of the Gospels and remind him that Jesus gave his life for all of us, while preaching Love thy neighbour as you love yourself."
If he compares radical Muslims with the KKK, maybe he should look inside him and decide in all honesty whether he cannot be compared too to them.
For, Im sure, he considers himself as an special envoy to protect the Pure White Race from Satan, represented by all minor races or, better, breeds.
"WE IN THE ARMY OF GOD, IN THE HOUSE OF GOD, KINGDOM OF GOD, HAVE BEEN RAISED FOR SUCH A TIME AS THIS." HE HAS ALSO SAID OF PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: "HE'S IN THE WHITE HOUSE BECAUSE GOD PUT HIM THERE."
Such an amount of conceit is terribly dangerous for any Country, and Im afraid the USA are going to suffer terribly if they do not find someone soon with enough common sense to get rid of these perilous elements.
Remember what I told you in my previous answer about Malaysian Prime Minister. We are giving him arguments to speak as he does
In fact, you being an Australian, must be well aware of your Authorities policy against Australians aborigines, so similar to that of North Americans against Indians
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | paraclete asked on 10/16/03 - Its not the Muslims its the europeans and the jews? That's what Malaysian leader,Dr. Mahathir Mohemed intimated as he spoke to an assembly of Muslim leaders. The muslims have achieved nothing in their 50 year struggle in Palistine but what is needed is more guns, more violence. The europeans are controlled by the jews.
Is it any wonder we have radical Muslims at war with the west. With friends like this who needs enemies.
Australians, and their European brethren, are a greedy, war-mongering mob who promote free sex and sodomy, are indifferent to incest and want to conquer the world.
So said a teary Dr Mahathir Mohamad yesterday as he opened the last general assembly of his United Malays National Organisation in Kuala Lumpur before he retires in October, speaking with a venom undiminished by his 22 years as Malaysian Prime Minister.
"I am not anti-European. I have many friends and acquaintances who are Europeans. Certainly their media will condemn me as a racist but I consider exposing who the Europeans are has become so important that the risk must be taken," the 77-year-old leader declared, before launching into a career-best diatribe against the West.
He said Europeans, including "those who migrated and set up new nations in America, Australia and New Zealand", wanted "to control the world again".
The Europeans were determined to impose a global culture that included unlimited freedoms and "the practice of free sex, including sodomy, as a right", he said.
"Marriage between male and male, female and female are officially recognised by them. What we regard as incest is not regarded as serious by them.
"The culture and the values which they will force us to accept will be hedonism, unlimited quest for pleasure, the satisfaction of base desires, particularly sexual desires. Our way of life must be the same as their way of life. Asian values do not exist to them."
Dr Mahathir broke down briefly as he thanked the 2200 party delegates for their support over the years. But the tears were restrained compared with his closing speech to the UMNO general assembly last year when he announced his resignation - only to retract it a few hours later.
"They (Europeans) are very clever, brave and have an insatiable curiosity . . . unfortunately they are also very greedy and like to take forcibly the territories and rights of other people," he said.
Referring to the US-led invasion of Iraq, Dr Mahathir said: "They have demonstrated they are ready to invent false allegations in order to go to war to kill children, old people, sick people." The war against terrorism since the attacks of September 11, 2001 was "an excuse for the Anglo-Saxon Europeans to return to their old violent ways".
"Their strategy to fight terrorism is through attacking Muslim countries and Muslims, whether they are guilty or not."
So these days, being anti semetic, anti european and anti just about everyoneelse isnt racist. curious98 answered on 10/17/03:
Dear Paraclete,
I dont think you should be surprised at what the Malaysian leader, Dr. Mahathir Mohemed told his colleagues and Muslim leaders.
Thats to-days normal way of talking for radical and fanatic Muslims
However, we should not ignore we, awful Europeans have been giving to them plenty of reasons to justify their speech.
Lets try to analyse the fundament of what he is saying.
While neither Europeans, nor USA citizens, and certainly nor Australians, are dominated by Judaism, it is undeniable that in the USA there is a strong Jewish lobby, that is influential at Government levels, not because Jews are more liked in the USA than in any other European country but just because they count a lot more when elections are close. Other than that, I think Jews in general are less liked in the USA than in Europe.
Australians, and their European brethren, are a greedy, war-mongering mob who promote free sex and sodomy, are indifferent to incest and want to conquer the world.
I think Australia is mentioned just because its closeness to Malaysia. It is Europe that still smarts, for until not long ago, and with the only exception of Thailand, all Asian South East Countries were colonies dominated by the U.K., Holland, France
And greedy they were indeed, like all settlers have always been and still are.
As for morality, you must admit that it is going downwards at full speed in all our wonderful western World
When I look backwards 50 years ago, I must say we were, perhaps, too much on the prude, Victorian side. But we have made a gigantic leap forward, in my opinion, for the worse.
Not only, but we have also brought to those countries some of our customs. You are probably aware that in London and/or in Madrid (and perhaps, in Paris or Rome too) you can book an organized tourist vacation trip to Bangkok, (also to Cuba, btw), with everything included, even 100% guaranteed clean prostitutes, which you can pick from photographs
Of course, it must be said that Dr Mahathir Mohammad is no saint. Mahathir was never a despot in the way Mao or Sukarno were, but he was a despot anyway. Also their present prosperity has been achieved thanks to Europe and the USA, but thats not the kind of speech his friends expect from him.
When he says that Europeans, including "those who migrated and set up new nations in America, Australia and New Zealand", wanted "to control the world again", he is making a mistake, in my opinion, maybe, because he does not dare refer to the one Government that is indeed trying to control, if not the whole World, a big piece of the pie. Im, of course, referring to Mr. Bush and Co., who cannot hide his (and his teams) worldwide ambitions.
Europe, right now, has no country or power to shadow the US power in that respect. Australia and New Zealand do not count either. And for China is to early, as yet
Their time will come, eventually, though I hope I wont be here to see it.
So, Im afraid here, Dr. Mahathir made a mistake, willingly or unwillingly.
"Marriage between male and male, female and female are officially recognised by them. What we regard as incest is not regarded as serious by them.
Not by everybody, but he is right. Well, Im going to make no comments about that. Im Dr. Mahathirs same age and, maybe because of that, while I respect everybody has a right to choose the kind of sexual life he/she wants to have, I, personally, do not swallow this mentality. But that its my problem.
But I can understand how Orthodox Muslims feel about these modern laws of ours. Catholic Church also feels the same. And, I'm sure most Protestant denominations. , Homosexuality has always existed and Muslims (as Christians and all the rest) have always practiced it. But, at least, it was not aired all over the placed
"The culture and the values which they will force us to accept will be hedonism, unlimited quest for pleasure, the satisfaction of base desires, particularly sexual desires. Our way of life must be the same as their way of life. Asian values do not exist to them."
You should admit that this culture he denounces is the culture we, in the Western World, have been exporting to Asia, through TV, Movies, music, etc. If you would see a Japanese disco in Tokyo, you would understand what I mean.
"They (Europeans) are very clever, brave and have an insatiable curiosity . . . unfortunately they are also very greedy and like to take forcibly the territories and rights of other people," he said.
Well, we have been doing that for ages. We are no longer doing it now, but basically, because we cannot. It is undeniable, that we Europeans (and North Americans, too, because of their European ancestry) consider ourselves superior in many ways to the other peoples of the World. We do not wish to acknowledge this, but it is a fact.
Actually, British, French, Spanish have felt like that for ages, and the very last instance was Hitler.
Referring to the US-led invasion of Iraq, Dr Mahathir said: "They have demonstrated they are ready to invent false allegations in order to go to war to kill children, old people, sick people." The war against terrorism since the attacks of September 11, 2001 was "an excuse for the Anglo-Saxon Europeans to return to their old violent ways".
He is got a point there. At least, the massive destruction arms have not appeared anywhere. Which does not mean, Saddam Hussein should not be destroyed. Which does not mean, either, the USA and British forces should not have left Iraq, by now
"Their strategy to fight terrorism is through attacking Muslim countries and Muslims, whether they are guilty or not."
Well, whether we like it or not, this is absolutely true, and the results could not be more disappointing. Osaka Bin Laden is still at large, while his rich family have mutual interests with the Bush Sr. family.
Saddam Hussein contacts with Al Quad have turned out to nothing, etc. etc.
So, while Dr. Mahathir is speaking out of spite, we should be thinking of how can we, Western Civilized Super People, try to find solutions to make all the others who are not like us, change their minds about us.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 10/15/03 - Half empty or half full? A couple of posters have mentioned the "downfall of mankind" in recent answers, and we hear it in the media all the time (the world is going to hell in a handbasket, we aren't safe anymore, we have lost God, etc.).
But, have we really? Doomsayers have been around since the first man could speak, probably. Nostradamus predicted the end of Civilization almost a thousand years ago, and he was wrong. Revelations predicted the return of Christ in the lifetime of it's readers, and that hasn't happened. Different cults have predicted the collapse of civilization in the 1600's, 1800's, 1900's, and the biggie, Y2K. Yet, not one of them occured.
Am I the only optimist left?
Crime is down in the US.
Europe has formed closer alliances than ever in the EU, and looks to add more.
There is less hunger in the world now than ever (it's still horrible, of course, but historically speaking, less than ever before).
There is more wealth, less poverty across the world than ever.
THere is better education opportunities than ever.
THere is more democracy across the globe than ever.
Many major diseases have been conquered, some almost wiped off the face of the earth.
Medical techniques allow us to live longer, and in many cases, live better (note, longer is not necessarily better).
Sure, there are things that scare me: Government intrusion into my life, the rise (again) of terrorism as a political tool, the lack of equal resources across the globe, the apathy of mankind to certain sufferings, etc..
Do you think we are at the end of the world, or in a Golden Age? curious98 answered on 10/16/03:
No, you are not the only optimist left. At least, you can count on me, too.
Do not pay much attention to old prophecies, nor to doomsayers. These are the ones that like to see the glass half empty
But, by the same token, lets be realistic and not see the glass ALMOST FULL, when its only half full
With all due respect, Im afraid, Ill have to contradict you on some statements regarding how we have, in your opinion, improved. It so happens that, because the US press and news are basically concerned with what is going on in the USA, their projections on Foreign Matters tend to be quite simplistic. Yet, there are quite a few USA journalists and writers that describe world problems and themes as they are. What happens, is that they edit their articles in foreign medias!
Another point to consider is that, in spite of the tremendous worldwide diffusion of Internet, a considerable amount of US citizens keep on believing what their Government says, disregarding any analysis nor what the REST of the world has to say, on the same subject.
Anyway, lets go step by step:
CRIME IS DOWN IN THE US.
Maybe this is true in the USA. This is not unfortunately true in the rest of the world. Crime and justice are global concerns requiring concerted international action. From tracking online paedophiles to the murky world of drug trafficking, police forces around the world are uniting to stem the increasing tide of crime. This was just the title of a global crime report emitted by the BBC some time this Summer. A "snapshot" of crime recently showed that in England and Wales only more than 16,500 crimes are reported each day - one every five seconds!
In contrast, more than 5,400 people were arrested each day - that's one every 15 seconds.
Domestic violence has increased terribly in Spain in the 5 last years. Right now, every day at least one woman is abused or killed by her couple!
EUROPE HAS FORMED CLOSER ALLIANCES THAN EVER IN THE EU, AND LOOKS TO ADD MORE.
Again, I must contradict you here.
In fact, this is exactly the opposite. What surprises me is that even the US press agrees on that, so you should know.
The Iraq war and Bushs attitude, together with that of his unconditional allies Blair and Aznar has opened a gap wider than ever between Europe and the USA, and within Europe itself, that right now, everybody on both sides, is trying to close. Bush, because his decreasing popularity at domestic level as a consequence of the tremendous cost of the Iraqi war (both in lives and economically) is forcing him to look back once more at the UN, seeking European support (both in troops and economically), trying to alleviate this expense. But, alas, neither France, nor Germany nor Russia (each one with their own selfish attitudes and facing their own problems) are willing to abide, without the USA abiding too. to some of their demands, re. control in Iraq, role of the United Nations, reconstruction, etc.
Hopefully, good sense on both sides will finally prevail and Europe and the USA will get together once more, though Im afraid this will not be so at popular level. To tell you the truth, never has anti-Americanism been so strong in Europe as of from the Iraq war. In certain countries, like Great Britain and Spain, it is so strong it can cost their political future to Mr. Blairs and to Mr. Aznars political parties, in the coming elections.
These anti-American campaigns have and are promoted by France (Mr. Chirac) and by the European Socialists parties.
Of course, there are also millions in Europe who do not buy these policies at all. But, so far, we are not as noisy as the others
THERE IS LESS HUNGER IN THE WORLD NOW THAN EVER (IT'S STILL HORRIBLE, OF COURSE, BUT HISTORICALLY SPEAKING, LESS THAN EVER BEFORE).
I wish I could say you are right, but you are certainly not. According to the last FAO report, recently appeared, in 1999 their estimate of persons that were permanently suffering hunger and famine was of 815 million approximately. In year 2000, this figure has increased to 840, i.e. more than 1,5% annual increase, and trends show this ratio will probably increase to 2% to 3% growth, annually!!!
The reasons given by the FAO for this spectacular increase are that war against terrorism is concentrating every year a biggest amount of resources from the world budgets, provoking, thus, a decrease of funds that were intended for the international fight against world famine. You are, of course, aware that the new USA budget for armament is bigger than that all the REST OF THE WORLD TOGETHER
Another instance, the European Commission Office for Humanitarian Help (ECOHP) has deviated this year 110 million dollars from its total budget of 450 million for world welfare, to the Iraqi crisis. Do not ask me why and how But the actual fact, is that they have!
Last but nor least, in the last famines that happened in the last few years in Sub-Saharan African countries, it has been found that the managing of funds sent to somewhat palliate these situations, was anything but transparent. It seems that some of their respective Administrations have hurried to place substantial amounts of those funds, in private bank accounts in Switzerland. An estimate of 4.000 million dollars seems to be quite moderate.
Bearing all this in mind, the FAO adds that their forecast made in the early 90s to reduce world famine down to 400 million by year 2015, and considering the increase of world population up to some 8000 millions by year 2050, theyll have to review their figures and forecast some 2000 millions, instead!!!, those who might by dying of hunger by year 2050, i.e. of total human population. Right now is about 14/15%
THERE IS MORE WEALTH, LESS POVERTY ACROSS THE WORLD THAN EVER.
I honestly do not know, my dear friend, where on earth do you get these figures from. I wish you could tell me.
If you are simply talking of increase in World Gross Product, you may be probably right. But that only means that a bunch of millionaires are richer than ever before. One has to be careful with statistics.
I had a chance to go to Russia (when it was still the URSS, under Gorbachov)
and there was a joke going around in Moscow.
If you have 2 chickens and 2 persons, that means you can statistically prove there is a 50% for each one. However, this statistic ignores the fact that 1 of the 2 persons, has both chickens and is not prepared to give anything to the other one
The great success of the new liberal policies has made that globalisation as denounced time and again in massive concentrations like that of Porto Alegre concentrates more wealth than ever before in the hands of fewer than ever before. To the extent, that some of these huge corporations are the true rulers in many countries. Probably, the USA included. And Im not referring to the famous Trilateral commission, which, of course, it is still there and surely having a say or two in the course of affairs. Im referring, for instance, to other gigantic organizations in the world of communications, armament, planes, aerospace, etc.
May be it would enlighten you better than anything I can say to read a book (The New Masters of the World) by a Jean Ziegler, a Swiss, working as a special commissioned in the U.N.
Also the famous philologist at the MIT in Boston, Noam Chomsky, has said a lot about this same subject, and about the increasing poverty all over the world. Of course, you have to tour the world a little.
5 years ago, I took a holiday with my wife to the isle of Santo Domingo, in the Caribbean. While there, we checked out the possibilities to visit Haiti, which shares half of the island. We were very rapidly advised to forget about it. Life is worth nothing in the poorest country in the World. And it is less than 2000 miles from the USA.
How many million Mexican illegal immigrants try to enter your country every year, with more or less fortune.
Spain is the closest gate for illegal immigration to Europe through the Strait of Gibraltar. Moroccans and Sub-Saharians try to cross its dangerous waters every day in the most fragile rowboats you can imagine. Many die drowned in the crossing, mostly pregnant women and children! Last week, all records were broken! In one single day, 602 persons!, were arrested and, eventually, returned to Morocco by our police. And that is only the figure accounted for, by the police. We do not know those who managed to get in, nor those who didnt make it at all
THERE IS BETTER EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES THAN EVER.
NGOs say exactly the opposite. And you do not have to go to Africa nor Asia for that. In Latin America, just pay a short visit to Colombia, Bolivia (in this very moment they have a project of revolution going on), Peru, Argentina, and most than all Brazil (particularly Rio or Sao Paulo).
In each one of these 2 cities, full of favelasin the surrounding hills, every night special police corps are supposed to arrest the so called menhinos da rua (street children), who live in the slums by the thousands. But, there are so many, that it has been denounced to the Authorities (who claim they can do nothing about it) that these police corps instead of burdening themselves by arresting these kids, they simply shoot them to death and leave them there!
Of course, in other places like in black Africa or in Afghanistan, Iraq or Palestine, children, as young as 9 years, are trained as soldiers so they can fight and kill
No, Im not convinced there better educational opportunities than ever
THERE IS MORE DEMOCRACY ACROSS THE GLOBE THAN EVER.
You must be really kidding here! Would you mind telling me how many NEW TRUE democratic countries have appeared in the map?. And please, do not count the former URSS republics. I wish to remind you that using the word Democracy in the name of any state does not qualifies it as democratic. The Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR) was certainly not a democratic country. The Popular Democratic Republic of China, is certainly not a democracy, at all.
Spain, under General Franco (a lesser dictator than Mussolini, but a dictator anyway) established a so called Organic Democracy!?? (whatever that means) in our country. And I could go on and on
MANY MAJOR DISEASES HAVE BEEN CONQUERED, SOME ALMOST WIPED OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH.
Yes, thanks God, but others have come back (Tuberculosis, for one) and others have settled down quite enthusiastically, like AIDS. (REFERRING ONLY TO South Africa, which certainly is the most prosperous and civilized country of Africa) the OMS (Health World Organization, depending from the UN.) says:
the number of AIDS deaths can be expected to grow, within the next 10 years, to more than double the number of deaths due to other causes, resulting in 5 to 7 million cumulative AIDS deaths in South Africa by 2010!
One of the main reasons for the estimated 40 million deaths in black Africa by year 2010, is the fact pharmaceutical multinationals do not want to reduce the price of the drugs against AIDS, making them thus prohibitive for all those populations!
MEDICAL TECHNIQUES ALLOW US TO LIVE LONGER, AND IN MANY CASES, LIVE BETTER (NOTE, LONGER IS NOT NECESSARILY BETTER).
That is something, Im going to endorse, myself.
Im now 77, have come out of one prostate cancer with flying colours, and of 2 eye surgical operation, and still am full of sense of humour and planning my next trip with my wife So what else can I ask for, thanks GOD?
So, in short, I still think the glass is half full, in spite of all I told you; that we are not at the end of the world, but this is not either a Golden Age, or at least, it is not for a majority of inhabitants of this planet. A few fortunate ones, like you and me, may think it is a Golden Age, and indeed it is, but lets not forget we are just a minority, and lets open our eyes to what is really going on in this world of ours outside of the USA!
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | bal317 asked on 10/14/03 - Found more on Bush's Family and Geronimo I want to Thank all that responded to my question about Pres. Bush. However, pertaining to my second question about the skull of Geronimo, I did some investigating myself and would like to share.
Please view the following sites:
www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_27560.html
www.pa56.org/skullandbones.htm
Please click on the highlighted areas in the above site to gain more info.
www.room23.de/1576.html
http://teachers.net/mentors/polities/topic384/8.15.03.12.07.43.html
I just find this very interesting and so in tune to how our President is going at his business of today with those out of our Country, but will allow so many problems similar like the Cult in Colorado, KKK, Skin Heads,and many more racial groups that destroy other's to remain to operate, hold parades and continue in our so-called civilized world. Could it be he like the many that were a part of his sick demented high society people are and continue to enjoy humans against humans in such a way. curious98 answered on 10/15/03:Very interesting, indeed.
And, should it be true, that would not surprise me a bit, and would explain that strange look Mr. Bush has in his eyes...
It's probably something in his genes...
I only hope, for the sake of having some peace in this world of ours, that he will lose the next election to someone with more common sense.
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | dognap asked on 10/14/03 - A nation under God? The US Supreme Court will discuss whether the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional because of its reference to God.
Whatever anyone might hope, wish, pray for, etc., is the US really a nation "under God" or has the nation abandoned God as its anchor?
What do you think?
No foul language in your replies, please.
curious98 answered on 10/15/03:
My answer may be a little disappointing for some. I would like to believe that despite Mr. Bush, of your Constitution, or whatever, the USA are, and hopefully will always be, a nation under GOD, as much as any other nation in the World.
Im not prepared to admit that neither the USA nor any other country have GODs exclusive rights, as Im not prepared to admit that when the States defeated Spain in 1898 by conquering Cuba and the Philippines, they had GOD by their side, for that would have implied that GOD had suddenly become Protestant and had renounced all other Christian confessions. Just for the record, in those days Spain was officially Catholic, while the USA was not officially of any Christian confession.
On the other hand, when the USA lose the Vietnam war, we might say that GOD was on the Viets side. Now, bearing in mind that most of them are Buddhists, it would imply GOD had adopted that philosophy to punish Christians. Not that we do not deserve some serious punishment once more!
I think whether the States remain under GOD or not, does not have anything to do with any Legal Papers, Constitutions, Laws or else
Fortunately, GOD is way beyond all these silly bureaucracy which, most of the time, is not working as it should
Remaining under GOD only depends upon us, wherever we may live, and if live by GODs rules and regulations, we can be quite certain we are under GOD, and sooner or later we shall benefit of that protection, whether in this World or somewhere else
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | bal317 asked on 10/14/03 - Pres. Bush Has it ever been said, What religion Busch's family is?
The reason I ask, sometime ago I seen on tv, where the Bush males went to a particular College, and also they were all involved with a certain College fraternity, when they were there. It appeared that one of the rituals to join that fraternity, was to hold secret meetings, gowned in some type of gown, and these young men had to prove their commitment to the fraternity, by digging up the remains of a celeberty bodies and taking the skull back for evidence. Then the tv program said, the Bush family had the head of Jerommino the head of the Indian's past, and tried to return it to the tribe, but the tribe refused them, saying they had invaded a sacret burial ground and would not accept. Does anyone know of this fact. curious98 answered on 10/14/03:President Bush was raised an Episcopalian but became a Methodist when he got married and joined the church of his wife, Laura. He spoke of his beliefs often during the campaign and said at his inauguration, "We are guided by a power larger than ourselves who creates us equal in his image."
Bush isn't reluctant to describe his active faith. "I pray all the time," he said in the Fox News interview. "When I am alone in the Oval Office (and) something might be on my mind ... I will pray. I don't think that I could be sitting here as comfortable as I am and as peaceful as I am had it not been for my religion."
This said, while it may be true that he is such a religious person, he is certainly not a humble and discreet believer.
What is even worse. He may pray every day, but the question is, what is he asking in his prayers? Because, he gives to the outside world the impression he has a red phone with God, who, with His answers guides and controls Bushs foreign policy.
But, if this is so, Bush may be ringing the wrong number. For his God, like mine, and yours (for It is the same one) is a GOD of peace and love, and Bushs words give the impression of being rather of war and hate!
I may be wrong, of course.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | bal317 asked on 10/12/03 - Religion in Schools??? Hello All: With so many different opinions about religions. Can anyone tell my why, it would be so bad for classes about history's of religion to be taught in the Schools. Then maybe with this teaching it would help many understand what they want to get into with a clearer understanding, than if one would settle for a certain type of religion and feeling trapped. And would this not help other's respect different religions and cultures better, possibly help those who don't have a religious background because their family don't go to Church, see there is no fear to believe in a spirital provider. But this class would not be a one sided deal, just a cross reference of all religions, leaving the person with base information, so they could choose more wisely on their own. curious98 answered on 10/13/03:
As Im not a USA citizen I cant and will not judge your question from the point of view of your Constitutional rights.
Ill rather do it as a citizen of the world, who happens to follow the Roman Catholic Faith, in Spain.
In my opinion, all seriously practiced religions (here, I would exclude all sects) have the same right to be taught as an additional discipline, very much in the same way as Universal History is being taught. That means teaching Comparative Religion in a totally objective way. I mean without the teacher endorsing this or that confession or favouring this or that faith.
If the teacher happens to be Catholic, he has no right whatsoever to say, when referring to Catholicism, that this is the only true religion, although he may add immediately he respects all others. Because, then, he will not be able to complaint if his son has another teacher who may be Episcopalian, and who claims the very same thing.
Children normally grow up in the religion of their parents and when they become adults, if they have a minimum knowledge of what the other religions are like, they will be able to opt for whichever they consider the best and get all the information they want about it.
This is what the British call Fair Play.
Im convinced that Catholicism, when properly practiced, is the right answer for Mankind. But I cant ignore this is my own personal point of view, so whenever I discuss religion with a Jew, a Muslim, a Protestant, I always leave open the possibility they may be right and I wrong.
I try always not to behave like those bigots that are not prepared to admit any error in their Faiths, and instead, they are fully convinced the rest of world will burn in the flames of damnation!
So teaching comparative religion is a good thing provided is done impartially. One of my grand sons is now attending in his school one class of comparative religion and he is delighted. The school is run by Jesuits, but the professor in charge is a lay man and, apparently, he is right now in the process of denouncing the many absurdities of Christianism in the Middle Age, when, ignoring Jesus message of love thy neighbour, they were happily killing each other on the grounds this one was proclaiming a heresy or the other was a Jew or a Muslim!
I say this is to be teaching history of religions by having no fear to explain the white from the black, for all religions and beliefs have their white and their black points and moments, and knowing them will allow all of us to become more understanding and eventually able to live in peace with one another.
If you look at it dispassionately you will see that all the conflicts that are going on right now (not to speak of the past) in the world use religion, one way or other, to make people fight against each other and so, disguise the true motifs for the conflict, which normally are always economic.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | paraclete asked on 10/12/03 - Healing in His Wings II
For Hank, perhaps I should have given you this part first.
Let me tell you what He has done for me, and how I came to put my faith in Him for healing.
During my life, I have suffered some chronic conditions, but this was when I was in the world. Not knowing Christ, I was an alcoholic, I was subject the all the illnesses which life could throw at me. Stress was a frequent visitor. In fact, my wife used to say I was a hypochondriac, because I was always complaining about headaches, etc. Self inflicted injury, most of it. What I needed was an adjustment by my maker. Why did I need that adjustment? Because my life was full of the rejections, and traumas of childhood. Until such things are dealt with, the physical outworking will show up as stress, and disease.
In the aftermath of a 1975 bushfire on the outskirts of Sydney, I lived for months surrounded by a blackened landscape in which many of the trees had been killed. During this time, I contracted a chronic illness which would not yield to antibiotics. It had shown up as tonsillitis immediately before the bushfire. It would leave for a time, but would be back in a week, or so. This went on for about nine months. During this time, the traumas of my childhood began to surface.
You see, as a teenager I had been witness to the breakdown in relationship between my parents. This volatile relationship had given rise to incredible violence. I has seen my mother attempt to stab my father with a carving knife, and his violent response, with the result that the walls were covered in blood.
As I wasnt a Christian, I had no spiritual input, and no way of dealing with them. If I displayed the distress which these things caused me, it was seen as weakness by my wife. I dealt with it by suppressing it, and accepting the psychological crutch, Tryptanol, from my doctor. The medical cure, when it came was simple, gargle with a mouthwash. The spiritual cure took years, as I descended over the next few years further into alcoholism, gravitating into a job where my principles would be fully tested.
When I came to Christ, things changed. Firstly; the alcoholism went immediately. Now I wasnt your down and out drunk, but I did drink every day. Like many today, I used it to relax, and doctors will tell you that thats alcoholism. Its a dependency. I wouldnt admit it to myself. In earlier years though, I had been much worse, sometimes unable to remember the last few hours. Secondly; I was led towards divine healing.
So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
John Chapter 8 Verse 36 NIV
The alcoholism left when I gave my life to Christ. It didnt need a twelve step programme, it just stopped, and I was free. You see, the Lord delivered me of the condition which needed healing most, the one which would restrict my relationship with Him. The one which could be considered idolatrous. Make no mistake, when you put your faith in something other than God, it is idolatry, no matter how innocuous it seems.
I had a bad back, the results of my childhood condition, and of heavy work wood cutting on a country property, for you see I had settled for that trap, the country lifestyle. As a child I had been crippled, and had worn callipers on my legs as a toddler. I went to a chiropractor, he manipulated me for a few sessions, decided that I had one leg longer than the other, suggested that I put an insert in my shoe, and told me that there wasnt anything that he could do for me.
The Lord had other ideas, He was about to teach this "young" Christian about divine healing. We had a visiting Pastor, the man of might and power I spoke of earlier who was to become a good friend. He offered to pray for me. Now this was the first time I was touched by the power of God. I knew nothing about this, I was afraid of falling, particularly as there were a lot of sharp objects at my back, I didnt yield to the Lord and I wasnt healed. You see, I was in a Church where the power of God wasnt manifest and these things werent taught. The following Sunday morning, I responded to an altar call for the first time, and hit the floor before the catcher could react. The events of that Sunday increased my faith, but I still wasnt healed.
A little later in that year, I was at a Full Gospel Business Mens Fellowship dinner, the first one in our town. Jack Roe, an American, was the speaker, and he called for those with bad backs to come forward. Jack held both my feet in his hands, and pointed out the shorter leg. As he prayed, both legs became the same length. Truly, a miracle of God!
Now I can tell you that this wasnt an illusion, because I had an insert in my shoe, and I started to walk with a limp. I had to take that insert out of my shoe. There were a number of healings that night, and for the first time, I felt the Spirit in power, and He led me to exercise the gifts, by giving a word to a lady there. She was distraught, for she had failed to respond when her condition was named, and called forward.
If she would just believe, she would be healed. There were tears in my eyes as I delivered that word, the Lord often witnesses His presence to me in this way. But you see, He testified to me through this, right from the start, that this was the condition. Revere His name, believe in Him. I believed, and delivered the word. She believed, and was healed.
A little later, I was suffering chest pains. The doctor was treating me for angina, and the specialist physician was saying that he didnt know what the problem was, it was just the way I was made. I still dont know what he meant by that, but these guys werent solving my problem.
Again, the Lord had other ideas. One evening, whilst I was at a Servants of Jesus camp, the power of the Lord surged through me, the lower part of my body vibrated as if there was an electric current passing through me. This went on for five, or ten minutes, then I could feel my heart being touched, and moved within me. The witness in my Spirit was that the Lord had given me a new heart. There was no-one praying with me while this was happening, just the manifest presence of the Lord in the room. The angina never returned, and that night I danced vigorously for half an hour, or more, in celebration. No person with a heart condition could have done it. There was no doubt I was leaping about like that calf that night.
I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
Ezekiel Chapter 36 verse 26-27 NIV
You see the reality is that He didnt only cure the physical condition, He also cured the spiritual condition. I used to be an angry man, the product of the rejections of childhood. His purpose was not only to cure me physically but also to heal me spiritually, to lead me to follow him.
One day while working at home, I lifted a forty kilogram bag of cement which had been left in the weather, and had hardened. My grip slipped, and I dropped the bag on the big toe of my right foot. The pain was intense. I immediately grabbed hold of the toe, and asked the Lord to take the pain away. The result was immediate. Not only did the pain go, but the foot didnt swell. The toenail blackened, but it didnt even fall off.
More recently. I began to develop a rash on my leg. I didnt notice it at first, but as it was a mild irritation, I would scratch it absent-mindedly. Over a period of months, I developed sores on my leg which didnt heal quickly. After a while, I realised that I had a large area on my shin which was discoloured, and on which there were sores. I began to pray to the Lord to heal it, whilst taking the usual measures to treat the sores. After a couple of months, I decided to refer the condition to my doctor. Yes, hes a legacy of the years before I met Jesus.
Now, I must worry the fellow, because I would come to him, and ask for his advice, as with the angina. Then I would go away, and he would not see me for a year, or more, and when I come back there is no mention of the previous condition.
This time I said to him "I have these sores which dont heal". He gave me some ointment, and sent me off to the physician, no doubt following up on the heart complaint. This fellow is not a Christian, so there isnt much point of telling him about divine healing. The physician was a waste of time, he was no more help that the previous one had been.
The sores took their time, so some months later, I decided to get a second opinion. The doctor I consulted knew exactly what was wrong. "You have varicose ulcers", he said confidently, "Its because you have varicose veins, your veins are weak, theres no cure. You will have to wear an elastic stocking to help your body pump the blood back up your leg". Now Im sure that God is just waiting for someone to tell one of his saints there is no cure. I became more specific in my prayer about the condition. Now I can tell you that its gone, and it hasnt come back. You see, what was wrong here was that I had one foot in the world, and the other in the kingdom. No prizes for guessing which foot I had in the world. When I reached the point of turning fully to faith, my healing came.
I was mowing long grass near my septic tank. Living in the country, such devices are necessary to provide for disposal of sewerage. The long grass was there because the outlet system wasnt functioning properly. Because the chute of mower was clogging up, I had the protective shield partially raised. I was hit in the stomach by something large, hard and travelling fast. It hit me so hard, I felt ill, and stopped what I was doing. There were just a few scratches on my skin.
A couple of weeks later, I realised that I had a large weeping ulcer, about two inches across, and a much larger discoloured area on my stomach, and it wasnt healing. Now it isnt that I had been neglecting the injury, I had been dressing it with antiseptics every day. I began to pray about it, and after a few days, in my worldly wisdom, I also went to my doctor for some antibiotics. Well the antibiotics didnt work the first time, or the second. I happened to tell my pastor, because he could see that I had this discomfort. He called me forward on the next Sunday morning, anointed me with oil, and prayed for me.
Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.
And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person
well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.
James Chapter 5 Verse 14-15 NIV
The condition healed quickly. A liberal application of the word of God, and the prayers of the saints will shift the most stubborn condition. Im not advocating that the Church practice medicine, but that we recognise that God is sovereign, and that He can do what man cannot. You see the condition in the above Scripture, faith, or in other words, belief.
The lord has blessed me in another way lately. A visiting pastor called for a person who had a hip condition. "It is like your hip isnt properly in place in its socket", he said. Now my back had been healed, there was no doubt about that. However, I still walked with one foot turned out, the legacy of my childhood. This had been troubling me lately, particularly in the hip, as I had been driving up to 50,000 Kilometres a year, in recent years. You see, sitting in the car, my foot which was turned out, was being forced to turn in as I drove. It caused me considerable discomfort, not only whenever I drove long distances, but also when I walked any distance on concrete paths. But God knows what his children need, so I responded, and now I walk with both feet forward, after fifty years of walking with one foot turned out. No more pain on long trips. Praise the Lord.
Enough of me, what evidence do I have of divine healing in others. As my walk with the Lord has grown, so has my faith to pray for healing. There have been numerous times when the Lord has honoured my prayer for a brother, or sister, to be healed, but Im only going to tell you about two of these times.
We were meeting for a Full Gospel Business Mens Fellowship Chapter meeting. Joe, and John, were coming from 130 kilometres away, because their chapter no longer met. The Holy Spirit moved me to go over to Joe, and to pray for him for the healing of a cancer. The others joined in the prayer. Joe had been tired when he entered the meeting, weighted down by the worries of his condition, but full of life when he left. When next I saw him, he said he had been to the doctors, who had X-rayed him. Where the growth had been evident in the previous X-rays, there was just a blank space. I have since been told, by someone in the medical profession, that a blank spot in an X-ray literally means there is nothing there; no flesh, no bone. and no growth. Only God can do that.
John was a business acquaintance. We had lunch a couple of times, and the subject of God had come up. John told me of the excruciating pain he had in his back. He was far from home, facing a three hour drive that afternoon. When we returned to my office, I took the time to share with him about divine healing, and I offered to pray for him. As I prayed, and placed my hand on his lower back the pain left him. Johns immediate response was "Brian, thats remarkable". I then shared with him about Jesus and he accepted the Lord, speaking the sinners prayer as I led him.
When next I heard from John, he told me how things had gone. He had no pain as he drove home, but he was a keen horseman. He felt so well, he went back to doing things just as he had done before, and after a few days the pain returned. He consulted a doctor, and was X-rayed. The doctor found that there was evidence of three recently cracked vertebrae, two of which were fully healed, but the third had not fully healed, no doubt due to Johns lifestyle, which included long distance, cross country, riding.
John acknowledged that he had caused the second injury, by returning to his sport a little too soon. You see, the Lord had healed him, but as a new Christian, he needed time for his faith to be established, and the healing to be fully established in his body. Sometimes healing is instantaneous, other times it is a process which the body must pass through. The Lord expects that we will exercise wisdom, as well as faith.
Im not going to tell you about the numerous times Ive prayed for the healing of my children, members of the family, or friends, and seen the miracles, as the Lord graciously answered my prayer. Ive seen the healing occur not only when Ive been with the sick person, but also at a distance. Im not going to tell you about these things, because you need know only one thing. What I will tell you is that the Lord is faithful. That He will answer prayer for healing. What He requires is faith to be in operation. So get your eyes off the circumstances, and believe. When a family member is ill, or in pain, lay hands on them, and pray for their complete healing.
Michael was not a young man, but he was fit, and full of faith. He has a beautiful tenor voice, and often sang in Church. While driving home one evening, he suffered a horrendous accident. A friend of mine, who was part of the rescue squad team who cut him free from the vehicle, said that they could not understand how it happened, as the vehicle was completely turned around, and headed in the wrong direction. Michael had no explanation, other than having seen a blinding light, all memory of that evening was completely erased from his memory.
While we dont know how it happened, the effects on Michael were devastating. The vehicle, a light flat-top truck, had apparently hit a tree. The bolts which held the tray body had sheared, and the body had hit the back of the cabin, striking Michael in the back of the head. The doctors were amazed that he was still alive, as the damage to the cabin suggested that he should have been decapitated. He could not speak, but his wife, a nurse at the hospital where he was admitted, told us that he could be heard constantly praying in tongues, even though he was not conscious.
The Church immediately mobilised in prayer for Michael. It took a long time for him to regain full health and mobility, but today Michael is a testimony to the healing power of God, and the prayers of the saints. He has been fully restored, and recently completed a long unaccompanied trip back to his native Ireland.
After the move began, I recall Michael attending a night prayer meeting. This was difficult for him, as for a long time, he was not permitted to drive at night, because of damage to his eyes. He became excited as the Spirit touched him, dancing, and showing us how his leg, which had not been fully useful, had been healed, and he had fully mobility. Not only did God do a physical work on him, step by step, over the months, he testifies that God also changed his heart during that time, teaching him to meet the needs of others. Praise the Lord, for God is a good God. He gives his children the desires of their heart.
vaya con Dios
curious98 answered on 10/12/03:
You have been put to trial by the Almighty and your Faith has saved you!
Thats wonderful!
And remember, as the saying goes faith can move mountains!!
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | dognap asked on 10/11/03 - Anti-religion? A young Muslim girl is suspended from shcool because she wears the hijab, the scarf worn by orthodox Muslim females.
Does the law have the power to order people with religious dress and jewellery customs to not wear them?
Do you know of any instances where pupils have been banned from wearing crosses and cricifixes?
I know of one case where teacher was banned from wearing a cross.
Do you agree that this is an unwarranted interference with a persons personal religion?
curious98 answered on 10/12/03:
I'm going to be very brief, exceptionally!
1 Yes, I've heard of similar situations where governments interfere with religious rights of different people.
Right now, there is a serious problem going on in France regarding whether or not little Muslim girls could wear their scarves or not.
But, it is not only in France. In Spain, we are having, every now and then, similar problems.
And this is not new.
This type of legal interference has happened quite often, unfortunately.
2 No, I do not believe in this sort of intervention from governments, and certainly less, in countries supposedly a-confessionals... where there should be freedom of cult.
If school managements and authorities do not deem it convenient to have a saying in the type of clothing conventional students are wearing at present (for instance, pants that lower the waitsline down to buttocks level!!), I do not see with which right they interfere in the use of some religious garments... on the other hand, quite harmless.
Which only proves freedom has not the same meaning for everybody, even in the same cuntry.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | graeylin asked on 10/08/03 - Ezekiel the prophet, part II:
Second part: WHat about Ezekiel's prophecy that King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon would destroy Egypt? That didn't occur either. Is that a false prophecy? if not, why not?
Ezek 29:10 NRSV) therefore, I am against you, and against your channels, and I will make the land of Egypt an utter waste and desolation, from Migdol to Syene, as far as the border of Ethiopia.
(Ezek 29:11 NRSV) No human foot shall pass through it, and no animal foot shall pass through it; it shall be uninhabited forty years.
(Ezek 29:12 NRSV) I will make the land of Egypt a desolation among desolated countries; and her cities shall be a desolation forty years among cities that are laid waste. I will scatter the Egyptians among
the nations, and disperse them among the countries.
(Ezek 30:10 NRSV) Thus says the Lord GOD: I will put an end to the hordes of Egypt, by the hand of King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon.
(Ezek 30:11 NRSV) He and his people with him, the most terrible of the nations, shall be brought in to destroy the land; and they shall draw their swords against Egypt, and fill the land with the slain.
Yet Egypt was not destroyed, it's people not scattered, it wasn't unihabitable for 40 years, etc. Basically, Babylonia didn't do much against the Egyptians. curious98 answered on 10/09/03:In my previous answer I have already pointed out what I think re. Ezequiels prophecy in connection with Egypt.
I think it would be good for you to read what my Encyclopaedia has to say re. O.T. prophecies in general.
Again, an historical and objective look at them.
The Hebrew word for prophet is navi', usually considered to be a loan word from Akkadian nabu, naba'um, to proclaim, mention, call, summon. Also occurring in Hebrew are hoze and ro'e, both meaning seer, and nevi'a (prophetess).Though the origins of Israelite prophecy have been much discussed, the textual evidence gives no information upon which to build a reconstruction. When the Israelites settled in Canaan, they became acquainted with Canaanite forms of prophecy. The structure of the prophetic and priestly function was very much the same in Israel and Canaan. Traditionally, the Israelite seer is considered to have originated in Israel's nomadic roots, and the navi' is considered to have originated in Canaan, though such judgments are virtually impossible to substantiate. In early Israelite history, the seer usually appears alone, but the navi' appears in the context of a prophetic circle. According to I Samuel, there was no difference between the two categories in that early time; the terms navi' and ro'e seem to be synonymous. In Amos, hoze and navi' are used for one and the same person. In Israel, prophets were connected with the sanctuaries. Among the Temple prophets officiating in liturgies were the Levitical guilds and singers: the sons of Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun, who are said to prophesy with lyres, with harps, and with cymbals (I Chronicles). Other prophetic guilds are also mentioned. Members of these guilds generally prophesied for money or gifts and were associated with such sanctuaries as Gibeah, Samaria, Bethel, Gilgal, Jericho, Jerusalem, and Ramah. Jeremiah mentions that the chief priest of Jerusalem was the supervisor of both priests and prophets, and that these prophets had rooms in the Temple buildings. In pre-Exilic Israel (before 587/586 BC), prophetic guilds were a social group as important as the priests. Isaiah includes the navi' and the qosem (diviner, soothsayer) among the leaders of Israelite society. Divination in the pre-Exilic period was not considered to be foreign to Israelite religion.In reconstructing the history of Israelite prophecy, the prophets Samuel, Gad, Nathan, and Elijah (11th to 9th centuries BC) have been viewed as representing a transitional stage from the so-called vulgar prophetism to the literary prophetism, which some scholars believed represented a more ethical and therefore a higher form of prophecy. The literary prophets also have been viewed as being antagonistic toward the cultus. Modern scholars recognized, however, that such an analysis is an oversimplification of an intricate problem. It is impossible to prove that the nevi'im did not emphasize ethics simply because few of their utterances are recorded. What is more, none of the so-called transitional prophets was a reformer or was said to have inspired reforms. Samuel was not only a prophet but also a priest, seer, and ruler (judge) who lived at a sanctuary that was the location of a prophetic guild and furthermore was the leader of that navi' guild. In the cases of Nathan and Gad there are no indications that they represented some new development in prophecy. Nathan's association with the priest Zadok, however, has led some scholars to suspect that Nathan was a Jebusite (an inhabitant of the Canaanite city of Jebus).Elijah was a prophet father (or prophet master) and a prophet priest. Much of his prophetic career was directed against the Tyrian Baal cult, which had become popular in the northern kingdom (Israel) during the reign (mid-9th century BC) of King Ahab and his Tyrian queen, Jezebel. Elijah's struggle against this cult indicated a religio-political awareness, on his part, of the danger to Yahweh worship in Israel; namely, that Baal of Tyre might replace Yahweh as the main god of Israel.The emergence of classical prophecy in Israel (the northern kingdom) and Judah (the southern kingdom) begins with Amos and Hosea (8th century BC). What is new in classical prophecy is its hostile attitude toward Canaanite influences in religion and culture, combined with an old nationalistic conception of Yahweh and his people. The reaction of these classical prophets against Canaanite influences in the worship of Yahweh is a means by which scholars distinguish Israel's classical prophets from other prophetic movements of their time. Essentially, the classical prophets wanted a renovation of the Yahweh cult, freeing it from all taint of worship of Baal and Asherah (Baal's female counterpart). Though not all aspects of the Baal-Asherah cult were completely eradicated, ideas and rituals from that cult were rethought, evaluated, and purified according to those prophets' concept of true Yahwism. Included in such ideas was the view that Yahweh was a jealous God who, according to the theology of the psalms, was greater than any other god. Yahweh had chosen Israel to be his own people and, therefore, did not wish to share his people with any other god. When the prophets condemned cultic phenomena, such condemnation reflected a rejection of certain kinds of cult and sacrificenamely, those sacrifices and festivals not exclusively directed to Yahweh but rather to other gods. The prophets likewise rejected liturgies incorrectly performed. The classical prophets did not reject all cults, per se; rather, they wanted a cultus ritually correct, dedicated solely to Yahweh, and productive of ethical conduct. Another important concept, accepted by the classical prophets, was that of Yahweh's choice of Zion (Jerusalem) as his cult site. Thus, every cult site of the northern kingdom of Israel and all the sanctuaries and bamot (high places) were roundly condemned, whether in Israel or Judah.Amos, whose oracles against the northern kingdom of Israel have been misunderstood as reflecting a negative attitude toward cultus per se, simply did not consider the royal cult of the northern kingdom at Bethel to be a legitimate Yahweh cult. Rather, like the prophet Hosea after him, Amos considered the Bethel cult to be Canaanite.Prophets of the ancient Middle East generally interjected their opinions and advice into the political arena of their countries, but in this regard the classical Hebrew prophets were perhaps more advanced than other prophetic movements. They interpreted the will of God within the context of their particular interpretation of Israel's history, and on the basis of this interpretation often arrived at a word of judgment. Important to that interpretation of history was the view that Israel was an apostate peoplehaving rejected a faith once confessedfrom the very earliest times, and the view that Yahweh's acts on behalf of his chosen people had been answered by their worship of other gods. In this situation, the prophets preached doom and judgment, and even the complete destruction of Israel. The source of prophetic insight into these matters is the cultic background of liturgical judgment and salvation, wherein Yahweh judged and destroyed his enemies, and in so doing created the ideal future. What is totally unexpected is that the prophets would go so far as to include Israel itself as among Yahweh's enemies, thus using these ideas against their own people. Usually, however, the prophets allowed some basis for hope in that a remnant would be left. The future of this remnant (Israel) lay in the reign of an ideal king (as described in Isaiah), indicating that the prophets were not antiroyalists. Though they could and did oppose individual kings, the prophets could not make a separation between Yahweh and the reign of his chosen king or dynasty. Their messianic ideology, referring to the messiah, or anointed one, is based on old royal ideology, and the ideal king is not an eschatological figure (one who appears at the end of history). In this respect, the prophets were nationalistic; they believed that the ideal kingdom would be in the promised land, and its centre would be Jerusalem.With the Exile of the Judaeans to Babylon of 586 BC, prophecy entered a new era. The prophecies of what is called Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 4045), for instance, were aimed at preserving Yahwism in Babylonia. His vision of the future went beyond the pre-Exilic concept of a remnant and extended the concept into a paradisiacal future wherein Yahweh's new creation would be a new Israel. This tone of optimism is continued in the prophetic activity (late 6th century BC) of Haggai and Zechariah, prophets who announced that Yahweh would restore the kingdom and the messianic vision would come to pass. Prerequisite to this messianic age was the rebuilding of the Temple (which was viewed as heaven on earth). When, however, the Temple had been rebuilt and long years had passed with neither the kingdom being restored nor the messianic age initiated, Israelite prophecy declined.There is a tendency in prophetic preaching to spiritualize those aspects of religion that remain unfulfilled; herein lie the roots of eschatology, which is concerned with the last times, and apocalyptic literature, which describes the intervention of God in history to the accompaniment of dramatic, cataclysmic events. Since the predictions of the classical prophets were not fulfilled in a messianic age within history, these visions were translated into a historical apocalypse, such as Daniel. Why prophecy died out in Israel is difficult to determine, but Zechariah offers as good an answer as any in saying that the prophets in those days told lies. Prophets did appear, but after Malachi none gained the status of the classical prophets. Another reason may be found in Ezra's reform of the cult in the 5th century BC, in which Yahwism was so firmly established that there was no longer any need for the old polemics against Canaanite religion.
Prophets are almost as old as mankind, and there have been others after the Biblic times, as you surely know. St. Hildegard and Joachim of Flore, Nostradamus, etc.
The problem with most prophecies (as it happens with Nostradamus, is that, depending, on who and how, their analysis may turn out to be quite prophetic or non at all. SO we better take most of them with a grain of salt
As for Egypt itself, it became a province of the Roman Empire from the 30 BC to the 400 AC. From the 400 AC to the 641 AC was the Bizantine/Coptic period, when Egypt became a province of the Byzantine Empire. From the 641 to the 900 AC, Egypt formed part of the Arab Empire, forming what is called the earlier Islamic Period. And from then until now, it is known as the Later Islamic Period.
So nothing happened to the Egyptians, as our colleague Drgade seems to imply, except that they suffered a number of invasions that altered their history, as it happened with practically all Mediterranean countries along history. As for the language, it was gradually lost to the Arab, which, after all, was the prevailing culture for the last 5 centuries.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 10/08/03 - Ezekiel the prophet: Didn't Ezekiel prophecy that Tyre would be destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar?
In the eleventh year, on the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came to me: (Ezek 26:1NRSV)
For thus says the Lord GOD: I will bring against Tyre from the north King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, king of kings, together with horses, chariots, cavalry, and a great and powerful army. (Ezek 26:7 NRSV)
I will make you a bare rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets. You shall never again be rebuilt, for I the LORD
have spoken, says the Lord GOD. (Ezek 26:14 NRSV)
In their wailing they raise a lamentation for you, and lament over you: "Who was ever destroyed like Tyre in the midst of the sea? (Ezek 27:32 NRSV)
But, 13 years later, Tyre still stands (and still exists to this day). Nebuchadrezzar failed in his attempt to destroy it. Doesn't that make this a false prophecy? If not, why?
Even in the Bible later, Ezekiel says this about the events: In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came to me: (Ezek 29:17 NRSV) Mortal, King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon made his army labor hard against Tyre; every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed bare; yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor that he had expended against it. (Ezek 29:18 NRSV)
Says here that Nebuchadrezzar basically failed in his attempt, and got nothing for it.
curious98 answered on 10/09/03:Hi there,
Well, the approximate date of composition of the Ezequiel book is estimated to be in the 6th century BC, as I say below. On the other hand, the siege of Tyre by Nebuchadrezzar its estimated to end by the 571 BC. So Ezequiel is actually narrating some event he has witnessed.
But lets analyse a little bit more the book of Ezekiel. The middle section of Ezekiel contains a series of what are known as "Oracles Against Foreign Nations" (chs. 25-32). All of the major prophetic books contain these. They are indictments against surrounding nations, often listing their crimes against humanity and sins against God, as a way to universalise accountability to God. They are highly stylized and poetic, but often contain specific predictions of the judgment of God against those nations for their self-sufficient arrogance, pride, and worship of false gods. Often the nations are evaluated specifically in terms of how they have treated Israel as Gods people.
An unusual feature of these oracles in Ezekiel is that they are dated, rather than simply being stereotyped and stylized generic judgment speeches. This relates these prophetic oracles to particular historical circumstances, which also explains why so many of them are very specific in terms of historical predictions. Ezekiel was clearly interpreting history as it was unfolding in front of him in the light of what he understood about God.
The oracles fall between 588 and 586 BC, with one dated 571 BC, the very same date as the siege of Tyre! But, we shouldnt forget this was an extremely traumatic and pivotal time in Israels history. There was a lot happening. The Babylonians had consolidated their empire through a series of strong leaders, and were in the process of incorporating most of the Eastern Mediterranean into that empire, with dreams of extending their control into Egypt.
Israel lay between Babylon and Egypt and was in great peril. Compounding the fact that Israel was far outclassed militarily, there had been a series of weak and godless leaders since the aborted attempt at reform by Josiah in 621 BC. This had undermined the nations commitment to God, and allowed a false sense of security to develop that prevented them from hearing prophets like Jeremiah and Ezekiel ("[they] have ears, but do not hear," Jer 5:21, cf. 25:4).
The Babylonians destroyed the Assyrian empire in 612 BC, and pushed south toward Egypt, and Israel. Because of failed political manoeuvring, Israel became a vassal state of Babylon in 605 BC. There was discontent and simmering nationalism, however, which led to rebellion against Babylonian control. After years of struggle, the Babylonians took Jerusalem in 598 BC, deported a number of Israelite leaders to Babylon, and set a puppet king over Israel. Unrest continued with political intrigue that included rebellion prompted by attempted alliances with several surrounding nations.
Finally, in 586 the Babylonians sent a large army into Palestine to put an end to the rebellions. As a result Jerusalem was totally destroyed and a second wave of deportees were taken to Babylon. Several other nations were also disciplined for their part in the ongoing turmoil.
Ezekiel was among the first deportees and probably wrote much of the book from the perspective of exile in Babylon between the first deportation in 598 and the destruction of Jerusalem in 586. The oracles in question came from the period immediately preceding the destruction of Jerusalem as Nebuchadnezzar marched south from Assyria along the Mediterranean coast via Tyre and Sidon before he turned toward Jerusalem on his way to Egypt.
The specific oracle under consideration is against the Phoenician city of Tyre in Ezekiel 26, and is dated 586, when Ezekiel could very well anticipate Nebuchadnezzars plans to besiege Tyre. To understand this oracle, we also need to know a little about Tyre. Tyre was a major seaport for the world renowned sailors and merchants, the Phoenicians. It was a wealthy city since it was the primary commercial seaport in the Eastern Mediterranean linking shipping to Cyprus, Italy, Greece, Spain, and North Africa with land caravans from Arabia, Babylon, Persia, and as far east as India.
At this time, the main part of Tyre was an island city about a mile off the coast of what is now Lebanon. There were smaller villages on the mainland, but the city itself was an offshore seaport. Because of its location, it could be easily defended and could be re-supplied from the sea.
Now, note Ezekiels prediction about the destruction of Tyre at the hands of the Babylonians.
26:3 therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves. 26:4 They shall destroy the walls of Tyre, and break down her towers; and I will scrape her soil from her, and make her a bare rock. 26:5 She shall be in the midst of the sea a place for the spreading of nets; for I have spoken, says the Lord GOD; and she shall become a spoil to the nations; 26:6 and her daughters on the mainland shall be slain by the sword. Then they will know that I am the LORD.
This is a rather unambiguous prediction. The city will be totally destroyed, including the city walls and defensive towers. The city would be levelled like a rock. In typical prophetic fashion, there is an interesting word play here, since the Hebrew word for Tyre means "rock," the city of "Rock" will become a bare rock. The mainland villages ("her daughters") will also be destroyed. This is all put under the rubric of the prophetic word that comes from God: "I have spoken" and "says Yahweh." All of this will be a sign that God is indeed God.
But the oracle goes on:
26:7 "For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers. 26:8 He will slay with the sword your daughters on the mainland; he will set up a siege wall against you, and throw up a mound against you, and raise a roof of shields against you. 26:9 He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. 26:10 His horses will be so many that their dust will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen and wagons and chariots, when he enters your gates as one enters a city which has been breached. 26:11 With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people with the sword; and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground. 26:12 They will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise; they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters. 26:13 And I will stop the music of your songs, and the sound of your lyres shall be heard no more. 26:14 I will make you a bare rock; you shall be a place for the spreading of nets; you shall never be rebuilt; for I the LORD have spoken, says the Lord GOD
In case there was any ambiguity in the first oracle, this one is even more specific. It is not just "many nations" who will plunder Tyre. It will be a specific nation, Babylonia, and a specific king, Nebuchadrezzar. It seems fairly obvious here that Ezekiel had heard reports of the Babylonian march southward, and he predicts, as a prophet of God, what will unfold as Nebuchadnezzars army punishes the nations for their rebellion. (Im of the opinion Ezequiel here behaves more like a modern journalist than as a prophet, for he even mentions the name of the king, whom, of course, he knew quite well). They will lay siege to Tyre, take the city and destroy it, kill its inhabitants, and loot its riches (which was a way to pay soldiers in the ancient world). He goes so far as to say that after its destruction, Tyre will never again be rebuilt. There are actually a series of such oracles that continue through chapter 28.
So, here is a very specific prediction more than a prophecy, as I see it- coming from a particular historical circumstance, but couched in all the traditional prophetic formulae that say this is a "word" from the Lord. The problem is that very little of this actually came to pass! In fact, it badly missed how history actually unfolded.
We know from other historical records, including our friend, the Jewish historian Josephus Flavius, that Nebuchadnezzar did, indeed, take and destroy the mainland part of the city, and then lay siege to the island city of Tyre. However, the Babylonian army was a land based army with no ships, which made it very difficult to lay siege effectively to an island fortress that had an armada of ships at its disposal. Nebuchadnezzar spent 13 years in the siege of Tyre and was never able to take the city. He finally abandoned the attempt sometime in 573/572 and put his resources into the invasion of Egypt, having already destroyed the Israelite stronghold in Jerusalem.
The city of Tyre did pass into Babylonian vassalage, but that was the result of a negotiated settlement that required tribute, a form of taxation (or extortion). The city of Tyre was not destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar or the Babylonians, and in fact continued to thrive as a commercial center.
Now, some who want to maintain the absolute inerrancy of biblical prophecy point to the fact that Tyre was eventually destroyed, and so the accuracy of Ezekiels prophecy is vindicated. Tyre was, indeed, destroyed in 332 BC by the Greek Alexander of Macedon (Alexander the Great). He used the ingenious tactic of using rubble from the destroyed mainland settlements to build a causeway to the island, providing a land bridge for his troops. Since that time, Tyre has no longer been an island, now connected to the mainland by a narrow isthmus.
So, the inerrantists would claim, the prophecy was really a long range prediction even though Ezekiel himself made it look like a short range prediction. But this raises another whole series of serious problems, and sounds far more like the rationalization of a position in spite of contrary evidence than it does a careful analysis of the biblical text. There are still several aspects of the Ezekiel prophecy unresolved.
1) Even though Alexander did, indeed, destroy the city of Tyre, it was immediately rebuilt and became an important Greek, and later Roman, seaport. It still exists today as a resort city of Lebanon. This clearly violates Ezekiels judgment that it would never be rebuilt and become a bare rock upon which to dry fishnets.
2) There is no internal rationale for changing the specific reference to Babylonians and assume that it really means Greeks, or to change Nebuchadnezzar to Alexander. If the text were inerrant in the way that many claim it to be, then we should be able to read "Greeks" and "Alexander" here. Again, this sounds suspiciously like an attempt to preserve a certain view of prophecy that the evidence will not support.
3) There are serious implications about the nature of Scripture and revelation (and God!) involved here. To maintain the "long range" view, Ezekiel, facing one urgent historical situation for which the people needed an immediate word from the Lord, actually and unknowingly addressed a situation 250 years in the future, spoke of a nation that had not yet emerged on the scene of world history, referred to persons and events for which he could have no direct knowledge, and predicted world events that involved huge shifts in how history unfolded from his own time. In other words, the only way this position can be maintained is to affirm both that history is predetermined, and that Scripture is verbally given to the prophet without any awareness on his part of the actual meaning of what he was being told (100% God!). In fact, it even deceives him into thinking he was actually talking about his own situation when in fact he was talking about a situation centuries in the future. This, as it often does, assumes as certain and 100% foolproof the principle of inspiration of the Scriptures in order to maintain its inerrancy, which is then used in a circular fashion, to confirm the same theories of inspiration.
4) Even beyond that, there is some sense that Ezekiel was himself worse than in the dark about his own prophecy. He seems to have rather badly misunderstood his own message, because he seems to believe that he is talking about the Babylonians and Nebuchadnezzar, when in reality, according to this view, he is talking about the Greeks and Alexander. This raises other serious questions about how we at any time in history can understand Gods work in the world. This seems to make Scripture more obscure than it makes it more authoritative.
5) What good is a prophetic word, or Scripture, if it has little or no meaning for 200 or 1,000 or 2,000 years when the precise "fulfilment" finally comes about? This reduces Gods word to a puzzle to be solved, or something that has little relevance to ordinary living because there is no way to tell, until after the "fulfilment," whether it has any meaning for today or not. It is not a living word that shapes how Gods people live their life as His people now, but is, at best, only a pregnant word with some potential that we may or may not understand, and may never live to see. The word of God is not redemptive for Gods people in on ongoing way, but is reduced to the level of proof to bolster our own criteria of validation.
All this says that to attempt to relate this prophecy to events 250 years later simply to vindicate a certain view of prophecy is not valid, and borders on not dealing with the biblical text honestly.
But there is even more compelling evidence from within Scripture itself as you already point out- indeed, from Ezekiel himself, that this view is deficient. In 571 BC, 2 years or so after Nebuchadnezzar abandoned the siege of Tyre and it had become obvious to everyone that he would not be able to destroy the city, Ezekiel gives another prophecy (I would call it a news report rather) concerning Tyre.
29:17 In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came to me: 29:18 "Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon made his army labour hard against Tyre; every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed bare; yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labour that he had performed against it. 29:19 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall carry off its wealth and despoil it and plunder it; and it shall be the wages for his army. 29:20 I have given him the land of Egypt as his recompense for which he laboured, because they worked for me, says the Lord GOD
Here, Ezekiel rather frankly acknowledges Nebuchadnezzars failure to take Tyre even though he laboured hard trying to do so (13 years!). So Ezekiel, seemingly without any embarrassment at the failure of his original prophecy, simply changed it after the fact to fit the historical situation as it had actually unfolded. We might go on and would see that his prophecy re. Egypt did not turn out to be true either!
Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel saw the Babylonian invasion as part of the out working of the consequences of Israels sins and repeated failure to serve and trust God. While God had fought for Israel in the past, both prophets vigorously proclaim, "Not this time!" So the Babylonians are unwittingly serving the purposes of God in the world, and the prophets conceptualise them as actually in the employ of God. And if they are working for God, God needs to pay their wages. Since they did not get anything from Tyre for their labour, Ezekiel affirms that God will allow them to be paid from the riches of Egypt (29:20).
Now, we do not know from historical records whether the Babylonians ever sacked Egypt. History is silent on this point. But it doesnt matter. The issue was never whether or not a certain historical event would unfold exactly in the specific way any particular prophet predicted that it would. History simply does not work that way, and that is not really the task of a prophet. The issue had always been the truth of what Ezekiel was proclaiming to the people about God and their responsibility and accountability to Him as their covenantal God. The prophet's role was to help the people respond faithfully to God in their own time. So, Ezekiel could change his prediction, and even admit that he got it wrong, because, finally, the historical prediction was not his message!
What is even more amazing is that the community of faith, perceptive enough to know that this failure was in the Ezekiel tradition, did not attempt to gloss it over or change it to fit some modern ideas of inerrancy and the absolute infallibility of prophetic prediction to fit within a certain view of how God orders the world. In other words, the community of faith who collected together Ezekiels writings and oracles saw no problem in preserving this failure, even though they most likely knew about the criteria in Deuteronomy (18:22). They saw no problem because, I suggest, they understood that "prediction of the future" is not primarily what a prophet does, is not the final or only or most important test of a prophet of God, and because they had no need to establish or maintain any dimension of inerrancy.
And the important fact is, Ezekiel was right! He was not right about all of his historical predictions. But he was right in that the message he proclaimed about the nation of Israel, its responsibilities to God, and the consequences of their failure to respond to God in faithfulness was proven true in the flow of history (which is the heart of the Deuteronomy 18 passage). That is, the community could look back at Ezekiel, and Jeremiah, and understand that they had faithfully borne witness to God, even though virtually no one listened to them at the time. They knew that not every historical prediction, or even most of them, directly corresponded to some specific historical event. But the community understood Ezekiels proclamation about God and His work with humanity, as they verified it in their own historical experience, to be a faithful witness to God.
Of what Im, therefore, convinced is that rather than actually believing they were receiving the Gods word some of the O.T. prophets, were exceptionally bright persons for their time, who believed that by conveying a so called prophecy with a message direct from God, they contributed to make their people walk the line, which they, so often, tended to forget
Best regards
Curious98
PS.: All the above considerations are, of course, based on historical evidence you can find in any good Ancient History of Encyclopaedia. | | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 10/08/03 - A little different "why do you think" question So, to stay away from trying to figure out God's motive in doing something (and avoid the "Who can question God?" answer), here's one that questions human beings' motives:
Why do YOU think that (prctically) no one in Christ's time wrote down anything about him? Why did none of Christ's own disciples write down their travels, lessons, etc.? (or if they did, what do you think happened to their writings?). Why did we (as human civilization/society) wait so long after the events to record them? What are your thoughts/theories? curious98 answered on 10/08/03:
In my candid opinion, the explanation is rather simple. Jesus grow up as any other Jew of his social working class most probably ignoring His own Divinity until the moment, when His Father launched Him, so to speak, into His short public life, when he met the Apostles for the first time and initiated his long way to the Cross.
If we accept that premise, it is not surprising that we know nothing other than a lot of speculative writings based on fantasy more than on historical facts, for the simple reason that these do not exist- because:
a) the History of Israel in Jesus time (even though, my Jewish friends may resent my saying so) is just a few pages within the history of Rome.
b) From any ancient Historians viewpoint (like Josephus, for one) there were many more important events in those days to report than the death of a man, who, at least officially and for the majority of the people of His time, had been justly punished for high treason.
c) As for the Apostles, they were not what we could say, very learned persons and fond of writing. They were, probably more concerned with what they have been given to witness of Jesus life and death, while trying to digest it.
d) So we have to await until the Evangelists and, to a great extent, St. Paul, started to produce literature about Jesus.
We should not forget that the earliest criticism of orthodox dogma came in the age of the Reformation, not from the reformers but from the left wing of the Reformation, from Michael Servetus (1511?53) and the Socinians. This criticism was directed against the presence of nonbiblical concepts and terms in the dogma, and it was intent upon safeguarding the true humanity of Jesus as a moral example.
There were many inconsistencies in this criticism, such as the willingness of Servetus to call Jesus Son of God and the Socinian custom of addressing prayer and worship to him. But it illustrates the tendency, which became more evident in the Enlightenment, to use the Reformation protest against Catholicism as a basis for a protest against orthodox dogma as well.
While that tendency did not gain much support in the 16th century because of the orthodoxy of the reformers, later criticism of orthodox Christology was able to wield the Protestant principle against the dogma of the two natures on the grounds that this was a consistent application of what the reformers had done. Among the ranks of the Protestant laity, the hymnody and the catechetical instruction of the Protestant churches assured continuing support for the orthodox dogma. Indeed, the doctrine of Atonement by the vicarious satisfaction of Christ's death has seldom been expressed as amply as it was in the hymns and catechisms of both the Lutheran and the Reformed churches. During the period of Pietism in the Protestant churches, this loyalty to orthodox teaching was combined with a growing emphasis upon the humanity of Jesus, also expressed in the hymnody of the time.
When theologians began to criticize orthodox ideas of the person and work of Christ, therefore, they met with opposition from the common people. Albert Schweitzer dates the development of a critical attitude from the work of H.S. Reimarus (16941768), but Reimarus was representative of the way the Enlightenment treated the traditional view of Jesus. The books of the Bible were to be studied just as other books are, and the life of Jesus was to be drawn from them by critically sifting and weighing the evidence of the Gospels. The Enlightenment thus initiated the modern interest in the life of Jesus, with its detailed attention to the problem of the relative credibility of the Gospel records. It has been suggested by some historians that the principal target of Enlightenment criticism was not the dogma of the two natures but the doctrine of the vicarious Atonement.
The leaders of Enlightenment thought did not make a sudden break with traditional ideas, but gave up belief in miracles, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and the Second Advent only gradually. Their principal importance for the history of the doctrine of Christ consists in the fact that they made the historical study of the sources for the life of Jesus an indispensable element of any Christology. Although the Enlightenment of the 18th century was the beginning of the break with orthodox teachings about Jesus Christ, it was only in the 19th century that this break attracted wide support among theologians and scholars in many parts of Christendomeven, for a while, among the Modernists of the Roman Catholic Church. Two works of the 19th century were especially influential in their rejection of orthodox Christology. One was the Life of Jesus, first published in 1835 by David Friedrich Strauss; the other, bearing the same title, was first published by Ernest Renan in 1863. Strauss's work paid more attention to the growth of Christian ideashe called them mythsabout Jesus as the basis for the picture we have in the Gospels, while Renan attempted to account for Jesus' career by a study of his inner psychological life in relation to his environment.
Both works achieved wide circulation and were translated into other languages, including English. They took up the Enlightenment contention that the sources for the life of Jesus were to be studied as other sources are, and what they constructed on the basis of the sources was a type of biography in the modern sense of the word. In addition to Strauss and Renan, the 19th century saw the publication of a plethora of books about the life and teachings of Jesus. Each new hypothesis regarding the problem of the Synoptic Gospels implied a reconstruction of the life and message of Jesus.
The fundamental assumption for most of this work on the life and teachings of Jesus was a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. Another favourite way of putting the distinction was to speak of the religion of Jesus in antithesis to the religion about Jesus. This implied that Jesus was a man like other men, but with a heightened awareness of the presence and power of God. Then the dogma of the church had mistaken this awareness for a metaphysical statement that Jesus was the Son of God and had thus distorted the original simplicity of his message. Some critics went so far as to question the very historicity of Jesus, but even those who did not go that far questioned the historicity of some of the sayings and deeds attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. In part this effort grew out of the general concern of 19th-century scholarship with the problem of history, but it also reflected the religious and ethical assumptions of the theologians. Many of them were influenced by the moral theories of Kant in their estimate of what was permanent about the teachings of Jesus, and by the historical theories of Hegel in the way they related the original message of Jesus to the Christian interpretations of that message by later generations of Christians.
The ideas of evolution and of natural causality associated with the science of the 19th century also played a part through the naturalistic explanations of the biblical miracles. And the historians of dogma, climaxing in Adolf von Harnack (18511931), used their demonstration of the dependence of ancient Christology upon non-Christian sources for its concepts and terminology to reinforce their claim that Christianity had to get back from the Christ of dogma to the essence of Christianity in the teachings of Jesus about the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.
This said, however, it is a most extraordinary thing that no other personage, historical or mythological, has produced so many tons of written pages as Jesus, which probably accounts for His Divine Nature
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 10/06/03 - Is there extra biblical record of Herod's slaying of newborns? Is there any record of the slayings of all newborns by Herod outside the Bible? Did any contemporary historians capture that event? I know that Josephus (who chronicled much of Herod's life) did not ever mention this event. Did anyone else? curious98 answered on 10/08/03:Hi Graelyn
In any History of Rome if good enough- you will find references to the 3 Herods appearing in the Bible. Of course, Flavio Josephus also had to mention him. Josephus was confirmed Jew that had by no means abandoned his Judaism. His greatest work, Antiquitates Judaicae (The Antiquities of the Jews), completed in 20 books in AD 93, traces the history of the Jews from creation to just before the outbreak of the revolt of AD 6670. It was an attempt to present Judaism to the Hellenistic world in a favourable light. By virtually ignoring the Prophets, by embellishing biblical narratives, and by stressing the rationality of Judaic laws and institutions, he stripped Judaism of its fanaticism and made it appealing to the cultivated and reasonable Roman man. Historically, the coverage is patchy and shows the fatigue of the author, then in his middle 50s. But throughout, sources are preserved that otherwise would have been lost, and, for Jewish history during the period of the Second Commonwealth, the work is invaluable. BTW, The Antiquities contains two famous references to Jesus Christ: the one in Book XX calls him the so-called Christ. The implication in the passage in Book XVIII of Christ's divinity could not have come from Josephus and undoubtedly represents the tampering (if not invention) of a later Christian copyist.
But the following does not belong to Josephus but to the History of Rome. Rome had been growing and strengthening during the Hasmonean Period. In 161 BCE, near the beginning of the Hasmonean Period, Judah the Maccabee had made a treaty with Rome.
Corruption within the Hasmonean family speeded the fall of the Hasmonean Empire. Aristoboulos, a typical Hasmonean "loving son," declared himself High Priest-King thirty minutes before the death of his mother the queen. His brother, John Hyrcanus, felt his brother hadn't played fair. He revolted against him. By 67 BCE there was civil war in Judea , and the land was ripe for conquest. Rome took advantage of the situation. John Hyrcanus allied himself with Rome under General Pompey. Together, they succeeded in smashing most of Aristobulos' forces in 63 BCE. John and Pompey entered Jerusalem unopposed, but the Temple Mount, with its own fortifications, posed some problems. It took three months to take the Temple, and Rome gained control of Judea.
Confusion ensued. Rome was in a state of flux, with power struggles between Pompey and Julius Caesar; Caesar won. Julius Caesar appointed a governor to keep watch over the country, the son of an Idumean who had been forced to covert to Judaism, a man named Herod. After Caesar's death, Cassius, Mark Antony, and Octavian all struggled for control of the Roman Empire. They all kept Herod in power.
The Hasmonean family wasn't willing to give up, and, with the support of the Parthians (a nation in Asia Minor), there was a mini-revolt which was brutally suppressed.
After putting down the Judean/Parthian revolt against their rule, Rome appointed Herod king of Judea. Herod had complete authority, and he used it ruthlessly. He established an enormous secret police force, brutally killed anyone suspected of plotting against him, and created Roman peace by slaughtering all dissidents.
Herod controlled the sacrificial cult by placing a lackey in the position of High Priest. In any of his appointees was foolish enough to displease him, Herod killed him and replaced him with another lackey.
The vast majority of popular tourist sites in present-day Israel were originally built by Herod. Herod was security conscious. He built fortresses throughout the land just in case he should ever need sanctuary. These included Sabaste in the Hills of Ephraim, the central region of Israel; Herodium, just east of Bethlehem; and Jericho. Each of these fortresses was architecturally unique.
Sabaste was originally called Samaria. It had been the capital of Israel during the Divided Kingdom, and Samaria became the name for the entire northern region. Herod built over the ruins of Samaria, which had been built atop a mountain. He ordered the construction of an enormous colonnade of imported marble starting from the base of the mountain and rising to the summit.
The mountain Herod had chosen for the fortress Herodium was too low. Herod has his architects raise the summit and build his palace inside this man-made cone. It is generally believed that Herod was buried in Herodium, but no grave was ever found. Equally puzzling is the fact that archaeologists have been unable to discover a water source there.
To supply water for the Jericho fortress, Herod had an enormous aqueduct built which carried water from Ein Kelt.
One of Herod's greatest building projects was in Jerusalem. He wanted to enlarge and embellish the Temple, but the mountain on which Solomon had built the First Temple and on which Zachariah and Haggai had built the Second was just too small for his plans. That didn't stop Herod. He dramatically increased the size of the Temple Mount by constructing huge encasement walls and filling them in with pure dirt, creating a large trapezoid. He was then able to proceed with his architectural plans to enlarge the Temple and its courtyards.
Herod protected the Temple Mount with a large military fortress called Antonia, honoring Mark Antony. He protected the western entrance of Jerusalem (and, incidentally, his villa situated there) with a huge tri-towered fortress called the Citadel. The Citadel loomed over the wealthy part of town, called the Upper City.
Herod's most famous fortress was Masada. Located on the shores of the Dead Sea, Masada was built on a high plateau. Access was only along a steep, sharply winding path called the Snake Path. At the top, Herod had two palaces: a magnificent three-tiered northern palace complete with columns and frescoes offered a spectacular view of the Dead Sea. A larger mosaic- decorated western palace was probably planned as an administrative headquarters.
Herod's architects created water channels and cisterns to provide drinking water during the long, dry summers. Huge storehouses guaranteed food in case of siege. A strong casemate wall enclosed the entire summit of the plateau. It was an awesome fortress and appeared to be invulnerable.
Herod's projects were built through the use of thousands of Jews as forced laborers moving enormous blocks of limestone. Many of these blocks weighed more than ten tons. Because of his despotic actions, the Jews despised and feared Herod. Even projects that he commissioned to endear him to the people failed to change their hatred for him.
Herod continued to build. In honor of Octavian (Augustus Caesar), Herod took the ancient port city of Straton's Tower just south of Haifa and renamed it Caesarea. There he created a deep sea port, surrounded the city with a wall, and constructed an amphitheater. To supply the port with ample water, Herod build another enormous aqueduct.
Although Herod was a terrible tyrant, his buildings and fortresses remain awesome architectural achievements even today.
The following is his biography from my Britannia Encyclopaedia, and that of his 2 main sons.
born 73 BC died March/April, 4 BC, Jericho, Judaea byname Herod the Great, Latin Herodes Magnus Roman-appointed king of Judaea (374 BC), who built many fortresses, aqueducts, theatres, and other public buildings and generally raised the prosperity of his land but who was the centre of political and family intrigues in his later years. The New Testament portrays him as a tyrant, into whose kingdom Jesus of Nazareth was born.Herod was born in southern Palestine; his father, Antipater, was an Edomite (an Arab from the region between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba). Antipater was a man of great influence and wealth, who increased both by marrying the daughter of a noble from Petra (in southwestern Jordan), at that time the capital of the rising Nabataean kingdom. Thus Herod was, although a practicing Jew, of Arab origin on both sides. When Pompey (10648 BC) invaded Palestine in 63 BC, Antipater supported his campaign and began a long association with Rome, from which both he and Herod were to benefit. Six years later Herod met Mark Antony, whose lifelong friend he was to remain. Julius Caesar also favoured the family; he appointed Antipater procurator of Judaea in 47 BC and conferred on him Roman citizenship, an honour that descended to Herod and his children. Herod made his political debut in the same year, when his father appointed him governor of Galilee. Six years later Mark Antony made him tetrarch of Galilee. In 40 BC the Parthians invaded Palestine, civil war broke out, and Herod was forced to flee to Rome. The senate there nominated him king of Judaea and equipped him with an army to make good his claim. In the year 37 BC, at the age of 36, Herod became unchallenged ruler of Judaea, a position he was to maintain for 32 years. To further solidify his power, he divorced his first wife, Doris, sent her and his son away from court, and married Mariamne, a Hasmonean princess. Although the union was directed at ending his feud with the Hasmoneans, a priestly family of Jewish leaders, he was deeply in love with Mariamne.During the conflict between the two triumvirs Octavian and Antony, the heirs to Caesar's power, Herod supported his friend Antony. He continued to do so even when Antony's mistress, Cleopatra, the queen of Egypt, used her influence with Antony to gain much of Herod's best land. After Antony's final defeat at Actium in 31 BC, he frankly confessed to the victorious Octavian which side he had taken. Octavian, who had met Herod in Rome, knew that he was the one man to rule Palestine as Rome wanted it ruled and confirmed him king. He also restored to Herod the land Cleopatra had taken. Herod became the close friend of Augustus' great minister Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, after whom one of his grandsons and one of his great-grandsons were named. Both the emperor and the minister paid him state visits, and Herod twice again visited Italy. Augustus gave him the oversight of the Cyprus copper mines, with a half share in the profits. He twice increased Herod's territory, in the years 22 and 20 BC, so that it came to include not only Palestine but parts of what are now the kingdom of Jordan to the east of the river and southern Lebanon and Syria. He had intended to bestow the Nabataean kingdom on Herod as well, but, by the time that throne fell vacant, Herod's mental and physical deterioration made it impossible.Herod endowed his realm with massive fortresses and splendid cities, of which the two greatest were new, and largely pagan, foundations: the port of Caesarea Palaestinae on the coast between Joppa (Jaffa) and Haifa, which was afterward to become the capital of Roman Palestine; and Sebaste on the long-desolate site of ancient Samaria. In Jerusalem he built the fortress of Antonia, portions of which may still be seen beneath the convents on the Via Dolorosa, and a magnificent palace (of which part survives in the citadel). His most grandiose creation was the Temple, which he wholly rebuilt. The great outer court, 35 acres (14 hectares) in extent, is still visible as Al-Haram ash-Sharif. He also embellished foreign citiesBeirut, Damascus, Antioch, Rhodesand many towns. Herod patronized the Olympic Games, whose president he became. In his own kingdom he could not give full rein to his love of magnificence, for fear of offending the Pharisees, the leading faction of Judaism, with whom he was always in conflict because they regarded him as a foreigner. Herod undoubtedly saw himself not merely as the patron of grateful pagans but also as the protector of Jewry outside of Palestine, whose Gentile hosts he did all in his power to conciliate.Unfortunately, there was a dark and cruel streak in Herod's character that showed itself increasingly as he grew older. His mental instability, moreover, was fed by the intrigue and deception that went on within his own family. Despite his affection for Mariamne, he was prone to violent attacks of jealousy; his sister Salome (not to be confused with her great-niece, Herodias' daughter Salome) made good use of his natural suspicions and poisoned his mind against his wife in order to wreck the union. In the end Herod murdered Mariamne, her two sons, her brother, her grandfather, and her mother, a woman of the vilest stamp who had often aided his sister Salome's schemes. Besides Doris and Mariamne, Herod had eight other wives and had children by six of them. He had 14 children.In his last years Herod suffered from arteriosclerosis. He had to repress a revolt, became involved in a quarrel with his Nabataean neighbours, and finally lost the favour of Augustus. He was in great pain and in mental and physical disorder. He altered his will three times and finally disinherited and killed his firstborn, Antipater. The slaying, shortly before his death, of the infants of Bethlehem was wholly consistent with the disarray into which he had fallen. After an unsuccessful attempt at suicide, Herod died. His final testament provided that, subject to Augustus' sanction, his realm would be divided among his sons: Archelaus should be king of Judaea and Samaria, with Philip and Antipas sharing the remainder as tetrarchs._
Herod Archelaus
born 22 BC, Judaea died c. AD 18, , Gaul son and principal heir of Herod I the Great as king of Judaea, deposed by Rome because of his unpopularity with the Jews.Named in his father's will as ruler of the largest part of the Judaean kingdomJudaea proper, Idumaea, and SamariaArchelaus went to Rome (4 BC) to defend his title against the claims of his brothers Philip and Antipas before the emperor Augustus. Augustus confirmed him in possession of the largest portion but did not recognize him as king, giving him instead the lesser title of ethnarch to emphasize his dependence on Rome.Archelaus was half Idumaean and half Samaritan and, like his father, was considered an alien oppressor by his Jewish subjects. Their repeated complaints against him caused Augustus to order him to Rome again in AD 6. After a trial in which he was unsuccessfully defended by the future emperor Tiberius, he was deprived of his throne and exiled to Gaul.In the account of the Gospel According to Matthew (2:22), it was fear of Archelaus' tyranny that led Jesus' family to settle outside his domain at Nazareth in Galilee_
Herod Antipas
born 21 BC died AD 39 son of Herod I the Great who became tetrarch of Galilee and ruled throughout Jesus of Nazareth's ministry.Around 4 BC Herod Antipas inherited part of his father's kingdom after the Roman emperor Augustus had adjusted his father's will. He restored the damage caused in the period between his father's death and the approval of the will, restoring two towns, one of which he renamed in honour of the Roman imperial family.He divorced his Nabataean wife, daughter of the king of the desert kingdom adjoining his own, to marry Herodias, formerly the wife of his half brother. The marriage offended his former father-in-law and alienated his Jewish subjects. When John the Baptist, one of his subjects, reproached Herod for this marriage, Herodias goaded her husband into imprisoning him. Still unmollified, she inveigled her daughter, Salome, to ask for the Baptist's head in return for dancing at her stepfather's birthday feast. Antipas reluctantly beheaded John, and later, when Jesus' miracles were reported to him, he believed that John the Baptist had been resurrected. When Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem, Pilate, the Roman procurator of Judaea, first sent him to Antipas, who was spending Passover in the capital, because Jesus came from Antipas' realm. The Tetrarch was eager to see Jesus, expecting more miracles, but soon returned him to Pilate, unwilling to pass judgment.Some time earlier, Antipas had built the city of Tiberias on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, partly modelling it after a Greek city, but though he erected statues in the Greek manner in his palace, his coins bore no images. He also encouraged the Herodians, well-to-do Jews who supported him and were tolerant of Roman authority.Herod's closeness to the imperial family resulted in his choice as a mediator in the RomanParthian talks of 36. To his credit the conference was a success, but Antipas' haste to report the news to Rome aroused the hostility of Aulus Vitellius, legate of Syria, later emperor. Around 37, the Nabataean king Aretas IV, whose daughter Antipas had repudiated, attacked Herod's realm, inflicting severe damage. When the Tetrarch appealed to Rome, the Emperor sent Vitellius, who, still nursing his resentment, availed himself of every possible delay. After Caligula became emperor in 37, Herodias, envious of her brother Agrippa I's success, persuaded her husband to denounce him before the Emperor, but the intended victim, Caligula's close friend, anticipated Antipas and levied charges, partially true, against him. Caligula banished Antipas to Gaul, where Herodias accompanied him, and her brother added the tetrarchy to his domains"
.
This is about as much that can be found on this family, outside of the Bible, though we must admit that the Bible is not very explicit about them.
As for the slaying of the infants, you will notice that no mention is made in Herod's the Great biography, which means that no historical evidence has been found so far on that event. I'm not saying it didn't happen. Herod's reputation would accept this possibility, indeed. All I'm saying is History does not accept it as it accepts that Herods did exist.
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 10/03/03 - Ezra versus Nehemiah: There seems to be a lot of differences between the numbers of children of Bebai, Zattu, Azgad, etc. who returned from Babylonia. In fact, Ezra and Nehemiah almost never agree on the number that returned. sometimes the difference is small (only a couple) and sometimes a hundred or more.
Any thoughts as to why? curious98 answered on 10/03/03:I have found the following differences in numbers Ezr 2:1-70 and Neh 7:7-72
The first name refers to the Clan name.
The 2nd figure is from EZra
The 3rd one, is from Nehemiah
And the 4th one, is the difference, if any-
I have tried to list them, but the program does not admit it. I'm sorry
Clan
Ezra
Nehemiah
Difference
Parosh
2,172
2,172
0
Shephatiah
372
372
0
Arah
775
652
-123
Pahath-Moab
2,812
2,818
2 to 8
Elam
1,254
1,254
0
Zattu
945
845
9 to 8
Zaccai
760
760
0
Binnui/Bani
642
648
2 to 6
Bebai
623
628
3 to 8
Azgad
1,222
2,322
+1,100
Adonikam
666
667
6 to 7
Bigvai
2,056
2,067
56 to 67
Adin
454
655
4x4 to 6x5
Ater
98
98
0
Hashum
223
328
+105
Bezai
323
324
3 to 4
Hariph/Hashum
112
112
(order)
Gibeon / Gibbar
95
95
-
Bethlehem and Netophah
123+56
188
Addition +7
Anathoth
128
128
0
Azmaveth
42
42
0
Keareath Jearim, Kephilah, Beeroth
743
743
0
Ramah and Geba
621
621
0
Micmash
122
122
0
Bethel and Ai
223
123
2 to 1
Other Nebo
52
52
0
Magbish
156
-
Omission
Other Elam
1,254
1,254
0
Harim
320
320
0
Lod, Hadid, Ono
725
721
5 to 1
Jericho
345
345
(order)
Senaah
3,630
3,930
6 to 9
Jedaiah
973
973
0
Immer
1,052
1,052
0
Pashhur
1,247
1,247
0
Harim
1,017
1,017
0
Jeshua
74
74
0
Asaph
128
148
2 to 4
Gatekeepers
139
138
9 to 8
Temple servants
392
392
0
Unproven origin
652
642
5 to 4
Total
42,360
42,360
0
Servants
7,337
7,337
0
Category
Ezra
Nehemiah
Difference
Singers
200
245
+45
Horses
736
736
0
Mules
245
245
0
Camels
435
435
0
Donkeys
6,720
6,720
0
Drachmas
61,000
1,000+20,000+20,000
-20,000
Garments
100
530+67
+497
Minas
5,000
2,200+2,000
-600
(There are also 50 bowls in Nehemiah.)
The apocryphal book of 1 Esdras also lists the returnees. According to The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 4 p.618 and The NIV Study Bible p.676, it has 25,947 men of Israel (compared with 24,144 for Ezra and 25,406 for Nehemiah), 5,288 priests (vs. 4,289 for Ezra and Nehemiah), 341 Levites, singers, gatekeepers compared to 341 for Ezra, 372 Temple servants vs. 392 for Ezra and Nehemiah, and 652 men of unproven origin, vs. 652 for Ezra.
The total number of people are far greater than the those listed, so the listing is not exhaustive. For example, Ezra has the family of Magbish, and Nehemiah does not. The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.687 says the total might also include northern tribes and women and children.
Of the 50 common numbers there are 22 total differences. There are 12 single-digit differences, and Nehemiah has the larger number in 7 of them. There are 10 multi-digit differences, and Nehemiah has the larger number in 7 of them. For contrast, lets look at the Hebrew vs. Greek Septuagint: for Ezra there are 2 differences (both are single-digit), and for Nehemiah 10 differences (5 of which are single-digit).
Aas for the reasons for these differences,
it probably is due to a combination of a number of reasons.
Simple copyist errors: In the manuscripts today, there have been some copyist errors. Many copyist errors would be changing or leaving out a digit.
In the Hebrew vs. Septuagint there are 2 differences in Ezra (both single-digit) and 10 differences in Nehemiah (5 are single-digit). Thus one would expect simple copyist errors to explain around 2 to 5, or possibly up to 10 of the 22 differences. Since The number of times Nehemiah is larger in 7 out of 12 single-digit differences, there is no statistically significant trend of one being larger.
Change in the way numbers were written: The way Hebrews wrote numbers changed about this time. Formerly the Hebrews used old "round letters", and changed to "square" letters. This would cause more copyist errors. The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.667 mentions that the Moabites spoke a dialect of Hebrew and still used the old round letters in the ninth century B.C. the Encyclopedia
Britannica volume 1 (1956) p.684 says, "the earliest records of Aramaic go back to about 800 B.C. The alphabet at this time differs little from that of the Moabite Stone." It says there were two tendencies, which were completed during the time of the Persians
1) the opening of the heads of letters beth, daleth, and resh. And angles became more rounded and ligatures developed. This might be expected to explain more errors.
Cipher lists: The NIV Study Bible p.674 says that the differences might be due to using "cipher lists", where a vertical stroke represented " and a horizontal stroke represented ", and this would lead to greater copying errors.
The lists were made at different times: Of the 10 multi-digit differences, Nehemiah is larger in 7 of them. On one hand, the differences probably are not due to more exiles returning, as the totals match exactly. On the other hand, or the returnees, more people might have been found in the listed clans and villages. 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.139-140 and the Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown volume 1 p.289 mention that Ezra 2:1 says this is the list was made of those who left for Babylon, apparently prior to them arriving at Jerusalem. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.229 also adds that there might have been some last minute decisions to join with a clan or village.
Hope this information has helped you
regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 10/02/03 - How did Saul die? By his own hand, by another, or by God? (or any combination of the three?) curious98 answered on 10/03/03:Sorry, would not know!
The language is rather cryptic, and it could be what you presume, but it could be someone else.
Sorry not to be able to help you there
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 10/01/03 - help with interpretation of verse I am having trouble figuring out what this verse in Hosea is saying. I tried to read the rest of the chapter for context, but I am either missing something or not understanding.
Hosea 12:12
And Jacob fled into the country of Syria, and Israel served for a wife, and for a wife he kept sheep.
What does "served for a wife" mean, and "for a wife he kept sheep", does that read better as "He raised sheep to support his wife" or something? curious98 answered on 10/02/03:Which Bible are you using?
For the text I have seems rather clear to me.
12. And Jacob fled into the country of Syria, and Israel served for a wife, and for a wife he kept sheep.
12. (In latin)
Et fugit Jacob in agrum Syriae, et servivit Israel in uxore (hoc est, pro uxore,) et pro uxore custodivit (id est, custos fuit gregis.)
And here is the corresponding commentary from the Bible:
"The Prophet now employs another kind of reproof, -- that the Israelites did not consider from what source they had proceeded, and were forgetful of their origin. And the Prophet designedly touches on this point; for we know how boldly and proudly the people boasted of their own eminence. For as a heathen gloried that he was an Athenian, so also the Jews think that all we are brute animals, and imagine that they have a different origin from the rest of mankind, because they are the posterity of Abraham. Since then they were blinded by such a pride as this God meant to undeceive them, as he does here: "Jacob your father, who was he? What was his condition? What was his nobility? What was his power? What was his dignity and eminence according to the flesh? Yea, truly, he was a fugitive from his own country: had he always lived at home, his father was but a sojourner; but he was constrained to flee into Syria. And how splendidly did he live there? He was indeed with his uncle; but he was treated no better than if he had been some worthless slave: He served for a wife. And how did he serve? He was a keeper of sheep. Go then now and boast of your dignity, as if ye were nobler than others, as if your condition were better than that of the common sort of people." God then brings against them the condition of their father, in whose name they gloried, but who was an abject person and a fugitive, who was like a worthless slave, who was a keeper of sheep; who, in short, had nothing which could be deemed reputable among men.
And God, he says, brought you up by a Prophet from Egypt, and by a Prophet you have been preserved. This was, as it were, their second nativity. Some think that the comparison is between their first origin and their deliverance; as though Hosea had said, "Though you were born of a very poor and ignoble man, yet God has favoured you with singular privilege; for he gave Moses to be the minister of your liberation." But in my judgement the Prophet speaks in a more simple way; for, first, he shows what was the first origin of the people, that they were from Jacob; and then he shows what was their second origin; for God had again begotten them when he brought them out of Egypt. And they were there, as it is well known, very miserable, and they did not come out by their own velour, they did not attain for themselves their liberty; but Moses alone extended his hand to them, having been sent for this end by God. Since the case was so, it was strange that they now provoked God, as he says in the last verse, by their altars."
Hope to have helped you
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 10/02/03 - How did Saul die? By his own hand, by another, or by God? (or any combination of the three?) curious98 answered on 10/02/03:See what the Chapter 31, of the 1st book of Samuel says on the subject.
"Now the Philistines fought against Israel: and the men of Israel fled from before the Philistines, and fell down slain in mount Gilboa.
2 And the Philistines followed hard upon Saul and upon his sons; and the Philistines slew Jonathan, and Abinadab, and Malchishua, Saul's sons.
3 And the battle went sore against Saul, and the archers hit him; and he was sore wounded of the archers.
4 Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
5 And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him.
6 So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together. "
From that part it seems clear that Saul commited suicide to avoid being caught by the
Phillistines...
Which may bring up another interesting subject of discussion, guess which one?
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Yiddishkeit asked on 10/01/03 - Slavery and the meanings as used in the Bible... What I am asking is that knowledgeable experts give further insights so as to help others with related subjects. I'll start this off with a general overview...
Slavery was commonplace in ancient times. A person could be forced into bondage if captured during war or if kidnapped. Slavery could also be imposed for failure to honor debts. Free people might voluntarily sell their children or themselves into slavery to avoid destitution. Slaves labored in fields, in mines, and on construction projects; some worked in the temple or in the government bureaucracy. A slave might also toil as a domestic servant. Hagar, who became Abraham's concubine was the "maid-servant" (Gen. 16:1) of his wife, Sarah. For more examples of servants see 1 Sam. 9:22 and Prov. 27:27. Of course, let's not forget Moshe and David are referred to as servants of G-d.
Slaves [servants] were not permitted to work on the Shabbos (Deut. 5:14). A fellow Israelite could be enslaved for only six years; in the seventh year the slave had to be released and the owner was to provide for the newly released person (Deut. 15:13-14). Such generosity reflected G-d's own care: "Bear in mind that you were slaves in the land of Egypt and the L-rd your G-d redeemed you..." (Deut. 15:15). Being mistreated as slaves in Egpyt we learned how to better treat servants. This sort of servitude as compared to our slavery in Egpyt is night and day. As a sidenote...further mistreatments of slavery in this respect can be relate to in African-American history. Again I'm truly thankful for I'm commanded to remember our ancestors freedom out of the tormentive Egyptian bondage; also happy to reside in a country that eventually chose to wisely abolish slavery, America. Now if only fewer of my tax dollars that serve the governemnt use was better spent, but that's a whole different subject.
Bobby
curious98 answered on 10/01/03:Hi Bobby,
I am not quite sure as what you may be driving at.
My English dictionary defines Slavery: (1) Drudgery, toil (2) Submission to a dominating influence (3) the state of a person who is a chattel of another (4) the practice of slaveholding, etc.
These practices are as old as Mankind and, in many ways, they are still going on and being practiced, as it could not be otherwise, by perfectly honest looking dominating influences
The O.T. had necessarily to reflect these practices which, at the time, were not only quite common, but acceptable too.
And certain passages show this trend quite clearly.
When in Gen. 22:2, GOD says "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you..." we may say, as we do, that GOD was testing Abraham, but we could probably assert that Abraham was behaving like GODs slave, which, btw, its quite a privilege, but thats another story
As for your being happy to live in a Country who abolished slavery, just 2 things for the record:
a) Of course, you are entitled to happily live in that Country, though I would like to remind you that in Europe slavery was abolished shortly BEFORE than in the USA. So we are happy too, to live here in Europe. BTW, should you wish to read some exhaustive study on Slavery, from its very beginning I would recommend you a book by the reputed historian Hugh Thomas, The Slave Trade, Just great!
b) As I said before, some kind of slave trade can still be found in quite a few places around the world. The USA, unfortunately, is no exception. Youll find it within its borders, in the Californian vineyards, amongst the so called wetbacks, and outside its borders within some big corporations who do not mind using child labour abroad to reduce production costs.
Jesus said to the people who wanted to stone the woman caught in sin If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
This, just to say, that there is very little justice we can brag about in our respective Countries, whether USA or European, and there is still a lot to do to be able to say we are morally alright. Dont you think so?
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 09/29/03 - Was it okay for Moses to be a murderer, since the commandments weren't written yet? Was it okay in the eyes of the Lord for Moses to be a murderer, since Moses hadn't received the Commandment yet that Men shouldn't Kill?
curious98 answered on 09/30/03:OK, here we go again!
In the first place your assumption that Moses was a murderer is a non proven assert. According to your own Jurisprudence everybody has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty!
Any good lawyer would succeed in obtaining a verdict of Non-guilty for good old Moses. In fact, it was not probably Moses intention to kill the taskmaster; Moses probably only wanted to save the slaves life, which he actually did.
Secondly, you like most people when judging historical events- forget a very interesting question, i.e., that History must be analysed bearing in mind the mentality of the epoch one is judging.
4000 years ago, human life was worth very little, which does not mean people had no feelings; it just meant that a slaves life belonged to his/her master, who could dispose of it after his/her own pleasure.
In fact, the very same thing happened more or less in the Southern cotton plantations, 200 years ago only
However, it is obvious that Moses did not think like that, so he felt the taskmaster was overdoing his punishment on the Hebrew slave and acted accordingly.
Instinctively.
Unfortunately, he killed the taskmaster NOT murdered him.
Moses was acting out of righteous anger, not wickedness, although God did show him later that there is a better way. Bottom line, Moses risked not only his very life, but the fame and riches of living in the pharaohs house. Woule you still maintain he was a murderer?
Which poses another interesting possibility. That of the taskmaster being a simply instrument God used to persuade Moses to live a righteous life, thus causing him to leave Pharaohs service and join the Israelites; and thus making him as good as dead from Pharaohs point of view.
I hope your verdict now, will be innocent!
As for the 5th Commandment, I will not speak of how in the 21st century we are abiding by it
I will only remind you of the Christian Crusades, those expeditions undertaken, during the 12th and 13th centuries, in fulfillment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from the so called Mohammedan tyranny.
Something very close, if not identical, to a Christian JIHAD
Or the extermination of the Albigensian heresy, carried out by the Domincans, in the south of France, or when the Pope also preached a crusade against John Lackland and Frederick II.
All these expeditions have been carried out in the name of God, and the very name of Crusade derives from the Cross, where Jesus died for all of us
You must admit, it is rather ironical to speak of the 5th Commandment in the times of Ramses II or Akenaton, dont you think so?
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 09/28/03 - Do I understand this part of the Captivity story correctly? Did God really prevent the Egyptians from releasing the Hebrews by hardening Pharoah's heart over and over? Did He do that so He could teach the Egyptian's a lesson? Did He do that so He could kill more of them? When Pharoah first thought "Let the Hebrews go.", why do you think God forced him to change his decision?
curious98 answered on 09/29/03:Well yes! The Bible does seem to mention that God did harden the Pharoa's heart.
But what I say is just how can we ascertain for sure what were GOD's designs behind that attitude, if GOD actually acted like that?
Whatever we conclude will be purey speculation...
However once evident fact I have already referred to on several ocassions in this forum, is the existing difference between the O.T. Elohim or Yahveh and the N.T. Jesus.
WHile the former does look rather formidable and terrible and always more or less willing to punish those who did not abide by His orders, the latter was always speaking of love and forgiveness!
There must also be some sort of explanation behind these differences in behavior. But, again, I do not think anybody can offer an explanation for sure.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ldmitch asked on 09/28/03 - Did Abraham break the kosher rules? Genesis 18:8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.
Did Abraham and the angel of the Lord break the kosher rules?
curious98 answered on 09/29/03:Thanks to Avrom for the clarification and for the rating, too.
Best regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 09/28/03 - Do I understand this part of the Captivity story correctly? Did God really prevent the Egyptians from releasing the Hebrews by hardening Pharoah's heart over and over? Did He do that so He could teach the Egyptian's a lesson? Did He do that so He could kill more of them? When Pharoah first thought "Let the Hebrews go.", why do you think God forced him to change his decision?
curious98 answered on 09/28/03:I think, dear Graylin, we have dealt with this type of question more than one.
How can anyone pretend to know GOD's designs and, much the less, if we are asking whether or not GOD influenced Pharoa's heart, by hardening it?
Whatever answer you may receive on this subject cannot be but sheer speculation...
or is there anyone who can claim to be able to consult GOD on the matter?
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | ldmitch asked on 09/28/03 - Did Abraham break the kosher rules? Genesis 18:8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.
Did Abraham and the angel of the Lord break the kosher rules?
curious98 answered on 09/28/03:
WOuld not that be a clear reference to the beginning of the Kosher rule?
"Genesis 7
1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven [1] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."
5 And Noah did all that the LORD commanded him.
6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. 7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood. 8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth."
Thanks
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Toms777 asked on 09/28/03 - Yom Kippur Could someone provide some background to help us understand better what Yom Kippur is about? curious98 answered on 09/28/03:This is what the Encyclopaedia says on the subject:
Yom Kippur is probably the most important holiday of the Jewish year. Many Jews who do not observe any other Jewish custom will refrain from work, fast and/or attend synagogue services on this day. Yom Kippur occurs on the 10th day of Tishri. The holiday is instituted at Leviticus 23:26 et seq.
The name "Yom Kippur" means "Day of Atonement," and that pretty much explains what the holiday is. It is a day set aside to "afflict the soul," to atone for the sins of the past year. On Yom Kippur, the judgment entered in the Days of Awe is sealed. This day is, essentially, your last appeal, your last chance to change the judgment, to demonstrate your repentance and make amends.
As noted in Days of Awe, Yom Kippur atones only for sins between man and God, not for sins against another person. To atone for sins against another person, you must first seek reconciliation with that person, righting the wrongs you committed against them if possible. That must all be done before Yom Kippur.
Yom Kippur is a complete Sabbath; no work can be performed on that day. It is well-known that you are supposed to refrain from eating and drinking (even water) on Yom Kippur. It is a complete, 25-hour fast beginning before sunset on the evening before Yom Kippur and ending after nightfall on the day of Yom Kippur. The Talmud also specifies additional restrictions that are less well-known: washing and bathing, anointing one's body (with cosmetics, deodorants, etc.), wearing leather shoes (Orthodox Jews routinely wear canvas sneakers under their dress clothes on Yom Kippur), and engaging in sexual relations are all prohibited on Yom Kippur.
As always, any of these restrictions can be lifted where a threat to life or health is involved. In fact, children under the age of nine and women in childbirth (from the time labor begins until three days after birth) are not permitted to fast, even if they want to. Older children and women from the third to the seventh day after childbirth are permitted to fast, but are permitted to break the fast if they feel the need to do so. People with other illnesses should consult a physician and a rabbi for advice.
Most of the holiday is spent in the synagogue, in prayer. In Orthodox synagogues, services begin early in the morning (8 or 9 AM) and continue until about 3 PM. People then usually go home for an afternoon nap and return around 5 or 6 PM for the afternoon and evening services, which continue until nightfall. The services end at nightfall, with the blowing of the tekiah gedolah, a long blast on the shofar.
It is customary to wear white on the holiday, which symbolizes purity and calls to mind the promise that our sins shall be made as white as snow (Is. 1:18). Some people wear a kittel, the white robe in which the dead are buried.
Yom Kippur Liturgy
The liturgy for Yom Kippur is much more extensive than for any other day of the year. Liturgical changes are so far-reaching that a separate, special prayer book for Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah. This prayer book is called the machzor.
The evening service that begins Yom Kippur is commonly known as Kol Nidre, named for the prayer that begins the service. "Kol nidre" means "all vows," and in this prayer, Jews ask God to annul all personal vows they may make in the next year. It refers only to vows between the person making them and God, such as "If I pass this test, I'll pray every day for the next 6 months!"
This prayer has often been held up by anti-Semites as proof that Jews are untrustworthy (we do not keep our vows), and for this reason the Reform movement removed it from the liturgy for a while. In fact, the reverse is true: Jews make this prayer because they claim they take vows so seriously that they consider themselves bound even if they make the vows under duress or in times of stress when they may not be thinking straight. This prayer gave comfort to those who were converted to Christianity by torture in various inquisitions, yet felt unable to break their vow to follow Christianity. In recognition of this history, the Reform movement restored this prayer to its liturgy.
There are many additions to the regular liturgy (there would have to be, to get such a long service ). Perhaps the most important addition is the confession of the sins of the community, which is inserted into the Shemoneh Esrei (Amidah) prayer. Note that all sins are confessed in the plural (we have done this, we have done that), emphasizing communal responsibility for sins.
There are two basic parts of this confession: Ashamnu, a shorter, more general list (we have been treasonable, we have been aggressive, we have been slanderous...), and Al Chet, a longer and more specific list (for the sin we sinned before you forcibly or willingly, and for the sin we sinned before you by acting callously...) Frequent petitions for forgiveness are interspersed in these prayers. There's also a catch-all confession: "Forgive us the breach of positive commands and negative commands, whether or not they involve an act, whether or not they are known to us."
It is interesting to note that these confessions do not specifically address the kinds of ritual sins that some people think are the be-all-and-end-all of Judaism. There is no "for the sin we have sinned before you by eating pork, and for the sin we have sinned against you by driving on Shabbat" (though obviously these are implicitly included in the catch-all). The vast majority of the sins enumerated involve mistreatment of other people, most of them by speech (offensive speech, scoffing, slander, talebearing, and swearing falsely, to name a few). These all come into the category of sin known as "lashon ha-ra" (lit: the evil tongue), which is considered a very serious sin in Judaism.
The concluding service of Yom Kippur, known as Ne'ilah, is one unique to the day. It usually runs about 1 hour long. The ark (a cabinet where the scrolls of the Torah are kept) is kept open throughout this service, thus you must stand throughout the service. There is a tone of desperation in the prayers of this service. The service is sometimes referred to as the closing of the gates; think of it as the "last chance" to get in a good word before the holiday ends. The service ends with a very long blast of the shofar.
After Yom Kippur, one should begin preparing for the next holiday, Sukkot, which begins five days later.
List of Dates
Yom Kippur will occur on the following days of the Gregorian calendar. Remember that all holidays begin at sundown on the date before the date specified here.
September 16, 2002 (Jewish Year 5763)
October 6, 2003 (Jewish Year 5764)
September 25, 2004 (Jewish Year 5765)
October 13, 2005 (Jewish Year 5766)
October 2, 2006 (Jewish Year 5767)
Hope to have helped
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Toms777 asked on 09/28/03 - Signature of God There is a book called the signature of God by Grant Jeffrey in which he uses a method like the Bible code to demonstarte what he calls the signature of God.
What is the basis for this approach to understanding scripture? curious98 answered on 09/28/03:Although I have not read this book, from what I gather the basis of Grant Jeffrey's approach to this especial way of understanding the Scriptures, may be an ancien technique called GEMATRIA, whereby, as you may know, In Hebrew, each letter possesses a numerical value. Gematria is the calculation of the numerical equivalence of letters, words, or phrases, and, on that basis, gaining, insight into interrelation of different concepts and exploring the interrelationship between words and ideas.
A little bit of History on this technique:
"The Babylonian king Sargon II, in 8th century BC, is believed to have been the first to use gematria when building the wall of Khorsabad exactly 16,283 cubits long, because that was the numerical value of his name.
In Jewish mysticism this is a traditional system of associating numbers with Hebrew letters for the purpose of discovering hidden meanings in words. This is accomplished by systematically associating letters with numbers and then finding other words with similar numbers. These latter words are regarded as comments on the original words. Systems related to the Hebrew implementation of gematria are still used.
The Hebrews also used gematria for divination.
The ancient Greeks used gematria in dream interpretation. It also appears in the literature of the magi, and has been used in connection with the Greek alphabet.
The Gnostics applied gematria to names of deities such as Abraxas and Mithras, equating them because both of their names equaled 365, the number of days in a year.
Gematria carried over into early Christianity which helped make the dove a representation of Jesus; the Greek word for dove, peristera, equals 801 as do the Greek letters in alpha and omega, which represent the Beginning and the End.
It was the Kabbalists, however, who seriously studied gematria and developed it into an art form. The Kabbalists of the 13th century seriously believed that the Old Testament was written in a hidden code inspired by God. They used gematria as one of the chief means by which to decipher this code. An example of this is shown in their interpretation of Jeremiah 9:9, "From the fowl of the heavens until the beasts are fled and gone". This was interpreted as meaning, that no traveler passed through Judea for 52 years, because the Hebrew word for beast, behemah, has the numerical value of 52.
Entire verses were numerically added up and interpreted in such a fashion. The 13th century German Kabbalistic scholar, Eleazar of Worms, did extensive gematric commentaries on the Bible.
Present practices:
The Kabbalists also used gematria to search for the holy names of God thinking, as so many others have, that these names such as the Tetragrammaton possessed power. Such a procedure has been adopted by many present day magicians. However, it should be noted two schools of thought regarding gematria also were issued from the Kabbalists. One advocated it use while the other cautioned against its practice, recommending that it only be practiced to strengthen one's own conclusions. Various methods of gematria have evolved; for example one Kabblistic tract lists 72 of hem.
There are two other lesser known decoding systems which are related to gematria, and various methods of practice exist within each of these systems too. The first of these systems is known as notarikon, in which the first letter of words may be extracted and combined to form new words; or, another version is to take the first, last, and sometimes the middle letters to make new words or phrases.
The other system is called temurah. It is a more complicated system in which letters are organized in tables, or according to mathematical arrangements. By the procedure of substitution new words or anagrams are formed."
Regards
Curious98
http://www.inner.org/gematria/gemexamp.htm | | Question/Answer | | Toms777 asked on 09/28/03 - Famous Sages of Chelm In as recent response to a question, ldmitch made a reference to the famouse sages of Chelm.
Could someone tell us something about these sages of Chelm? curious98 answered on 09/28/03:Here is a text on the above subject, directly from a Rabbi Samuel's desk:
"Rosh Hashanah reminds us about the passage of time. Each of us in a most literal sense, is a time traveler. Each day all of us embark on an eternal journey spanning the generations that proceeded us. The future is in our hands.
A rabbi once asked his congregation, Think for a minute: Which day is the greatest day of your lives? A young boy answered, The day I was born. A groom, in the presence of his bride, said, The day I met her. An elderly Holocaust survivor replied, The day I arrived in on Ellis Island in 1946.
We would all agree that these are very significant days. But some people live as though the greatest and most important day of their lives is tomorrow! Tomorrow is the day I will lose that extra weight, or Tomorrow I start saving for retirement. Tomorrow is the day I am going to spend time with my family, or Tomorrow I will go study Torah. It is always tomorrow, but as the songs says, Lets forget about tomorrow, for tomorrow never comes.
Those who put off for tomorrow what they can do today, rarely do the things they say. The real tragedy is that too many of us never begin to live authentically until we realize that the days of our lives are all used up. A philosopher once said There is no past, present or future. Using tenses to divide time is like making chalk marks on water. The approach of Rosh Hashanah beckons us to make today count.
I think that another reason many of us realize our full potential is because, on a deep level, many of us fear failure. Its easier to remain with what is familiar and boring rather than risk trying something new and different. The ancient Chinese philosopher, Confucius, wrote in his Analects, Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.
A story comes to mind about the wise men of Chelm. Chelm was a city in Poland, and legend has it these people thought they were the wisest sages in the world. In reality, they were among the worlds most foolish people and the stories about Chelm can teach us much about ourselves.
The good citizens of Chelm used to spend a good deal of time worrying. In fact they spent so much time worrying they soon began to worry about how much they worried. The Grand Council of Wise Men convened a special meeting to discuss all this worrying and to find a solution for it. For seven days and seven nights, the wise men of Chelm discussed the problem, until finally the chairman announced a solution. Reb Yossel, the penniless chimney sweep, would be the official Chelm Worrier. In return for a ruble a week, he would do the worrying for everybody in Chelm. The Grand Council members all agreed that this was the ideal solution, but just before the vote was taken, one of the sages rose to speak against the proposal. Wait a minute, he announced. If Reb Yossel were to receive one ruble a week, then what would he have to worry about?
Indeed, it is useless to worry about tomorrow, because most of the time, our worries prove unfounded, and if true, there is usually nothing we can do to prevent them from occurring. Often, what we worry about does not come to pass and what occurs is something we never even thought about. In one sense, tomorrow exists only in our minds, for what we truly experience is really a succession of today. Thus, while we can plan for the future, we must live for today.
Perhaps the Psalmist said it best: Teach us to number our days so that we may obtain a heart of wisdom. Rosh Hashanah reminds us that our time in this world is limited, so let us do our best to make a difference in the world and in our communities in which we live. The great medieval scholar, Bahya Ibn Pekudah, in his masterpiece, The Duties of the Heart, wrote Days are scrolls; write on them what you want to be remembered. Let us pray as we age that God gives us the wisdom to become a sage."
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | jewels asked on 09/27/03 - what does religious tolerance mean to you and where do you draw the line I am continually amazed by the workings of the human mind...makes me wonder what other's definitions or beliefs of religious tolerance actually is.
The term "religious tolerance" could have different meanings to different peoples.
Many people reject the term, because they often interpret it as meaning that, to be tolerant, one must accept all religions as equal and true. I think that is the religious concept called "pluralism." One implication of this is that, absolute truth might not or does not exist. This they generally find unacceptable. Many believe that a person first has to accept all other religious beliefs as equally valid as their own in order to be tolerant. Many Christians regard religious toleration as a major threat which is sabotaging the foundations of Christianity, (and here in the USA undermining the very foundations of this country).
Among other individuals and groups (those who might be considered to be less conservative Christians or even liberals if you will) "religious tolerance" generally means to avoid oppressing or discriminating persons whose religious beliefs happen to be different from their own. It is a statement of fundamental human rights.
What does religious tolerance mean to you? Do you think some religions or religious beiefs are dangerous?
If you believe in 'tolerance' and believe some religions are dangerous, how do you tolerate that?
jewels curious98 answered on 09/27/03:
My answer may be disappointing to you!
Strongly believing in the unity of GOD (to me there cant be but ONE and ONLY GOD) it does not matter very much what religion or beliefs do you subscribe to. If you honestly believe in ONE and ONLY GOD, it does not matter to me whether you call IT ALLAH, YAHVEH OR GOD, and whether you are a Moslem, a Jew or a Christian. It does not matter either whether you belong to some Christian Protestant denomination, or to some Orthodox Church, or to some Roman Catholic organization.
And if you do not believe in anything or in some strange and primitive religion, it does not matter too much either.
What really does matter, is how do you behave in your daily activities. If you are a person that love your neighbour and respect
what he/she may think or believe in, Im convinced my GOD (which is everybodys GOD) will take care of you, in ITS INFINITE MISERICORDY
On the other hand. there are, of course, religious beliefs that are indeed dangerous or even very dangerous These simply are those imparted by the fundamentalists and bigots...
And please note that these sort of people unfortunately abound in ALL religions, whether Monotheistic or Polytheistic.
Youll find them in practically all Christian denominations, Catholics included, of course; in Judaism; in Islam, as we know quite well; in Hinduism, etc.
The only ones who seem to be over and above these considerations are, perhaps, the Buddhists for their philosophy is that of a wide acceptance of other people faiths.
As for religious tolerance undermining the very foundations of the USA, I believe exactly the opposite. What may undermine the very foundations of the USA, or of any other country for what matters, is precisely religious intolerance. And this is even more ridiculous in the USA, where the majority of the people belongs to one Protestant denomination or other. And I say ridiculous because there, they ALL believe in the same GOD, with the same NAME.
In fact, if my memory serves me right, the USA Constitution does contemplate everyones right to his/her own beliefs. This is why the USA a non-confessional Country.
Sorry if I have disappointed you!
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | jewels asked on 09/25/03 - Is this for real? Please give me your opinion http://www.demonbuster.com/
Please vist this site and give me your opinion.
CAUTION - If you are EXPOSING the devil in any way, you better be doing DAILY Spiritual Warfare, Deliverance, and RETURNING all curses.
If you can hear the "Oh the Blood of Jesus" midi file, and it gets under your skin, don't turn your speakers off. The demons absolutely hate this song or any song that mentions the Blood of Jesus. The more this bothers you, the more demon infested you are. You actually could get some Deliverance by having this tune play in the background, and some demons may actually leave your home or apartment too. Tape the song and play it in your home over and over.
curious98 answered on 09/26/03:
I am not going to discuss the demon or its existence. We may believe in it or not. Even my own Catholic Church is not very definite about that simbology. Some will say that Hell is having met GOD and not being able to spend Eternity with IT. Others, like Dante in the Renaissance, depicted it in 7 different stages, each one worse than the previous one.
We should not be afraid of Satan, as long as our conscience tell us we are doing more or less what we should. For, somehow, I feel that if Satan does exist it may communicate with us through our conscience. As for the site, I have opened it and I have closed it right away. Im simply not interested.
But I have the idea the authors may have to got to see a psychoanalyst
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ldmitch asked on 09/25/03 - Abraham - soul winner? Genesis 12:5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brothers son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.
Was Abraham a soul winner?
curious98 answered on 09/26/03:Although, this is pure speculation, my own opinion is that Abraham was, indeed, a soul winner.
Considering what I said in my previous post on the same subject, Abraham was full of compassion towards his fellowmen and women. And he was like that because he loved them.
Abraham had compassion towards the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. In Genesis 18 he asked the Lord to spare the city if there were 50 right living people. Then he asked if the Lord to spare the city if there 45, 40, 30, 20 and then for 10. God had agreed.
SO, being consistent with what I believe Abraham must have certainly been a First Class Soul Winner, alright!
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ldmitch asked on 09/25/03 - A question for all "YOU'S WISE GUYS" Proverbs 11:30 he that winneth souls is wise.
How does a wise man win souls?
curious98 answered on 09/26/03:The entire sentence reads:
Pr. 11:30 The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he who wins souls is wise.
And have to be taken in its full context, i.e.
those who know how to win souls ARE wise. How can we win souls? Simple, by loving them and teaching them rightly
Dont you think so?
Regards
Curious98
PS. And, of course, I do not consider myself a "wise guy" Just a little expert because of my age. | | Question/Answer | | ldmitch asked on 09/25/03 - Significance of the Shofar to the Messiah "The Shofar is blown on Rosh Hashana, according to the story to upset Satan. Why? His evil doings are over. Or so he believes. For when he hears the blasts, he thinks it is because the Messiah has arrived." Sound the Shofar, Marion Chaikim, Clarion Books, 1986, page 9
Is the blowing of the Shofar on Rosh Hashana a call for the Messiah?
curious98 answered on 09/26/03:Hi Idmitch,
Encyclopaedia says
The shofar commemorates the intended sacrifice of Isaac by his father, Abraham, and the provision from the Lord of a substitute sacrifice which came in the form of the ram caught in the thicket.
It is from the ramss horn that the Shofar is made. Scripture prescribes the sounding of the shofar on this day to encourage every man and every nation to come out from chaos, to reflect on their conduct and to rededicate themselves to goodness and morality.
The first prescribed sound of the shofar is the Tekiaha long deep blast which ends abruptly It is the call of the people to assemble for Heshbon ha-Nefesha reckoning of the soul. The second sounding is the Shebarim, three broken notes used as a sound of alarmwhich says, "Beware, there are powerful enemies who threaten righteousness and morality and who would destroy holiness. Beware, stand firm for justice and holiness.
" The third call was the Teruah which was comprised of nine short notes summoning strength for the struggle against evil. The last call of the shofarthe Tekiah Gedolah, is one very long blast pointing to the day of final victory, when all people will worship in peace the one eternal God.
The greeting to a Jewish person on Rosh Hashanah is, "Le-shana tova", which means, "May you be inscribed [in the Book of Life] for a good year." It is traditional on Rosh Hashanah to eat a round Challah (braided bread) which is dipped in honey.
Honey is one of the seven healing substances listed in the Talmud. Honey is also symbolic of the hope for a sweet New Year. Apples are also served with honey. The apple is noted for its healing power and sweetness. Pomegranates, figs and grapes are also eaten for the first time that year.
Messianic Implications
From a Messianic standpoint, the Feast of Trumpets and the sounding of the shofar is Gods signal which precedes the rapture. According to Scripture, the Second Coming of Messiah will be accompanied by the blowing of the shofar:
Hope to have contributed to your knowledge of Jewish traditions, in case you did not know already.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | jewels asked on 09/25/03 - what to do about religious diversity and discrimination? The United States of America is a melting pot and has become the most religiously diverse nation in the world. People from all different religious faiths live in our neighborhoods, and children of Jewish, Muslim, Protestant Christian, Catholic Christian, and Buddhists, wiccan, atheists families, (the list could go on and on) all go to school together, sit next to each other and work side by side every day. We are a mixed society, yet religious discrimination and hate run rampant.
While race has been the dominant American social issue in the past century, many Americans aware of the religious diversity have become involved in discrimination and acts of hate.
How Americans of all faiths and beliefs can engage with one another to shape a positive pluralism is perhaps the most important question facing American society today. Religious diversity in our lives is emerging as a huge challenge for the possibility of peace on earth.
What is the answer? Education? Tolerance? Acceptance? What are some of the things you can do to quell the tragedy of misunderstanding and the rampant spread of hatred and discrimination against those who don't share the same faith? curious98 answered on 09/26/03:
Im not an USA citizen nor do I live in the States any more, though I lived there in the 70s. I have travelled to the States since then quite often and I have certainly being able to see how, in my humble opinion, the USA society is degrading itself slowly but surely. Your wonderful country is gradually becoming obsessed, more than ever before, with the modern concepts of materialism, consumerism, personal success, dehumanisation and, maybe, some religious intolerance, too, although, I do not wish to be as pessimistic as you are, for this is happening in other parts of the World too. For reasons, unfair true, but understandable, the only religion which right now seems to be under close observation is Islam.
As for the others, from what Im being told by friends living there, and from my own experience, problems are no more and no different than in other countries.
Take, for instance, Northern Ireland
I have always envied the wonderful pluralism that formed your Nation, despite the many problems you have had, and still have, with racism (Blacks, Hispanics Indians, Koreans, etc.).
Despite the fact that large sections of your white population with Anglo Saxons ancestors strangely consider themselves as belonging to a superior (or in any case, better) race, it has to be recognized that your Country is what it is thanks to the combined efforts of Anglo Saxons and Northern Europeans Protestants indeed, with Catholic Irish, Italians, Polish, Hispanics (as you wrongly say, instead of Latin Americans) and Jews; of Moslems from Asia and Africa; of Buddhists and Sintoists from Japan, China and Korea; of Hindus from India and Blacks (most of whose ancestors helped to create immense wealth in the 18th and 19th centuries in your South).
In larger or smaller proportions the USA belongs to all those who have and are participating in its development. All USA citizens have the same rights, privileges and obligations. And this should be respected by all, although Im afraid, this is not always the case.
However, I would not certainly be that pessimistic.
As for solutions to correct the present state of things (which has spread to Europe, as well), maybe if you (we all, in fact) should finally and for good, understand that nobody is any better, from the standpoint of race, origin or nationality, than our neighbour and would be respectful with their way of thinking (which is true democracy at its best), we could make a first step towards global understanding.
Neo-liberal policies amongst Western Governments however are not going to help this global understanding, though.
The gap between poor countries and wealthy countries is bigger than ever and, as I said yesterday in another post, every single day of the year some 100.000 persons die of starvation or from its direct consequences.
Some 826 million people suffer right now from chronic malnutrition.
From them, some 34 million live in the Northern Hemisphere, within countries with developed economies.
The rest are spread all over Asia, Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. Just in the latter 186 million (34% of its total population) suffer the said condition.
If our respective Governments keep on ignoring this tremendous reality, there will be in the near future floods of immigrants (in your Country and in Europe) that will be impossible to stop. Whereas if we truly lend them a hand, if we honestly tend to their imperative needs, they will continue living where they were born, which is where they probably like to be, anyway.
We, white, capable and well fed people should definitely be less arrogant.
Incidentally, speaking of arrogance could you offer a good explanation why you always say we Americans instead of, for instance, we USA citizens or we North Americans?
When I went to school there was a big continent called America, divided into 3 sections called North, Central and South America.
Has that been changed?
This is an arrogant mistake of course, in my most humble opinion as European- unless, of course, when you sing God Bless America, you are referring to the entire Continent, which is most probably what GOD understands.
BTW, I like to say Im European, from Spain
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | bal317 asked on 09/25/03 - What do you think??? Religious thinking, so this is for all. What goes through your mind, when you are out among others, and for whatever reason, you look someone in the face, and their eyes meet yours, and 1. it seems like you know that person and they you, but in reality you don't but the eyes say to you otherwise.
2. Again the same as above, but the eyes seem to be looking right through you, like piercing, which gives you some sort of strange feeling.
3. Has anyone ever looked into an animal's eyes and so strongly thought that that animal, either reminds them of a loved one that has passed on? If so what type of animal.
4. What do you feel in your heart when you go to do something or go somewhere, and you really feel you have been there and done that before?
I know these sound "funny", but this has happened to me and I was just wondering from a Christian view point, are we over-looking something that we should pay attention to, or is this just a happen-stance?
Thank you. curious98 answered on 09/25/03:I do not know whether we can explain those feeling you mention through Religion or in any other way. I have often experienced looking into somebody eyes and feel I could speak with him/her without uttering a word I have many times looked at a dogs eyes, which was looking at me, and have had the sensation it was understanding much more than what I was asking it to do
Psychologists and Psychiatrics have written books over these, and other similar phenomena, trying to explain the unexplainable.
Maybe you are right and we are overlooking something. And, on second though, it is not a maybe; you are right, and we are certainly overlooking how little we know of how our mind and soul work.
We know a lot about our physical properties and our genetic engineering, the RNA and DNA, and what have you We have even counted that marvels me- that an adult normal brain may have something like 100.000 million of brain cells
And yet, we know so very little as to feelings like love and hate, and all those emotions that are hidden in a mans soul
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ETWolverine asked on 09/25/03 - A Glass of Milk - an story and essay about prayer The following appears on the Chabad website:
http://www.chabad.org/magazine/article.asp?AID=87202
Based on the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson
The chassid Rabbi Shmuel Munkes was traveling to spend Rosh Hashanah with his Rebbe, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, when he was stranded in a small shtetl over Shabbat.
Soon after Shabbat was over, the village retired to an early bed. Several minutes before midnight, the shamash began making his rounds with a lantern in one hand and a wooden mallet in the other, pounding on the shutters of each home and calling, "Wake up! Wake up! Wake up to the service of the Creator!" The entire village climbed out of bed, dressed swiftly, and hurried to the brightly lit synagogue for Selichot, the solemn prayer that opens the High Holiday season.
In the home of Rabbi Shmuel's host there was much confusion. The entire family had dressed and gathered at the door, prayerbooks in hand, ready to depart for the synagogue; but their prestigious guest had yet to emerge from his room. Finally, the villager knocked softly on Rabbi Shmuel's door. No response. Slowly he entered the room. To his amazement, he found the chassid sound asleep.
"Reb Shmuel, Reb Shmuel," he urged, shaking his guest awake. "Come quickly. Selichot."
Rabbi Shmuel's only response was to burrow even more deeply under the covers.
"Hurry, Reb Shmuel," his host persisted. "They're about to begin in the synagogue any moment now."
"Begin what?" asked Rabbi Shmuel, quite obviously annoyed. "It's the middle of the night. Why are you waking me in the middle of the night?"
"What's the matter with you?" cried the villager. "Tonight is Selichot! A fine Jew you are! Why, if I hadn't woken you, you would have slept through the entire Selichot!"
"Selichot?" asked Rabbi Shmuel. "What is Selichot?"
Rabbi Shmuel's host was beside himself with incredulity. "Are you making a mockery of me? Don't you know that today was the Shabbat before Rosh Hashanah? Every man, woman and child of the village is now in the synagogue, trembling with trepidation. Soon the baal tefillah will begin chanting the Selichot prayers and the entire community will burst into tears, praying and begging G-d to bless them with a good year..."
"So that's what this commotion is all about?" asked Rabbi Shmuel. "You're going to the synagogue to pray? What's so urgent that can't keep until morning? What are you praying for?"
"There's so much to pray for, Reb Shmuel," sighed the villager. "I pray that the cow should give enough milk to keep my children healthy. I pray that the oats should fetch a good price on the market this year, for soon I shall have a daughter to marry off. I pray that my horse should not break a leg, G-d forbid, as happened the year before last..."
"I don't understand," interrupted Rabbi Shmuel. "Since when do grown men wake up in the middle of the night to ask for a bit of milk?"
The Villager Was Right
Rabbi Shmuel Munkes wished to impress upon his host that there is more to preparing for Rosh Hashanah than praying to G-d for one's material needs. Rosh Hashanah is the day on which we proclaim G-d king of the universe and commit ourselves to obey and serve Him. It is a time for teshuvah, for repenting for one's sins and failings and resolving never to repeat them. Is this the time to approach G-d with a "shopping list" of our material needs?
And yet, a glance at the Rosh Hashanah prayerbook shows that it abounds with requests for life, health and sustenance. For on Rosh Hashanah, the Divine energy that vitalizes all of creation is "renewed" for another year, and every creature is allotted its share of life, happiness and wealth. The simple villager was right: Rosh Hashanah is the time to pray that the cow should give milk and the oats should fetch a good price in the marketplace.
How, indeed, are we to reconcile the loftiness of the day with the mundane subject of a significant part of its prayers?
But the very concept of prayer carries the same paradox. Prayer is the soul's communion with its Creator, its island of heaven in an otherwise earth-bound day. Indeed, the Hebrew word for "prayer," tefillah, means "attachment," it being the endeavor to rise above our pedestrian concerns and connect to our Divine source. Yet the essence of prayer, the foundation upon which its spiritual edifice rests, is our beseeching the Almighty to provide us with our everyday needs.
The paradox of prayer is magnified a thousand fold when it comes to the prayers of Rosh Hashanah. On Rosh Hashanah, we are not only standing before G-d; we are crowning Him king, pledging to Him the total abnegation of our own self, and all its desires, to His will. What place is there on this day for the very notion of personal need?
A Dwelling Below
As discussed at length in our previous Rosh Hashanah essays, only man can make G-d king, for only man possesses the capacity for free choice--without which the very concept of "kingship" is devoid of significance. By freely submitting to the Divine sovereignty on Rosh HaShanah, we reawaken His desire to be king and infuse a new vitality into His involvement with the whole of creation.
The Divine desire to be king is also described by our sages as a desire for "a dwelling in the lower realms"--a home in the physical world. Why the physical world? Because only in the physical arena does true choice exist. The world of spirit is naturally inclined toward its Divine source. Thus, our service of G-d in the spiritual areas of our lives is a "compelled" service, driven by the natural inclinations of our spiritual selves. On the other hand, when we invite G-d into our physical lives, when we serve Him through physical deeds and with the materials of our physical existence, we are truly choosing to submit to Him, for such servitude goes against the very grain of our physical nature.
Thus, one who considers it "unbecoming" to entreat G-d for milk for his children on Rosh Hashanah rejects a most fundamental aspect of the Divine sovereignty. Crowning G-d king means accepting Him as sovereign in all areas of our lives, including -- and primarily -- our most mundane needs and requirements. It means acknowledging our utter dependence upon Him not only for our spiritual nurture, but for the piece of bread that sustains our physical existence.
Seen in such a light, our needs are not personal needs, and our requirements are not selfish requirements. Yes, we are requesting food, health and wealth; but we are requesting them as a subject requests them from his king -- as a servant asking his master for the means with which to better serve him. We ask for money to observe the mitzvah of charity; for strength to build a Sukkah; for food to keep body and soul together so that our physical lives may serve as a "dwelling in the lower realms" that houses His presence in our world.
Chanah's Prayer
The haftarah (reading from the Prophets) for the first day of Rosh Hashanah tells the story of Chanah, the mother of the prophet Samuel:
Chanah, the childless wife of Elkanah, came to Shiloh (where the Sanctuary stood before King Solomon built the Holy Temple in Jerusalem) to pray for a child.
She prayed to G-d, weeping profusely. And she vowed a vow, and said: "O L-rd of hosts... If You will give Your maidservant a man child, I shall dedicate him to G-d all the days of his life..."
Eli, the High Priest at Shiloh, watched as she
prayed profusely before G-d... Only her lips moved; her voice was not heard.
Eli thought her a drunkard. And he said to her: "How long shall you be drunken! Put away your wine!" Chanah replied: "No, my lord... I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink. I have poured out my soul before the face of G-d..."
Eli blessed her that G-d should grant her request. That year, Chanah gave birth to a son, whom she named Samuel ("asked from G-d"). After weaning him, she fulfilled her vow to dedicate him to the service of G-d by bringing him to Shiloh, where he was raised by Eli and the priests. Samuel grew up to become one of the greatest prophets of Israel.
The "Prayer of Chanah," as this reading is called, is one of the fundamental biblical sources for the concept of prayer, and many of the laws of prayer are derived from it. Indeed, the dialogue between Eli and Chanah touches on the very essence of prayer, and of prayer on Rosh Hashanah in particular.
Eli's accusation of "drunkenness" can also be understood as a critique of what he saw as an excessive indulgence in the wants and desires of the material self on Chanah's part. You are standing in the most holy place on earth, Eli was implying, in the place where the Divine presence has chosen to dwell. Is this the place to ask for your personal needs? And if you must ask for them, is this the place to "pray profusely," with such tenacity and passion?
You misunderstand me, answered Chanah. "I have poured out my soul before the face of G-d." I am not merely asking for a son; I am asking for a son that I might "dedicate him to G-d all the days of his life."
Our sages tell us that Samuel was conceived on Rosh Hashanah. G-d's fulfillment of Chanah's prayer on this day encourages us to indeed avail ourselves of the awesome moment of G-d's coronation to approach Him with requests for our everyday needs. For on this day, our "personal" needs and our desire to serve our Master are one and the same.
Based on the talks and writings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe; rendered by Yanki Tauber.
---------
All comments are appreciated.
Elliot curious98 answered on 09/25/03:Hi Elliot,
I will give my candid Catholic point of view which will make more than one shudder.
In Spanish we have a saying that goes Slo te acuerdas de Santa Brbara cuando truena
Roughly translated means that we remember Sainte Barbara but when it thunders
It has to be said that this Sainte is supposed to protect us from big storms and she was very popular in the Spanish rural areas to protect the crops.
I mean by that your villager was absolutely right in my opinion.
We do not have to get up at midnight to ask GOD for a glass of milk, nor are we very tactful bothering GOD (if GOD can be bothered) with our selfish prayers asking GOD to provide us with a healthy, prosperous and happy life.
I have the feeling we might all be better off if we ALL should devote one hour every day ALL TOGETHER to pray GOD for Peace and Justice for all Mankind.
Every single day of the year some 100.000 persons die of starvation or from its direct consequences.
Some 826 million people suffer right now from chronic malnutrition. From them, some 34 million live in the Northern Hemisphere, within countries with developed economies. The rest are spread all over Asia, Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. In the latter only 186 million (34% of its total population) suffer the said condition.
These figures come all the way from the FAOs World Food Report, year 2000.
So, maybe we should ALL pray at night, if we do have to get up, for something really important, such as implanting some sense of justice in the hearts of those who command on Earth, so as to make them become a little more human towards the rest of the world that really needs help
It might be interesting for us to know that, according to the same source, present Worlds agricultural production could feed some 12.000 million people, by giving every one of them 2.700 daily calories
The funny thing is we are only some 6.000 million
And we still pray to GOD for our petty problems?
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 09/24/03 - How many children did Michal have? "Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death.."
- II Samuel 6:23
"The five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul.."
- II Samuel 21:8
Did she have five sons on the last day of her life? Quintuplet boys and died in labor? curious98 answered on 09/25/03:I guess you are using tne KJV Bible.
There:
Samuel 6:23, literally says:
23 And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.
While Samuel 21:8, says:
7 The king spared Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, because of the oath before the LORD between David and Jonathan son of Saul. 8 But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah's daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab, [1] whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite. 9 He handed them over to the Gibeonites, who killed and exposed them on a hill before the LORD . All seven of them fell together; they were put to death during the first days of the harvest, just as the barley harvest was beginning.
Some Hebrew and Septuagint manuscripts say Merab instead of Michal, Merab was Michal's older sister. You left off the rest of the second verse if you're using the King James Version, which says Michal, "whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:". Since elsewhere in 2 Samuel, we read that Saul's daughter Merab married Adriel, it could mean exactly what it says in the King James Version, that Michal, for some reason not explicitly stated, brought up the sons of her sister. Either because of the advantages she could give them by living in the palace, or perhaps Merab's death. It's very likely Merab died before her sons were fully grown. Or it could mean that in some of the manuscripts, the wrong daughter's name was written down. A copyist working with thousands of verses could certainly make a copying mistake. Since the father is explicitly named, though, and there's no mention of Michal committing adultery with her own brother-in-law, they probably weren't biologically hers. Probably they were Merab's sons, but she may have been responsible for their upbringing.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 09/24/03 - How old was Ahaziah when he began his reign? "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.."
- 2 Kings 8:26
"Fourty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.."
- 2 Chronicles 22:2 curious98 answered on 09/25/03:Hy Graylin,
After the clarification Bobby has given you
there is nothing I can add.
This is what my Encyclopaedi says in that respect, so as usual, Bobby seems to have given the right explanation.
Tell me. Are you reading the entire Bible sentence by sentence and throw you doubts at us for clarification?
For if that is the case, you have a several years job ahead of you. I have heard of people who have spend all their lives trying to explain the Bible and still have doubts...
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 09/24/03 - Philosophy thought/question: WHy did God take 6 days to create the universe and earth? Why did God take 6 days to create the universe and earth? Why not do it all at once? curious98 answered on 09/25/03:Im a little confused by your question and subsequent answers from our learned colleagues.
I suppose you are just (and only) referring to what the Genesis says on the subject of the creation of our Universe. And that you are trying to find an explanation as to how it was written as it is.
I want to believe that nobody here is disputing the fact that this is just the way the writer, ignoring the actual scientific facts related to his own creation, chose to explain the mystery of Creation.
And, if we accept the principle that Genesis was dictated or inspired by GOD Itself, then GOD chose to explain ITS OWN magnificent work of art the only way it could be understood 5000 years ago.
It could also be the writer was influenced by what previous religions amongst Near East cultures were had to say with reference to the subject of Creation, which is something that has worried man since man could start reasoning.
It is like if, to-day, you would go to Papua-New Guinea and you would try to technically explain to some of the tribes living inland the miracle of Internet.
My grand-sons have tried to explain it to me and I still cannot grab it completely
I therefore would say that whatever explanation as to why six days and not six years, or any other length of time, is purely speculative for we cannot determine what was on the mind of the writer.
Yet, it could be, following that principle, that a day was a measure of time easily understandable in those days.
Although Sumerian already knew how to measure time, our concept of months and years was not known until much later.
Throughout the course of history, different civilizations have devised various ways to measure and divide up time. The sunrise and sunset gave rise to the notion of days, and the observation of the moon and the seasons led to the notions of month and year. The lunar cycles and the return of the seasons could be accounted for by three classic astronomical calendars: the solar calendars (Julian and Gregorian); the lunar calendars (such as the Muslim calendar); and the lunar-solar (Jewish) calendar.
It was only in 46 BC, when Julius Caesar introduced the Julian calendar establishing that each fourth year would have 366 days (years that are multiples of four), with the month of February having 29 days; in non-leap years, February would have 28 days.
So, 5000 years ago, the simplest way so that everybody could understand time lapses would have been the day, and thus the said six days, which, additionally, for the probably very superstitious mentalities of our ancestors, represented a much bigger miracle than any longer span of time, for such a wonderful job as is it the Creation of the Universe.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ldmitch asked on 09/24/03 - Feast referred to in John chapter 5. In John chapter 5, we read, After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
Although the feast is not identified, I believe it probably referring to Rosh Hashana, because the theme of chapter 5 seems to be the day of judgment.
Do you think chapter 5 took place during Rosh Hashana, or was it some other Jewish holiday? curious98 answered on 09/25/03:Not being an expert in anything and much the less in Jewish Religious Feasts, I'd find it difficult to answer your question.
After having read the 2 answers you have received from true experts I could not determine the exact date when the feast of the Jews took place. I guess the N.T. does not give any sort of material importance to that event.
regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 09/21/03 - Christians only please: sorry my Hebrew teachers... Why does Revelations list a different set of tribes as the 12 tribes of Isreal than Genesis? According to Christian beliefs, what happened to the tribe of Dan, and where did the tribe of Manasses come from? curious98 answered on 09/21/03:From a Book on Bible studies (according to the KJV), Im copying the following excerpt:
A Study of Revelation - Part Four
(As taught by Andy Neckar at Community Bible Chapel-Hico, TX)
Rev 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
Rev 7:2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,
Rev 7:3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
I believe these four angels are four military powers that are restrained not to hurt the earth. This would be a period of peace between "great wars" such as WWI and WWII. This angel rising from the East restrains the military powers because he has the seal to seal a portion of the twelve tribes of Israel.
Rev 7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed one hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
Let us see just who this angel from the East will seal. The twelve tribes of Israel were the 12 son of Jacob. BUT-something happened to change this.
Rev 7:5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.
Rev 7:6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.
Rev 7:7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.
Rev 7:8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.
Twelve thousand out of twelve tribes sealed. Were they ALL sons of Jacob, the "original" twelve tribes of Israel?
Jacobs sons-- 1-Reuben, 2-Simeon, 3-Levi, 4-Judah, 5-Issachar, 6-Zebulun, 7-Joseph, 8-Benjamin, 9-Dan, 10-Naphtali, 11-Gad, 12-Asher:
The tribes sealed-- 1-Juda, 2-Reuben, 3-Gad, 4-Aser, 5-Nephthalim, 6-Manasses, 7-Simeon, 8-Levi, 9-Issachar, 10-Zabulon, 11-Joseph, 12-Benjamin.
Where is the tribe of Dan in those seals? Where did the tribe of Manasses come from?
These are the sons of Jacob that he prophesied to on his deathbed in Genesis Chapter 49.
1-Reuben, 2-Simeon, 3-Levi, 4-Judah, 5-Zebulun, 6-Issachar, 7-Dan, 8-Gad, 9-Asher, 10-Naphtali, 11-Joseph, 12-Benjamin.
Gen 49:28 All these are the twelve tribes of Israel: and this is it that their father spake unto them, and blessed them; every one according to his blessing he blessed them.
For some reason the tribe of Dan is left out and scripture is silent as to why. The tribe of Manasses is substituted.
Joseph is represented by his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (Manasses-NT spelling)
Gen 41:50-52 And unto Joseph were born two sons before the years of famine came, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him. And Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: For God, said he, hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father's house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction.
These two sons of Joseph became as sons of Jacob and therefore tribes of Israel.
Jacob speaking.
Gen 48:5 And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which were born unto thee in the land of Egypt before I came unto thee into Egypt, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine.
The two sons of Joseph were counted as "half-tribes".
Josh 14:4 For the children of Joseph were two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim: (Joseph-one tribe and his 2 sons one half tribe each is 2 tribes) therefore they gave no part unto the Levites in the land, save cities to dwell in, with their suburbs for their cattle and for their substance.
Only 12 tribes of Israel got the promised land. The tribe of Levi, the priestly tribe did not get a land inheritance. This tribe lived off tithes and offerings of the other tribes.
Josh 21:5 And the rest of the children of Kohath had by lot out of the families of the tribe of Ephraim, and out of the tribe of Dan, and out of the half tribe of Manasseh, ten cities.
T
he Bible has 24 references to the two half tribes of Israel.
So counting the tribe of Dan, there was thirteen tribes of Israel. One tribe had to go and according to Revelation Chapter seven, that tribe was the tribe of Dan.
The tribe of Dan never got any land for some reason.
Judg 18:1 In those days there was no king in Israel: and in those days the tribe of the Danites sought them an inheritance to dwell in; for unto that day all their inheritance had not fallen unto them among the tribes of Israel.
Dan and the Levites got no land, so that made 10 tribes, and so the two "half tribes" each got a "full share" of cities.
Now back to the sealing of the twelve tribes of Israel. What does this mean?
To get an example, let us go to Ezekiel Chapter Nine.
Ezek 9:1-6 He cried also in mine ears with a loud voice, saying, Cause them that have charge over the city to draw near, even every man with his destroying weapon in his hand. And, behold, six men came from the way of the higher gate, which lieth toward the north, and every man a slaughter weapon in his hand; and one man among them was clothed with linen, with a writer's inkhorn by his side: and they went in, and stood beside the brasen altar. And the glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon he was, to the threshold of the house. And he called to the man clothed with linen, which had the writer's inkhorn by his side; And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
The persecution to come will begin at the churches. These 144 thousand Jews- Israelites who are called "the servants of our Lord" are especially chosen to accomplish God's will during the great tribulation. Some say they are Jewish evangelists. Maybe so. These are Christian Jews and they come under God's "divine providence".
I believe this also is a picture of God sealing ALL of His children on this earth against His coming wrath which begins at the trumpet judgments, as in Ezek 9:1-6 above. In prophetic numbers twelve is a number of illustration. So twelve would be a number, but twelve times twelve would be ALL. All of God's children. (all Christians) All of God's chosen out of every Nation, Kindred and Tongue.
This is also a preview of the very near future when all Israel will be saved.
Rom 11:25-26 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
This means that the fullness of the Gentiles cannot be very far away.
Rev 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
After the preview of "all Israel" being saved there comes a preview of the "Rapture" as the fullness of the Gentiles being fulfilled. (above verse)
Rev 7:10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
Rev 7:11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,
Rev 7:12 Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.
Rev 7:13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Rev 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
Rev 7:16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.
Rev 7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.
Rev 8:1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.
This is a "lull before the storm", because the seven angels with the seven trumpets are about to start sounding. The sounding of first trumpet will be the beginning of the wrath of God. I believe this to be the half-way point in the great seven year tribulation. (3 1/2 years).
Seven years are around 2,555 days and 61,320 hours. A half hour then would be around 1277 hours or around 53 days. A little less than two months. A little lull before the storm.
Rev 8:2 And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets.
Rev 8:3 And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.
Now I believe that this angel is Jesus our High Priest offering the prayers of the saints to God His Father, as it is "through" Jesus that we pray to God. "In Jesus Name we pray".(John 14:13-14)
Rev 8:4 And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.
Christians are on this earth suffering at the hands of the One World Government and the One World Church. These are the ones spoken of in Rev 6:9-11 and 7:9-14.
Well God is about ready to answer their requests. He is about to avenge their blood.
Rev 8:5 And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire of the altar, and cast it into the earth: and there were voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake.
The golden censer no longer has incense. It has been filled with fire and this fire is cast down into the earth. LOOK OUT BELOW.
Rev 8:6 And the seven angels which had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound.
Next study. The seven trumpets sounding. The beginning of the wrath of God. But this wrath will not fall on His children. Christians will be suffering the wrath of the One World Government & Church and God is avenging His children.
I do not know whether this is clear enough for you. If it is not, remember there are scholars who spend their entire life studying the Bible (Exegetes) and, most of the time, they sustain different opinions upon different points.
In this connection, I think you should allow our Jewish friends to give us their point of view, which I think may be very interesting too.
Lets not forget that the first language of the Old Testament was the Hebrew and the first translation of the English Bible was initiated by John Wycliffe and completed by John Purvey only in 1388.
So it is not hazardous to say that from the Hebrew original to the 1st English version there can be a few differences
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 09/21/03 - Who was Moses' father-in-law? The Bible indicates perhaps three men. Was Moses a polygamist?
Related question: Polygamy is acceptable, even encouraged in Biblical times. What is the current Jewish thinking on the practice? Would it be practiced, if modern laws allowed it? curious98 answered on 09/21/03:Jethro
Ex. 3:1
"Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law."
Ex.4:18
"And Moses went and returned to Jethro his father in law." "When Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses' father in law...."
Ex.18:5
"And Jethro Moses' father in law, came with his sons and his wife unto Moses
HOBAB
Jg. 4:11
Now Heber the Kenite, which as of the children of Hobab the father in law of Moses."
Num.10:29
"And Moses said unto Hobab, ... , Moses' father in law."
REUEL
Ex. 2:18-21
And when they came to Reuel their father, he said, How is it that ye are come so soon to day? And they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew water enough for us, and watered the flock. And he said unto his daughters, And where is he? why is it that ye have left the man? call him, that he may eat bread. And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter."
Reuel? Jethro? Hobab? The most common answer is that in ancient Near Eastern it was a usual practice to give multiple names for persons and cities according to context, just like Yahweh and Elohim. On top of that, it can be added that "Reuel" means "friend of God" and it is most likely an actual name, but the word used for "father" is 'ab and this also refers to the chief patriarch of a clan. Reuel, as the chief patriarch, was the one who arranged all the marriages for his female descendants. He was most likely a grandfather (or perhaps great-grandfather), which the word combination father/daughter allows.
"Jethro" actually means "his excellence" and it is actually a title, not a name as we have become accustomed to thinking.
That leaves "Hobab" in Judges. Who the Hobab is that? That one is what we indeed would call, exclusively and legally, Moses' father-in-law. Some try to throw Numbers 10:29 in the mix here, but we must make sure they quote it fully: "And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Raguel the Midianite, Moses' father in law..." Solomon Tulbure leaves out the part about Raguel, which is merely a linguistic variation of Reuel. But it actually serves to prove the above point: Reuel was the lead patriarch; Hobab was his son and Moses' father-in-law as we define the term.
As to marrying several women, I ask you, who would really like that?
In the Islamic world it is allowed both by civil and religious law to have 4 wives. All my Arab and Egyptian people I know (most of them, well to do people) very proudly claim to have only one, though I must say that, when they come over to Europe, they are not reputed for being very faithful. Others, like my old acquaintance Crown Prince Sheikh Saad El-Abdallah El-Sabah, of Kuwait, does not hide the fact of having several concubines.
The point Im driving at is that, at present, males that cannot control their sexual appetence, and are capable of coping with several women, they normally prefer to have one legal wife and one or several illegal ones.
I would not know, for I have been happily married to my ONLY wife for 53 years so far, but apparently, illegal affair seem to be more exciting
What I do say is that one wife is plenty, just as I guess I husband is enough for most women.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 09/19/03 - passover and unleavened bread How many days is unleavened bread to be eaten during the passover?
six or seven? curious98 answered on 09/20/03:
Dt. 16:3
"Seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction."
Ex.12:15
"Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread."."
Ex.23:15
"Thou shalt eat unleavened bread seven days, as I commanded thee."
The Church explanation for thse 7 days of eating unleavened bread begins with "the 1st day evening, the Night to Much Observed, the 15th of the first month, Hebrew calendar, and this night is to be remembered because of Israel's being freed from the bondage and slavery of sin by God's Mighty Hand. This is to be a reminder to all, that sins that go unchecked and that are not overcome will bring the same results, slavery and bondage to sin, as the Israelites experienced for 430 years. Each day and each meal of the rest of this week, as one eats unleavened bread, should serve as a continual reminder that sin puffs up a person or a church, and works much like leavening puffs up bread. Sin will spread in a person and a church and a nation like the effects of leavening in bread whereas, it will eventually overwhelm and completely bring its participants into total submission, to its bondage, slavery and eventually the participant's death. The wages of sin is death, which is God's judgment for sin, and this is the reason that Christ died to provide a way out of this judgment for sin if man will repent of his sins, accept Christ as his Passover, and change his heart and conform his life to what God commands.
Whenever a little bit of sin in a person or a church is permitted, looked over, and compromised, this sin works much like leaven in bread--it will eventually leaven the whole lump, leaven the whole church, leaven the whole world. This permitted sin will involve and entice other sins to be committed, and will eventually draw a person or church completely outside of the will and favor or grace of our Father, and our Savior, Jesus Christ, causing that person to be cut off from our merciful Savior and loving Father. This tolerance for sin and not taking the meaning of these days seriously results in divisions, splits, and various church congregations in conflict all professing to be the churches of God. Paul gives this example of how the leavening of sin works in a person and a church, I Cor. 5:1-13.
Sin like leaven, puffs up a person, causing that person or church not to think about his life, becomes self-righteous about seeing his sins, proud about his life in the faith and in the church, spiritually rich, and becomes unable to see his sins without a severe trial or tribulation coming upon his life to awaken him. The GREAT TRIBULATION will provide such a trial, and bring all the sins of the churches of God and all professing Christian churches up before their eyes and hearts, and reveal and expose to them that they had not been taking these Days of Unleavened Bread seriously as it pertains to the fleshly way of life that they have been living and pursuing.
Also, even as important, unleavened bread that one eats during those days, should remind every person the need of taking Jesus Christ into one's life. The more a person comes to see this through the power of His Spirit, will help a person overcome the temptations that will prevent the leavening of sin to be established, or permitting it to take up residence in a person or a church of Jesus Christ. Having Christ and His unleavened life of no sin to live in us creates a heart within us where we will not tolerate sin, which is breaking God's commandments. In other words the 10 commandments are written in our heart by Christ living in us. Christ's way of life, His way of thinking and living is to be our life through the power of the Holy Spirit, John 17:21-26. Christ's life was a life of love, and that love, which was based on God's law, must be in our life if we are to inherit God's Kingdom. Every true saint must come to the place that he, like Christ, abhors sin, and the leavening effect that sin brings upon a person's life. This should be our thoughts during the Days of eating Unleavened Bread."
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 09/19/03 - enoch: sixth or seventh from adam? Was Enoch sixth or seventh from Adam?
Jude 14
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam....
Gen.5:3-18
And Adam ... begat ... Seth....
And Seth ... begat Enos....
And Enos ... begat Cainan....
And Cainan .... begat Mahalaleel....
And Mahalaleel ... begat Jared....
And Jared .... begat Enoch. curious98 answered on 09/20/03:I think you yourself give the answer.
Enoch would be the seven descendant from Adam, according to Gen, 5:3-18.
But what is the reason for your asking?
Would it make a difference?
Or is it just out of curiosity?
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 09/19/03 - Help understanding, One God or Many? In reading the Bible, I run across places where it seems to say that there is only one God, and places where it says there are others with God, and places where God is the only god, and places where God exists with other gods.
I know some of the confusion (to me) is the difference between God and god(s). And, some of the confusion may be due to mistranslations, or that God talks about/to/with other heavenly things.
Can you help me put the following verses into the right contexts?
Is God talking about (and including) other heavenly beings as part of "us" here, or is this a mistranslation?
Gen.1:26
"And God said, let us make man in our image."
Gen.3:22
"And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one of us, to know good and evil."
Gen.11:7
"Let us go down, and there confound their language."
In these verses, does this mean that there ARE other gods (but only one God)?
Ex.12:12
"And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment."
Ex.15:11
"Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?"
Ex.18:11
"Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods."
Ex.20:3
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Ex.22:20
"He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed."
Ex.22:28
"Thou shalt not revile the gods."
Ex.23:13
"Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth."
Ex.23:24
"Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images."
Ex.23:32
"Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods."
Ex.34:14
"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God."
Num.33:4
"Upon their gods also theLORD executed judgments."
Jg.11:24
Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess?
1 Sam.6:5
"Ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods."
1 Sam.28:13
"And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.
And finally, in these verses, is the Bible saying there are or are not other gods, but there is just one God. Is God saying there are no others, or there are others, just none like Me?
Dt.32:39
"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me."
Is.43:10
"I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."
Is.44:8
"Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."
Is.45:5-6
"I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me."
Is.46:9
"I am God, and there is none else: I am God, and there is none like me."
Mk.12:29 curious98 answered on 09/20/03:
When the Scriptures were written polytheistic religions were common in the existing contemporary civilizations, so it stands to reason the writers, whether inspired by GOD or otherwise, would had them in mind when writing the Books. The Bible is a set of Books about ONE AND ONLY GOD, which, later on, in the New Testament becomes ONE GOD in a TRINITY OF SUBSTANCES, i.e. FATHER, SON AND SAINT SPIRIT (this last part for Christians, of course).
Whatever reference in the Bible to other gods is a reference to pagan gods which abounded in Babylonia, Egypt, Assyria, etc.
And even amongst some of the Jewish populations
And as you very rightly say, there is a difference between GOD and gods.
As for the explanations of your list, I think you have already received some satisfactory answers, so it would just be redundant for me to elaborate on them.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Yiddishkeit asked on 09/19/03 - Clarification/follow-up... Well, I was hoping to use the clarification/follow-up on my previous question about "Messiah accomplishments?", but for one reason or another the link would not work and after my second try I gave up. As for that follow-up, I just wanted to thank "Curious98" for taking time to reply and that "Yes" I do believe messiah makes for an interesting discussion. You've made several points and the one that I would like to start with is that of the restoration of Israel. Perhaps some of the Christian adherents on this board could give a brief explaination of how Jesus could qualify for that accomplishment being that the world still awaits the ingathering of Israel even today?
Thanks in advance...Bobby
curious98 answered on 09/19/03:Dear Bobby,
If I accept that Jesus is the Son of GOD, I can easily accept He may return one day and do all the Messiah is supposed to do to restore Universal Peace.
I recognize, however, that this though is not acceptable by Judaism, and that is that.
Notwithstanding, when you say the world still awaits the ingathering of Israel even today I wonder whether GOD WHO ultimately made us free is not expecting to see how far can we go in our materialist age to destroy humankind, through hate and ambition
Quite often, I think of the resemblance of our times with that of Ex. 32:1 and following We are told the way we should follow, but we, in our myopia, just follow the opposite.
For its unquestionable interest, Im copying this article from a Jew, who believes in the Unity of our Earth.
In the web below you can see more details about it.
Its long, but Im sure youll enjoy it
Regards
Curious98
www.thehope.org/nech.htm
THE ACADEMY OF JERUSALEM
p.o.b 8115 Jerusalem 91080.
Fax: (972) 02-6277980
E-Mail: yrusalem@actcom.co.il
Jerusalem
April 1997
graphics and printing:
Ohad Ezrahi
Ulpaney-Bereshith
Bat-Ayin
Prologue
The relationship of Israel, (or of the Jewish People), and the world's nations is a problematic one. Almost every gentile meta-historian has become exasperated with the Jewish People, who did not seem to comply with his scheme. This is the more sophisticated expression to the common view expressed in the popular saying of "how odd of God to choose the Jews". (Quite recently I saw a publication of a self-proclaimed "school for world-servers" who saw no other topic to initiate a discussion of "solving the world's problems" than by introducing "The Jewish Problem," and this by resorting to every antisemitic utterance of a couple of occultist ladies). Our suggestion would be that in seeking an approach to solve the global world problems, it would be good to pay attention to intelligible Jewish views on them.
The problem is no less pressing on the Jewish side. There is a lot of past hurt and even xenophobia there, leading to a common failure to look optimistically at the relationship of Israel and the nations and to missing on its opportunities. One role of the Hayut Foundation for a New Vision of Zion is to bring out optimistic visions for Israel, to encourage their study and adoption, which we do by our "Academy of Jerusalem" project. In its role of an experiment in "higher education", the Academy conducts symposia and tutorials.
Nehamah Nadborny approached me at her own initiative with a plan to make a book on "Israel and the 70 Nations" as a sequel to her book on "The Twelve Dimensions of Israel". We soon found that we had a common ground in thinking afresh the plurality implied by a re-evocation of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, and could aim at some common further aims. The main help I could offer Nehamah was in a series of meetings, in which various bits of further information and some new insights were offered, beside some (hopefully) useful criticism and guidance. These symposia operated on several modes, scholarly as well as artistic and even mystical. On the practical side, we were able to offer the costs of publication of a monograph of the Academy of Jerusalem - from painting materials and a stipend for writing, editing and printing costs.
We hope that in the future we shall be able to likewise assist still many more motivated colleagues and students. We ask you, the reader to show such generosity and suspend your judgement until you read all of Nechamah's argument. It will take you through some delightful places, and demonstrate in a fairly simple way the enigmatic Biblical stipulation - that God has "set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the Children of Israel" (Deut. 32:8).
Israel and the Seventy Nations of the World
A Kabbalistic Approach to an Eternally Enduring World Peace
Nechama Sarah G. Nadborny
How can the ultimate unity of mankind be achieved without sacrificing the integrity of the national/cultural units or the uniqueness of their members? Presented here is an answer sourced in the Torah, the 3,500-year-old Divine book of wisdom, and in the Kabbalah, the mystical secrets hidden in the Torah. The Kabbalistic vision of world unity may guide us in recreating a cosmic order which truly effects social change and ends human conflict.
The Biblical story of Adam and Eve teaches us of our common source. We are all brothers and sisters, children of one God. (I keep on repeating these very same thought ad-nauseam-Curious98)
As much as this truth has been forgotten or distorted, in the depths of our shared psyche the memory of unity persists. In the wellsprings of our consciousness, we share a belief in the ultimate unity of humankind.
This unity, however, must honor each individual within a national/cultural context. It must recognize and value each nation's unique journey towards self-actualization. Just as a diamond's beauty intensifies as the number of facets increase, so manifold points of view enhance the beauty of unity. This vision embraces and honors truth as a diamond with multiple facets. The source of the radiating light of each facet may be mined from the depths of each individual.
The facets of our cosmic diamond must scintillate in harmony. Each one must emanate a distinct light that complements the others. A fragmented facet distorts the light of unity. This translates into a distortion of truth. In the name of partial truth how much harm has been done? In the name of an illusive unity, how much blood has been shed? How many times has the ideal of collective unity been used to oppress the individual, robbing him of his right to think and act according to the dictates of his own conscience? Conversely, how many times has the emphasis on individual rights been to the detriment of the collective? In the name of the rights and privileges of a few individuals, how many societies have collapsed from within? Collective visions always run the risk of undervaluing the richness and depth of the individual within the larger cultural context. Individualistic visions always run the risk of manipulating the masses for the sake of a few. We must arrive at a reconciliation of differences and conflicting interests without compromising the unique role of each individual.
The Divine Light
An intense, pure light of Divinity is trying to penetrate our world. It expresses the sacredness of life, love, acceptance, and universal harmony. This light emanates from a single Source, radiating truth throughout numerous facets of our cosmic diamond, penetrating each individual's unique perception. Every person innately knows this light, which is at times experienced as a moment's ecstatic revelation of the unity of all being. Our shared potential for a permanent revelation of this light reflects our common origin in Adam and Eve. Kabbalistic tradition teaches that when this light is revealed, a spiritual reality even higher than that of the Garden of Eden awaits us. Other traditions also reflect this vision. It is the goal of prayers, meditation, and wisdom studies the world over.
Now, as we stand at the threshold of a new awakening, the experience and interpretation of this light seems more fragmented than ever. The proliferation of ideologies which justify hatred and self aggrandizement is a result of an inability to permanently translate the light into a lasting workable reality.
Fragments of light give birth to partial answers. Russia's Communist Revolution, for instance, aspired to economically empower the masses. However, the exaltation of one principle at the expense of undermining other principles became an obsession. Thus, almost overnight, the new communist regime became a tyranny of mind control, conformity, and bestial brutality, destroying any individual who defied the new order. What happened? The initial light which inspired sensitivity to a basic human need turned into a cataclysmic darkness of power and control. Why? Because it was only a fragment, thereby shutting out the reality of a total cosmic order.
The Torah's vision of unity is all-encompassing. It expresses a cosmic order which beckons to guide the total creative expression of the individual within a just society of humankind. It embraces the collective and the individual, the universal and the particular.
We may realize this vision through sharing universal symbols of unity and cosmic order. In order for the Divine light to penetrate the human psyche and nourish true and lasting global change, we all must, simultaneously, be willing to re-examine our beliefs and the symbols that embody our beliefs. This requires refining the frameworks that we have inherited or adopted. In order to do this, we must enter a sacred place wherein we will be assisted and assured that not one of us will be forced to give up anything that is holy. On the contrary, the purpose of this process is to help realize the true essence of our beliefs. (For details of this process, see footnote.)
For Israel, and for many people the world over, the most powerful earthly symbol of world peace and cosmic harmony is the Temple in Jerusalem. It was there that Israel experienced the Godly light in all of its glory. It was there that, once a year, seventy sacrifices were offered for the benefit of the seventy core nations defined by the Torah.
The Torah teaches us that seventy nations descended from Noah. (Genesis 10) These archetypal nations represent seventy basic languages and cosmologies through which the cosmic light is interpreted and perceived by humankind. The core variations of this light are reflected in the seven colors of the rainbow which greeted Noah and his family after the flood. A Midrash describes the future Temple, whose essence exists in the supernal worlds, as scintillating with seventy two jewels, representing the seventy nations, Israel, and God. Thus, the full array of the nuances of the one light, refracted into seven, then further into seventy, adorn the final revelation.
However, as universal as the Temple truly is, it is still mainly associated with Israel. Before all peoples can begin to appreciate the essential idea of the Temple in our days, we need to make use of symbols that are completely universal in scope and to which each individual and collective can relate.
The Cube: Our Symbolic Model and Basic Structure of Our Cosmic Diamond
The book now in progress The Seventy Dimensions of the World's Nations (of which this monograph is a primer) will be a sequel to my book The Twelve Dimensions of Israel. The Divine Source of unified light that is uniquely expressed through the twelve tribes of Israel is further defined through the seventy nations of the world. In this context the term "dimension" is defined figuratively. Here, "twelve dimensions" and "seventy dimensions" refer to perceptions of God's unity.
In The Twelve Dimensions of Israel, I explored the concept of a simple six-sided cube as an archetypal shape for understanding the infrastructure of our multi-dimensional universe. In essence, the form of a cube is most appropriate for representing the three-dimensional space of our universe in which every object has six sides or faces paralleling the six directions (south, north, east, west, up, down). In this model, the twelve edges of the cube represent the twelve tribes of Israel.
Each of the twelve edges of the universal cube (see illustration 1) is a link between the transcendent world of unity and the lower levels of multiplicity experienced in our ordinary reality. Most importantly, each edge represents a different potential for perceiving Divinity and integrating this consciousness into the details of our lives. Each edge alludes to the pulsating life force of the souls which are manifested in the twelve tribes of Israel. (For more details, see appendix 1.) The Bahir, a book attributed to Rabbi Nehunia ben haKana, a first century master of the Kabbalah, elaborates on the central cube of Israel. As mentioned above, a cube has six sides and twelve edges. The Bahir expands the concept of twelve into one of seventy-two. Each of the twelve consists of six, such that, "each of the twelve is a six directional spatial continuum in its own right." (For further explanation, see appendix 1.)
Simply stated, this means that each of the six two-dimensional faces of the cube expands into a full-blown three-dimensional cube. Thus, a multi-faceted cosmic diamond (or hypercube) of the universe is revealed, composed of six additional surrounding cubes. The entire structure exhibits 72 additional lines (6 X 12). (See illustration 2.) The 72 edges allude to the pulsating life force manifested through the world's 70 archetypal nations, Israel, and God. (See appendix 1 explaining the relationship between 72 and 70.) So too, each one represents a different potential for perceiving Divinity and integrating it into the consciousness of our every day lives.
The twelve-edged cube is reflected in the formation of the Israelite camp in the desert. The Tabernacle of God was at the center, surrounded by three tribes on each side. Diagrammatically this can be depicted as a six-sided, twelve-edged cube. Now, we add six additional cubes of twelve edges each (6 X 12) around each of its six faces. This time, however, let us see what happens when the seven cubes are fused together into one single unity, i.e. when all the nations attach themselves to Israel and each other. The result is a totally integrated infrastructure with 60 lines. (see illustration 3).
Sixty, the numerical value of the letter samech , represents wholeness and completion, as explained in The Twelve Dimensions of Israel (see appendix 1). There is also a dynamic relationship between the Hebrew words shalom and shlemut, "peace" and "completeness." In other words, each individual's and nation's shared consciousness of their indivisible facet in the infrastructure of the universe, represented by the common sharing of all lines, effects the process of completion. This common sharing of lines translates into a collective vision of universal harmony and peace.
We may even transform our cosmic diamond into a new image in which the lines become strings of a universal harp (illustration 4). The original twelve strings of Israel expand into a multi-stringed instrument through which the melodies of all nations reverberate in harmony, creating a breathtaking universal orchestra of oneness. Thus, as we clarify the main seventy two perceptions of the unified light whose essence is expressed within the inner twelve, we may fine tune our celestial symphonies.
This means sifting out the light as we clarify the symbolic expressions of the world's religions and cosmologies. Thus, all that is sacred may be resurrected from its fossilized iconic state as the essence of its message is extracted.
However we illustrate our cosmic diamond, the 60 or 72 edges correspond to the pure streams of consciousness that are available to Israel and the 70 archetypal nations. Through this symbol, each individual and nation can reconnect to the universal order in its own way as we move towards world redemption. This requires a purification of the different nuances of the one pure light as each individual and nation re-evaluates and refines its spiritual framework. We will then perceive different facets of one shared, clear vision that transcends the language and symbols of its interpretation. As Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook described it, "Religion is corrupted through the decline of the higher Torah, through which one gains the recognition of the greatness of God, the higher perfection that is infinite and beyond assessment." (Kook, p.267)
Israel, as the core cube of the seventy nations, has a central role to play in this process of refinement. As we meditate further on our universal symbol we may see that each of the six clusters of twelve nations connects with four tribes of Israel. Each cluster also connects to an adjacent cluster through sharing a common line (string) of Israel. Thus each tribe of Israel is connected with two clusters, linking them together. Through this we see how essential Israel's relationship to all of the world's nations is in effecting clarification.
The Number Seventy
In addition to the seventy offspring of Noah mentioned above, we find a passage in the Torah referring to the seventy offspring of Jacob who descended to Egypt, "God established the boundaries of the nations (the seventy nations) according to the number of the children of Israel." (Deut. 32:8). This is another indication of the indivisible bond that exists between Israel and the nations.
Within the very framework of the Torah's justice system we find an intricate relationship between the seventy members of the Sanhedrin and the seventy nations of the world. God's heavenly tribunal, comprised of the seventy guardian angels of the seventy nations, is modeled by the earthly court of the Sanhedrin below. The members of the Sanhedrin were required to know the seventy languages of the world and also the basic tenets of the ideologies of the seventy nations. Thus they were capable of conall possibilities in order to render just decisions. Thus, by exploring the number seventy throughout the Torah, the interconnectedness and interdependency of Israel and the world becomes clear.
One Language - Seventy Languages - The Giving of the Torah
It is revealed in Genesis 11:1, that after the flood the whole land had one language and one common purpose. Three hundred and forty years after the flood, all of the national families were concentrated in the area which is present day Iraq (Babel).
Noah and his children were still alive and Abraham was 48 years old.
These spiritual greats were available to teach Divine wisdom, however that generation chose instead to pursue worldly vanities. King Nimrod was the primary power behind this rebellion. He wanted to rise up and fight against God. According to the Kaballah, this means that he wanted to use Godly power for his own ends. God prevented this by destroying the Tower of Babel and dispersing the nations. The one common, holy tongue, in which lay the key to a pure awareness of unity, was fragmented into seventy languages.
The antidote to this disaster of human folly was offered in the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, which according to the Talmud took place simultaneously in all seventy languages. "So that all nations might read it, God's voice at Sinai was split into seventy languages." (Shabbat 88b). Rabbi Yochanan said that this occurred in order that each nation should hear the voice of its own language. Thus, each soul is challenged to discover the Divine word within.
Israel and the Seventy Nations
Just as we have expanded our central cube, so it is necessary to widen our perception of Israel. To the extent that any one person identifies with the spiritual preference of Jacob and the twelve tribes as elucidated in the written and oral Torah is the degree to which one may identify with and relate to the central cube of our structure: Israel.
In the written Torah, the selection of the progeny of Jacob is exclusive. However, in the oral Torah (which includes the Kaballah), we begin to perceive the 12 tribes of Israel together with the seventy nations within each of our psyches. Seen in this way, each individual uniquely embodies, first, all of humanity, and then Israel. (When reaching for higher levels, we always move from multiplicity to unity: in this case from 70 to 12; then to our common source in Adam and Eve, and ultimately God.) Thus, the nations attach themselves to Israel and Israel sees itself through the nations. As we shall see when I speak of the Makoya of Japan, it is by identifying with and experiencing each nation within ourselves that we affect transformation and healing.
Thus, our literal understanding of Israel and the seventy nations may be expanded into the inner dynamics and spiritual inclinations of any individual. The essence of each nation is reflected in a real, living, vibrating aspect of our soul, penetrating the organic reality of our being. Today each one of us is a unique combination of all of these dimensions: the twelve dimensions of Israel and the seventy dimensions of the world's nations.
The clear boundaries delineating our individual heritage must be respected within the universal framework. However, besides a knowledge of family or tribal history, only through an inner journey, which truly transcends one's symbolic road posts to eternity, may one determine his/her spiritual relationship to the universe. What is important is our sincere efforts to purify the symbolic system, inherited or adopted, which speaks to our soul as we journey to self-actualization.
Just as the cosmic diamond has defined facets that enhance its beauty, the spiritual realms have defined facets that enhance the light of unity. Distinctions in the spiritual realms must be honored. The seven primary colors of light refracted through the prism of our diamond remain defined in order to maintain a clear relationship to the pure inner radiance of Israel. When these relationships are in harmony, we may embrace the nuances of Divinity, of which we are but expressions.
The Kaballah, in describing the hidden supernal worlds, reveals a glorious configuration of seventy ministering angels who surround the inner chambers of the palace of the King. They are all witnesses to the greatness of God's glory. Together they comprise the form of man. The Kaballah also teaches that the maturity of humankind's consciousness is reflected in the hidden worlds. Therefore, when the universe is in harmony, when Israel dwells in her land, cleaving in service to the Creator, all of the angelic hosts look to and recognize one God for their strength and sustenance. Through them flow the effluence of Divine sustenance to the corresponding nations below.
Understanding the intricate connections between Israel and the nations, and among all nations, is essential to creating a harmonious and unified order. Thus, the patterns set forth in The Seventy Dimensions of the World's Nations is a necessary outgrowth of The Twelve Dimensions of Israel. Together they help reflect the diversity of Divine expression in an attempt to effect a further revelation of Torah. Through these works one may explore the inner dimensions of one's soul and the hidden dynamics of one's psyche in the process of spiritual purification as we become living expressions of a shared vision.
The relationship between Israel and the seventy nations as it exists internally within each soul is reflected in the world arena. The realization of the cosmic vision of unity that lies potentially within each and every soul will give birth to a higher level of unity than existed in the Garden of Eden, of which international harmony will be but one effect. Thus it is important to explore the intricate connections that unify all nations as we crystallize our understanding of the cosmic diamond.
The Universality of the Number Twelve
In the book Twelve-Tribe Nations, John Michell and Christine Rhone explore traditions throughout the world of a past ideal social order in which nations were divided into twelve tribes corresponding to the zodiac. They write, "All over the world, in countries as far apart as China, Peru, Iceland, and Madagascar, are records and traditions of whole nations and their territories being divided into twelve tribes and twelve regions, each tribe and its sector of land corresponding to one of the twelve signs of the zodiac and one of the twelve months in the year." (p. 11)
Michell and Rhone evoke the twelve tribes of Israel as the most famous and exemplary model of this universal phenomenon. They point out that, unlike other cultures, the correspondence between the twelve tribes of Israel and the zodiacal signs has never been precisely established. "Many people have tried to discover a consistent link between the tribes and the signs, but the only fixed element in the scheme seems to have been the number 12." (p. 60) Our Torah sages teach that Israel's connection to God through prayer, as well as by learning and meditating upon the wisdom of the Torah, supersedes the influence (and defies the logic) of the zodiac. Thus, external analysis of international sets of twelve as well as the claims of Torah sages hint to Israel's authentic, core connection with God's Oneness as transcending the influence of celestial bodies.
Michell and Rhone's exposition of a consistently repeated socio-cultural phenomenon which revolves around the number twelve may reflect the nations' direct relationship to the inner cube of Israel. Thus the universal twelve may be a cultural-archeological affirmation of our thesis.
Although the authors of Twelve-Tribe Nations do not claim that Israel is the most ancient source of this universally valid structure of twelve, the material which they present supports our symbolic model. Many of the traditions that embody the number twelve have tended to take on various impure forms, failing to lead to unity - the center of our cosmic diamond. This includes, for example, the twelve-god Greek pantheon and the twelve statues of deities in the Forum of Rome. These instances of twelve may now be understood in a new comparative light.
John Michell perceives that what is unique about Israel is the living memory of the twelve-tribe order and the desire and dream to reconstitute this order. Indeed, Israel's past and present challenge is to emanate the authentic manifestation of the number twelve which reflects the innermost structure of the universe. That the number twelve, is a cross-cultural phenomenon reflects the world's intricate connection to Israel, as illustrated in our cubic structure. Represented by the central cube in the cosmic diamond, within Israel lies the potential to emanate the innermost source of cosmic light in its purest form.
Without this central cube, the entire structure collapses into fragmentation. Shattered remnants of disconnected cubes and misinterpreted configurations of twelve lie in ruins throughout the globe. The strings of our cosmic symphonic instrument, representing the sixty overlapping edges of twelve and seventy, lose their tautness and vibrancy. Redemption is delayed. However, if we consciously and collectively work together, all the strings may clearly resonate from their rightful place in the cosmic order.
The historical perseverance of Israel in the face of the rise and fall of all other ancient Western civilizations, and this despite its 2,000-year dispersal from its homeland and the disappearance of ten of its tribes, attests to her pure eternal source. Thus, Israel's work is to manifest a true vision of peace, inspired by its prophets and sages, and communicate this light to the world while awakening and absorbing the light that shines through other traditions. This itself is not possible without Israel's recognizing the light in its present adulterated form in order for each nation to be inspired to purify itself. This process will lead ultimately to what the Kaballah refers to as the elevation of all the sparks of holiness that lie scattered everywhere throughout the universe, awaiting redemption.
Kaballah thus teaches that Israel's exile from its land and its wandering among the nations was for the purpose of emanating Divine light (disseminating the Godly teachings), whether consciously or unconsciously, while gathering the unique wisdom inherent in the various nations. The ingathering of the exiles effects this process of tikun (restoration). Having passed through the crucible of exile, the fragmented sparks and souls return to completion.
During the holiday of Succot, the Torah commands Israel to take into our hands four plant species which are the archetypes of all vegetation: the citron (etrog), palm branch (lulov), myrtle (hadas), and willow (aravah). These are commonly referred to as the lulav and etrog. According to the Ari, we shake the entire bundle three times in all six directions: south, north, east, up, down, and west, mirroring the faces of the inner cube of the cosmic diamond. After each shaking of the hands and arms, we draw the lulav back to the heart. In so doing, we open our hearts to the entire creation, while simultaneously arousing all of humanity to their inherent connection with Israel and to one another. In fulfilling this mitzvah, especially in Jerusalem, Israel strengthens its role as a channeler of light from the center of the cosmic diamond. This is one way in which Israel effects cosmic rectification.
While the Temple in Jerusalem stood, once a year during the holiday of Succot, the Torah commanded us to offer seventy sacrifices for the seventy nations. These sacrifices were intended to purify and elevate the diverse ideologies of the world. Through this process the seventy-two lines of the world's multi-faceted diamond became cleansed and energized. On the eighth day of Succot, we offered a sacrifice for Israel. Since the Temple's destruction, these sacrifices have been replaced by prayer. Through verbally recounting the details of the mitzvah, we approximate its metaphysical effect.
On an internal level, as well, retracing one's personal history prepares a person to return to his/her proper place and connection. The internal trials and tribulations which each soul must undergo in being purified are represented in the Torah by the conflicts between Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, etc. Just as the Messianic Age will see the final resolution of all these conflicts, so too will it see the resolution of all the inner inconsistencies in our own lives in the light of our true identity. Our inner attainment of resolution will precede and precipitate the external-historical levels of reconciliation. The goal of the inward journey is to attain the level of pure neshamah (Divine soul). This process applies to all of our exiled souls. The goal of humanity as a whole is to attain the soul of Messiah.
The Tribe of Dan: Gateway for Perceiving the World
According to the Kabbalistic system of the Ari, the essential energy of Dan's gateway to heaven is formed through the Hebrew letter ayin which has the numerical equivalent (gematria) of 70. (See The Twelve Dimensions of Israel, chapter 10.) Thus, by entering through the gate of Dan, we may gain insight into how to approach and understand the seventy nations.
The root of the name "Dan" is related to the Hebrew word din, meaning "judgment." Thus, we can see how, through this particular starting point from the central cube of Israel, we may harness the proper discretion and judgment necessary to clearly reach the vision of a universal light.
In illustration 5, Perceiving the 70 Nations through the Gate of Dan, we see the letter Ayin superimposed on a map of the world, surrounded by a gate-like structure. In Hebrew, the word ayin means "eye". The eye that appears on the painting reflects a Midrash which describes the white of the eye as an ocean, the iris as the land of Israel, and the pupil as Jerusalem. The innermost center of Jerusalem is the Temple. This universal, discerning eye represents the clarification of sight.
Passing through the gateway of Dan may be the essential point through which we resolve conflicts among all nations. As we saw above, the dynamic of "two" has been the basis of irreconcilable conflict: Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, etc. As Yitzhak Hayutman of the Jerusalem Academy has pointed out, only when the polarities are replaced by a federation of twelve brothers does a resolution become possible. Thus, not only Jacob, but also other seminal Biblical figures such as Ishmael and Nahor, had twelve sons. In the conflict between Isaac and Ishmael, Ishmael and his mother Hagar, Sarah's handmaid, were cast out of Abraham's household in a dramatic act of exclusive spiritual selection. Dan, on the other hand, was the firstborn son of Bilhah, Rachel's handmaid. There was never, however, a question that Dan was one of Jacob's twelve sons and spiritual inheritors, eternally included in this balanced infrastructure of twelve. Specifically through his gateway lies the potential for resolution and universal harmony.
Cosmological and spiritual systems, communally embraced and individually interpreted, can be examined using the discretion of Dan. Since human fallibility tends to deify symbols that hint to transcendence, we are challenged to distinguish between adulterated symbols and their pure transcendent source. The pure must be extracted from the dross, then elevated and refined. Then, even the dross itself, the very thing that became an obstacle to the light, can be redeemed.
Dan was the one among the tribes of Israel who expressed this weakness by falling into idolatry, an adulterated form of worship. This is illustrated in the story of the statue of Mikha (Judges 17:1-13). The one with the weakness, however, is the most capable of and responsible for overcoming and rectifying that weakness.
The tribe of Dan also relates to the month of Tevet, during which the last few days of Hanukkah fall. The Menorah in the Temple, which had seven branches, is the key symbol. The number seven reflects the seven qualities of the heart which, according to the Kaballah, are the source of the seventy nations. These qualities not only represent spitendencies of the nations on a macrocosmic level, but also represent, on a microcosmic level, different aspects of our soul whose purification translates into health and harmony. As mentioned above, each individual is an entire universe, and therefore embraces all nuances of the 70 dimensions in varying degrees.
That the seven lights of the Menorah become the eight lights of the Hanukkia (the so-called Hanukkah menorah) attests to the concept that our natural tendencies (represented by the number seven) may be transformed to the level of miracle (represented by the number eight, which stands for what is above and beyond nature). Only in this realm of miracle may the resolution of conflicts rooted in thousands of years of history be effected. Only in this realm lies the power to break through the contracted icons of a once enlightened symbolism.
Some visions of the universal, final redemption describe a universally-perceived miraculous experience, while others attest to a slow, continuous evolution following a natural course of events. Some speak of the Final Temple in Jerusalem miraculously descending from heaven; others speak of building it from below. Ultimately, the merging of the natural and the miraculous most perfectly expresses unity .
Purifying the Light of the Nations
At the beginning of human history, the soul of Adam and Eve contained all our souls in a single unity. Then, as now, our indulgence in the tree of knowledge caused the light to become distorted and fragmented. Thus we have experienced darkness, confusion, and separateness from the pure perception of Eden. At one time, Divine Will was shining brighter than the noonday sun, and our being was a living expression of Godliness. There was no dilemma of choice, no need for philosophical speculation, no need to grasp and integrate the symbolic road posts to a once known state of being. We simply basked in the ecstasy of being.
From Adam until Noah, confusion increased. Evil, the perception of separateness from this light, intensified. This diminution of cosmic awareness translated into a fragmented sense of self, reflected in social chaos and immorality. As world suffering increased exponentially, there was a need for renewal, a new start, a revised vision.
The flood was the vehicle for this renewal. Noah and his wife were the only people of that generation whose righteousness enabled them to heed a prophetic forewarning. Thus Noah prepared to protect his family and the various species of animals by building the ark, with its precious tzohar stone inside to give light and warmth (Noah's version of the cosmic cube emanating cosmic truth, an area of light in the darkness). After months of isolation in the ark, Noah, his wife, and their three sons emerged with their wives and children. Thus, we are all the children of Shem, Ham, and Yaphet.
The rainbow that greeted Noah and his family reflected the pure light of Divine Oneness at the center of the cosmic diamond refracted into seven basic colors. These colors permeate the seven cubic structure, and are expressed through the cosmologies of the seventy nations. Every soul has the potential to tune into one of these seventy expressions in a pure way.
Throughout history the light has become distorted and grossly misinterpreted as it has been clouded by the impurity of the self-centeredness of its perceivers. It is our work to purify ourselves as we reconnect to the primal source of the unified white light which shines through the prism and is perceived in its seven basic nuances within seventy variations.
Purifying these cosmic colors requires an exposition of the cosmological belief systems that presently prevail and motivate human action. Thus, they may be analyzed discriminately according to the Divine wisdom of the Torah. Only after this process may we appreciate and embrace the unique beauty and contribution of the primal inheritance of each of the nations. As Rabbi Kook eloquently stated: "It is not the aim of the enlightenment that emanates from Israel to absorb or destroy them [the world's religions], just as it is not our aim to destroy the world's different nationalities. Our aim is rather to elevate them - to purge them of their dross." The goal is to not only critically purify but also to gather together all seventy dimensions of Divinity so that we may collectively enrich all of our lives as we prepare to receive a shared common vision.
To give an example of one of the archetypal nations and how its light could be purified, let us consider Greece. Greece, or Yavan in Hebrew, was a descendent of Noah's son Yaphet. Noah gave Yaphet the blessing, "May God enlarge Yaphet, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem."
The Greek civilization still exerts a major influence, both positive and negative, on the psyche of Western culture. The particular potentials of Yavan were the gifts of human intellect and artistic creativity, marking a new consciousness of individualism. Traditionally, Noah's blessing expresses the challenge for Yavan to contain that intellect and artistry within the "tents of Shem," represented by Shem's descendent, Israel, the inheritors of the Torah from Sinai. The peaceful "dwelling" together of Yaphet and Shem may be mirrored in a balance and harmony in our personal psyche.
Let us look at the key concepts and symbols that capture the vast complexity of the Greek mind. The prophecy of Daniel describes the power of Yavan as one of the four major exiles serving to distort the Torah perception of a God reality. In Survival - Israel and Mankind, Rafael Eisenberg states that the Greeks had no sympathy for Zoroastrianism, the leading philosophy of the previous Persian empire, which advocated blind submission to a moral deity. The Persian psyche perceived man as relatively powerless. The rise of Greece was a reaction, on a national and international scale, replacing a perception of reality in which a moral deity ruled over man's life with a reality in which the individual was glorified to such an extent that the human intellect and the free individual spirit began to be worshipped. "Ego," the Greek word for "I," represents this shift from a God centered universe to an I-centered universe.
Protagoras propounded the principle that man was the measure of all things; Socrates went so far as to teach that happiness consisted of self-knowledge; Aristippus, that pleasure was the goal of life. This new surge of independence and "liberation" of the human mind and conduct gave free reign to the creative imagination. The arts and sciences flourished.
The Greek mind, when corrupted, can represent the epitome of the eating of the tree of knowledge, where self-consciousness, self-awareness, totally replaces awareness of the Divine. Creative expression and self-fulfillment cease to honor the boundaries which guard the sacredness of life and human relationships.
If we scrutinize the contribution of Greece in the light of Torah, we find that creativity, intelligence, and beauty are Divine gifts, which can be used for the true purpose of human life: to know and to serve God. True learning humbles one to realize what he or she really does not know. Once we purify the ego, the symbol of our uniqueness, within the context of a true belief in God and in His intimate involvement with our life, we may be truly free to tap the deepest source of our creative expression. Thus, the light of Greece may be purified of its dross. Thus Yaphet will truly dwell in the tents of Shem.
Cosmic energy may in this way penetrate throughout the intricacies of the human psyche, flushing out the debris of prejudice, racism, and idolatry disguised in the stale icons and false values of present human societies. The cosmic diamond will radiate a pure flow of scintillating Divine energy throughout its diverse facets. The universe will then become illuminated through our purified perceptions as we come to share a state of clarity, respect, and communication that exceeds even the original state of one shared language that existed before the shattering of the Tower of Babel.
This light also needs to be purified and revealed through Israe's evolving consciousness. Thus, the antagonistic relationship portrayed in the metaphor of the sheep (Israel) surrounded by seventy wolves (the nations) (Pesikta Rabbati 9:2) may be transformed into a cooperative and harmonious relationship as reflected in the symbols found in the visions of the prophets and the Kaballah. As long as there is mutual respect for everyone's role in the cosmic order, we may symbolically grasp and in reality embrace the emergence of a new world harmony in which all nations are working together to serve God.
The symbolic remnants embodying fragmented light patiently await to become proper vehicles to eternity. Statues and icons, even those with the slightest hint of idolatry, must evolve into cultural expressions of a universal phenomenon. We are challenged to gently and sensitively explore the "sacred" symbols that move us. We may be required to crack open the mental fossils of our theologies and cosmologies, as we ask ourselves whether their meanings support a universal vision of harmonious being or contribute to discord.
In future writings, with God's help, I hope to elaborate on this process of purification through exploring the original sources of the seventy nations. As noted, their progenitors are traced back to the seventy descendants of Noah. The resultant seventy core cultures are found today among the splintering numerous diversities of the tribes of the world.
New Age spiritual movements have advocated a spontaneous and instinctive communal embrace for the purpose of arriving at universal harmony. However, the process of true unification is fraught with complexities. We all must come to terms with the real harm which has been inflicted by various parties throughout history. The grandchild of a holocaust survivor can only with closed eyes embrace the grandchild of a Nazi. Our goal is a purified vision which leads to unity, not selective blindness for the sake of a superficial harmony.
We must travel through our own collective and personal history, resolving the confrontations with other nations. Such confrontations have been internalized; they cry to be sorted out, put in their place, and integrated through the process of our deeper becoming. Only thus may we emerge from our inner journeys and begin to communicate with real love. Only when we are securely rooted in our cosmic place will we merit the Divine gift of a carefree embrace of the other.
The Process of Purification
Honoring the intricate relations among all individuals and nations as reflected in the cosmic diamond allows us to begin the above process now. Too often, in the process of becoming, the validity of others' processes becomes undermined. As we journey inward and re-define ourselves, we may become overly critical of those who do not immediately reflect our newly found essence. Being aware of this tendency promotes not only tolerance, but love.
Everyone might first meditate upon his/her inner, as well as outer, relationship to Israel. What is the significance of "Israel" from each person's or nation`s perspective? Once this relation has been clarified and rectified, the center of the cosmic diamond may radiate from a core of strength and unity.
This central light still needs to be intensified by the ingathering of Israel's scattered tribes. As this epochal historical process takes place, the central cube of the diamond will radiate more brilliantly through the multiple facets.
Those who are committed to a personal identification with Israel are challenged to remain rooted, centered, and immersed in the eternal values and morality of the Torah. Only then may we truly extract the valuable contributions of all nations without getting caught up, as Rav Kook described, "in the degeneration common to all peoples and all religions."
In order to effect healing and transformation we may apply meditative techniques known to the prophets or those associated with eastern disciplines. Through simple breathing techniques, we may open ourselves to the awareness of the moment as we listen to the feelings and wisdom which pervade our being. Because we are each a unique, organic synthesis of all twelve dimensions of Israel and all seventy dimensions of the world's nations, through meditation we can directly experience these aspects of our own being.
Often we become intellectually wrapped up in the myriad of concepts which are potential vehicles for truly integrating the Divine light. If we meditate on one simple passage in the Torah, however, we may actually experience and internalize the source light of its teaching. This is true for all sacred teachings and symbols. Thus, the focus of our meditations becomes a vehicle of transformation as we literally inhale its meaning. Through this process we may truly begin to purify and re-evaluate our relationship to our personal road posts to eternity.
Most important, our personal interpretations of our most abstract realities must align with the truth that is revealed though our daily lives. We must develop an organic relationship with the symbols and concepts that guide our lives. Otherwise, we risk becoming philosophical hypocrites, creating the most sophisticated and lethal weapons against ourselves, each other, and all of humanity. In order to assure harmony on an inner, interpersonal, and international level, we may shift our meditations to our cosmic cubic structure and back again to our sacred symbols. Thus, we may realign our particular facet of spiritual light within the universal scintillating diamond.
A Personal Experience Validating the Vision
Sparkling facets of the universal diamond scintillating in harmony create a cosmic light show, mirroring all nations. The vision then transforms into the audio: a symphony of seventy-two strings reverberating in perfect harmony. Recently, through a series of events, I had a dazzling experience which was rooted in this vision.
The Makoya are a Japanese sect of over 60,000 adherents who align themselves with Israel and who deeply study the Torah and the wisdom of traditional Judaism. They are a good example of a line of pure light connected to the central cube of Israel. About 1600 Makoya came to celebrate Jerusalem 3000, offering their support and friendship to Israel.
I was privileged to be among the approximately twenty local Jews who just happened to be at the Kotel (the Western Wall, the sole remains of the Temple, Judaism's holiest site) when this practically unpublicized event took place. The Makoya came to celebrate through song, speeches, and prayer. They sang praises of God and Zion in Hebrew, with an impressive fluency.
Israel's distinguished Chief Rabbi, Rabbi Yisrael Lau, and a small group of his students arrived. In his welcoming speech Rabbi Lau pointed out what was unique about the Makoya's friendship with Israel: It is based not on what is good for them, for their personal or national gain, but on what is good and just for the world.
Here I was, witnessing a group of 1600 Japanese who were sincerely reaching for a higher ideal and, through their beliefs and their presence, helping to build the Heavenly Jerusalem in reality. This was truly a glimpse of redemption before my eyes.
The Makoya resumed their joyful singing. As the momentum of the gathering increased, the organized line formations of the Makoya suddenly broke into dance. Circles were formed, and they coaxed us with glowing eyes and extended arms to join them in sharing a new level of joy. Dancing with them in that holy place, I experienced a taste of the age of Messiah. Many tearful, smiling embraces followed.
The next day, at Jerusalem's city hall, the Makoya entertained with more dance and song that expressed the beauty of their culture. Their regimented group discipline, transformed into artful dance and song, expressed an intense support for us in the heavenly city of Jerusalem. Their essence recalled our latent ability to be a united people, as we once were at Mt. Sinai.
That very same night, I attended a very holy Jewish wedding of outstanding members of our community. The hosts were a family of human angels, shining from their Torah and mitzvot,in which every second of their lives they are actively engaged. The sanctity of the wedding ceremony transcended time and space. As I stood witnessing the wedding ceremony, I felt Divine energy all around us. Therefore I was able to experience the week's events in another dimension, all in one moment.
My identity merged with the central cube of the cosmic diamond. The cosmic light emanating from the wedding canopy, the Holy of Holies, where the masculine and feminine merge in the most intimate unification, transported me into the depths of the innermost dimensions of all of Israel. Simultaneously, the memory of the shining, sensitive, loving faces of the Makoya penetrated into my heart of hearts. At that moment, the beautiful Makoya, with whom I had danced and cried, became shining, polished facets of our cosmic diamond cube.
Within this core of universality, I felt that if I turned my head slightly in a certain direction, I could see the Makoya mirroring back a specific aspect of my own soul, perhaps that part of me, the tribe within, which specifically links to the source nation of the Makoya. By truly being with the Makoya I came to know myself more clearly--a direct reflection of one facet of the universal soul mirroring a definitive aspect of my being.
What is the essence of this people, this nation? Reflecting back on their unique cultural expression, a gift they offered to us through song and dance, I perceived the harmony of their collective movement, contrasted to my rugged individualism (which of course, in other contexts, holds value) rooted in my Western/American origin. I understood how important it was for me to truly and deeply see myself reflected in those radiant faces of my brothers and sisters from the Orient, who have arrived at a deeper understanding of themselves and who are together trying to reveal the universal symphony vibrating throughout their strings within the cosmic diamond-harp.
During this enlightened moment, experiencing myself as a metaphor of Israel, I imagined myself turning slightly in a new direction and meeting myself through the faces of another nation, then turning again ever so slightly and meeting still another aspect of my being. I glimpsed the potential unity of all of the facets of the collective human psyche reflected through the nations. I felt Divine light penetrating into every facet, purifying, healing, and reunifying.
I believe that the inner reality that I and others are experiencing is going to become more and more actualized. People are going to realize that the world "out there" is merely a mirror of our inner reality. If human beings begin meeting each other in this inner space, eventually we will truly meet each other in joyful embrace, attaining our completion. Israel Mirrors the World and the World Mirrors Israel (Illustration 6) hints to this vision, in which the central cube (Israel) mirrors the reflections of the surrounding cubes (the nations). Each face sees itself reflected in the other, the nations in Israel and Israel in the nations.
Appendix 1:
The Cube and our Significant Numbers according to Kaballah
by Abraham Sutton
Just as a three-dimensional cube can represent three-dimensional reality, so four, five, six (etc.) dimensional hypercubes can serve as abstract models for the interface between the Infinite and the entire created world (which, although it is multidimensional, is still finite relative to the spiritual dimension that precedes and transcends it).
According to Kaballah, at its most subtle metaphysical levels, reality consists of an interplay between two modes of "Godly light." The first is called Igulim, and is represented as a circular, spherical, enveloping light that radiates ubiquitously throughout the universe irrespective of any merit on man's part. The light of Igulim is so ubiquitous that it permeates the universe equally at all times and in all places without the slightest change. Nothing stops it, nothing interferes with it, nothing frustrates it. As we shall see, relative to the second mode, it represents God's unhindered action in the world, an action that is so subtle that not only can it not be hindered, it cannot be detected! Precisely because it is everywhere equally, it cannot be detected. It is represented as spherical because everything in the natural world is spherical; down to the most infinitesimal quantum level.
The second mode, called Yosher, is depicted as a straight light that shines into the world through the well-known system of three columns known to many as the Sefirotic Tree of Life. In this second mode, the revelation or concealment of the Godly light depends on man, his actions and his worthiness. This is alluded to in the alternate meaning of the word yosher, "uprightness" or "righteousness." It is for this reason, the Ari (Rabbi Isaac Luria) states, that the Torah and the Zohar speak almost exclusively about Yosher. For this is what the Torah is about: man's perfection of himself and his world as a dwelling place for the Divine.
This distinction is represented in the Temple by the difference between the Altar (Mizbeah) of uncut stones in the Temple, corresponding to the heart, as opposed to the Chamber of Hewn Stone (Lishkat HaGazit), where the supreme court of the Jewish nation sat (see Hirsch on Exodus 20:22; Kaplan, Eye of the Universe, p. 30).
For our purposes it is well to keep in mind the existence of the Igulim as a background, while the foreground, the object that occupies our full attention, is Yosher. For this reason, it is eminently appropriate to represent our universe as a dynamic, expanding, pulsating cube. This sublime reality is reflected down into the three-dimensional world in which we live, where every object has six faces: south, north, east, west, up and down. These six faces are connected by twelve lines or edges. The twelve lines (Yosher) represent channels for life giving energy; emanations of God's Unified Light (Igulim). The Ari teaches us that the act of creation involved a contraction (in Hebrew, tzimtzum) of this light. The lines of the cube thus represent the contracted light, the movement of Infinity towards the finite, the manifestation of the transcendent light of Igulim into the human world of Yosher. Through these channels, i.e. through man, the One Light is revealed in the very midst of multiplicity.
The Sefer Yetzirah (Chapter 5) refers to different sets of twelve, all of which ultimately derive from and shed light on these twelve channels of Divine energy:
The twelve sons of Jacob who become the twelve tribes of Israel: Yehudah-Yissachar-Zevulun, Reuben-Shimon-Gad, Ephraim-Menasheh-Binyamin, Dan-Asher-Naftali (the order here is that of their encampment in the desert around the Tabernacle; Levi is not counted here, but the discrepancy is made up by dividing Yoseph's tribe into two, Ephraim and Menasheh).
The twelve corresponding land inheritances of the Land of Israel, one for each tribe except Levi (as above, Levi is singled out, for his tribe did not receive a land inheritance but rather served in the Temple).
The twelve permutations of God's Name, the Tetragrammaton: YHVH-YHHV-YVHH, HVHY-HVYH-HHVY, VHYH-VHHY-VYHH, HYHV-HYVH-HHYV.
The twelve elemental-letters of the Hebrew alphabet: heh-vav-zayin, chet-tet-yod, lamed-nun-samekh, ayin-tzadi-kuf.
The twelve diagonal boundaries of the Sefirotic Tree of Life: east-upper, east-north, east-lower; south-upper, south-east, south-lower; west-upper, west-south, west-lower; north-upper, north-west, north-lower.
The twelve basic expressions of the soul: speech-thought-motion, sight-hearing-action, coition-smell-sleep, anger-taste-laughter.
The twelve lunar months: nissan-iyar-sivan, tammuz-av-elul, tishrei-cheshvan-kislev, tevet-shevat-adar.
The twelve signs of the zodiac: aries-taurus-gemini, cancer-leo-virgo, libra-scrorpio-sagittarius, capricorn-aquarius-pisces.
Relating the number twelve to the figure of a cube, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan wrote in his commentary to Sefer Yetzirah:
The twelve elementals are said to relate to the twelve diagonal boundaries. These correspond to the twelve edges of a cube. When a person uses these letters in any meditation, he must also concentrate on the appropriate direction. The ordering here [in the Sefer Yetzirah] begins on the east, and then goes through the four primary directions: east, south, west, north. This corresponds to the teaching, "Whenever you turn, turn [clockwise] toward the right" (Yoma 16b). The ordering of the directions is also the same as that of the four camps in the desert (Numbers 2). The twelve diagonal boundaries thus correspond to the twelve tribes. It is for this reason that our version gives three boundaries for each of the four sides. These correspond to the three tribes in each of the four camps... The Bahir (#25) relates these twelve diagonals to the Tree of Life... These twelve boundaries also correspond to the twelve permutations of the Tetragrammaton. The permutations beginning with the Y correspond to the east; those beginning with the first H, to the south; the V, to the west, and the final H, to the north. (Sefer Yetzirah, Book of Creation, translated by Aryeh Kaplan, pp. 203-5)
The Bahir asks:
What is the meaning of the verse (Numbers 6:24-26), "May God (YHVH) bless you and watch you. May God (YHVH) make His face shine on you and be gracious to you. May God (YHVH) lift his Face to you and give you peace"? [These three mentions of the Tetragrammaton] constitute a single explicit name, the name of twelve letters, YHVH-YHVH-YHVH... [In addition] the four letters of each YHVH can be permuted 24 different ways. Each of these 24 ways is a name. Multiply 24 by three and you have the 72 names of the Blessed Holy One. These are the 72 names derived from the verses (Exodus 14:19-21), "And traveled... And came... And stretched..." [the only three consecutive verses in the Torah that contain 72 letters each, as well as a total of 72 words for all three verses together]" (Bahir #107).
Rabbi Kaplan explains the jump from 12 permutations of the Tetragrammaton mentioned above to the 24 mentioned here:
The Tetragrammaton YHVH has two letter hehs. If they are taken as different letters, then the four letters of this Name can be permuted in 24 ways. It is because of this that some Kaballists write these two hehs somewhat differently from each other. If these two hehs are not differentiated, then the four letters only have 12 permutations. These 12 usual permutations of the Name correspond to the 12 diagonal directions [of the Tree of Life]. (ibid. p. 165)
The Bahir mentions the 72 names of the Blessed Holy One in another teaching:
The Holy One has 72 names. All of them were placed in the Tribes [of Israel; six names for each tribe]... Similarly, Joshua set up twelve stones... Each of these twelve stones [contained six names] making a total of 72. These parallel the 72 names of the Blessed Holy One. Why do they begin with twelve? This teaches us that God has twelve Directors. Each of these has six Powers [making a total of 72]. What are they? They are the 72 languages [of the world]. (Bahir #94).
Rabbi Kaplan again clarifies this obscure passage:
The twelve tribes of Israel correspond to the twelve elemental letters [of the Hebrew alphabet] and the twelve diagonals [of the Sefirotic Tree of Life]... The Bahir states that each of these twelve elemental consists of six "names." The six names parallel the six directions of a three-dimensional continuum. Each of the twelve is thus a complete spatial continuum in its own right. The twelve diagonal paths themselves are in the world of the Sefirot, the universe of Emanation... These are reflected in the Twelve Directors, the archangels in the world of the Throne, the universe of Creation. With regard to these archangels, Isaiah said (Isaiah 6:1-2), "I saw God sitting on a high and exalted Throne... above Him stood the Seraphim (archangels), each one had six wings." He is speaking of the archangels in the world of the Throne. Each of these Director Archangels has six wings, and these correspond to the Six Powers that it has in the world below the Throne, the world of Formation. This makes a total of 72 Powers. Each of these Power-Angels is the guardian angel of one of the 72 nations, corresponding to the 72 languages. These are the reflection of the Powers in the physical world, the universe of Action or Completion... Language is a conceptual, rather than a physical entity, and the languages represent the 72 ways of expressing worldly concepts. On a deeper level, each of the 72 languages has a root in God's name of 72 elements, and therefore, any one of these languages can be used to enter the realm of the mysteries. This reflects the Midrashic teaching in which Elijah says (Tanna DeBei Eliahu Rabba 9), "I bring heaven and earth to bear witness, that any human, Jew or Gentile, man or woman, freeman or slave, according to his deeds, can be worthy of Ruach HaKodesh [the Holy Spirit, the transcendental experience]."
Chart:
Universe Expression
Emanation 12 Diagonals (6 names)
Creation 12 Seraphim (6 wings)
Formation 72 Powers
Completion 72 Nations/Languages
In Genesis 10, only 70 archetypal nations are mentioned. Similarly, in numerous places in the Talmud and Midrash, only 70 languages are mentioned. Rabbi Reuven Margoliot, upon whose commentary Rabbi Kaplan based his own remarks, suggests two possible solutions: On the one hand, 70 nations become 72 when Israel and God are counted. This is similar to the 70 elders appointed by Moses in the wilderness who become 72 when the Moses and God are counted. Conceptually, this also parallels the nine sons of Jacob who sold Yoseph (Reuven was not involved and Binyamim was not born), who bound God Himself by an oath in order to make a quorum of 10. On the ot | | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 09/17/03 - Why do you suppose? Why do you suppose that when Moses created a bronze snake and held it before his people, God rewarded them by healing their wounds?
Didn't Moses violate the first Commandment, to NOT make a graven image (of anything on heaven or earth).
And his choice of an image could have hardly been worse, do you think? A Snake? A cursed creature from the Garden? Satan in earthly Form?
Why do you suppose God rewarded this prophet for breaking the rules as He did? More importantly, what can we learn from leaders like that?
curious98 answered on 09/18/03:By reading the Scriptures I can certainly find hundreds of passages which are hard to understand and others which, in my own opinion, are disputable. Others, as I already have said in other posts, cannot be taken verbatim. So, when I compare myself with most of my colleagues in this forum, I find Im probably am the poorest student of the Scriptures around here, which makes me a rather poor Christian and would certainly make me a very poor Jew, if I happened to be one.
However, there are things which I believe I have clearer than others, namely, it never occurs me to dispute or question GODs designs.
In Numbers you can read:
21:5
And the people spoke against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread.
21:6
And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.
21:7
Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.
21:8
And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live
21:9
And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
21:10
And the children of Israel set forward, and pitched in Oboth
Within my ignorance, understanding these passages, to me, it is quite simple.
GOD instructed Moses to do a certain thing and Moses did it. Full stop
Moses didnt question GODs instructions and I, for one, am not going to question them.
Otherwise, I think I would be trying to split hairs; to no avail anyway, because whatever conclusion I would reach would just be pure and sheer speculation.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Yiddishkeit asked on 09/17/03 - Messiah accomplishments? There has been numerous individuals historically that have attempted participation in being titled the "Anointed one". In your view did G-d give mankind a guideline of the moshiach's job description? Please explain the details. *This is an equal opportunity post.
For the record...My view is of the traditional understanding. Some Jews in the non-Orthodox movements (Reform and Reconstructionist) used to lean toward the idea of a Messianic Age, rather than an embodied Messiah. The Reconstructionist still hold to this idea. However, the majority of the Reform movement has gone the traditional route and now believes in a pending embodied Messiah, as has always been the case with the Conservative movement and my Orthodox peers.
Bobby
curious98 answered on 09/17/03:Although Bobby says his post is an equal opportunity one, I rather think it is a particularly special one for those professing the Judaic Religion, as it is the case with Elliots splendid response.
On the other hand what Paraclete is pointing out what our Christian Messiah must be, is also adjusted as Elliot admits- to the Christian beliefs.
When Elliot asks Paraclete to carefully read this or that other passage of the O.T., I assume Elliot has read it or can read it in Hebrew which, unfortunately, most of us in this Forum cannot read, or so I think. So we must satisfy ourselves with the different translations into English, Spanish or other modern languages that widely circulate all over the world, bearing also in mind that these may greatly differ amongst themselves. Even the Catholic Bible we have had until 1980 (translated from the Jeromes Latin Vulgate, in turn translated from the Greek), was by special desire of the Vatican modified in its original version and edited as the New Latin Vulgate (Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio).
I think that if at higher levels than this forum, Jewish and Christians do not agree on quite a few Biblical points, its going to be hard for us here to arrive at some positive conclusions.
However, there is one positive conclusion which we could all of us, irrespective of our Faith- easily arrive at. And that would be a beginning
Do we all believe that GOD is the same one for ALL?
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ldmitch asked on 09/17/03 - The word Jehovah ETWOLVERINE raised an interesting point, implying that the word Jehovah is not found in the original Hebrew language. What implications does this have for Jehovah Witnesses? curious98 answered on 09/17/03:In another Q&A website I also collaborate with, a couple of days ago, the following question was received:
> Hi everyone. I have a question about the origin of the name Jehovah and thought this would be the best place to ask.
> As far as I know, 'Jehovah' was a 19th-Century mistranslation of YHWH. I > don't remember if it is because that would be written JHVH in Latin (with the 'ya' and 'wa' sounds apparently being represented by 'j' and 'v'), or if it came via German, as they would (I think) pronounce the 'w' as a softish 'v', and would also write the 'ya' with a 'j'.
This is the best rated answer he/she got:
You are almost right. The "J" was indeed used for the Hebrew letter 'yod'
(which scholars at the time wrote as 'jod' but pronounced as we do 'yod.') This
part is not really a 'mistranslation' - latin had no Y and that sound was
normally (and properly) represented by the I. Eventually the J evolved, as a
modified I used for the consonant I, i.e. it was used exactly as we today use
Y. So the J is simply an archaism, not "really" a mistake.
The original Hebrew text, as you may know, had no vowels. The word KJV
translates "Lord" is "'yod''he''vau''he'" or YHVH. This is also called the
tetragramaton, and it is not incorrect to write it as JHVH either, just
confusing to modern english speakers since we normally use the Y for that
sound, and J for a totally unrelated voiced stop-fricative cluster (dzh.) To be
consistent, of course, if we are to render the tetragrammaton YHVH we should
quit writing Jesus (it's Yesus) or Joshua (Yehoshua) etc. etc. anyway, I
digress...
The Hebrews considered the tetragrammaton too holy to speak aloud, so when the
scrolls were read, 'adonai' ('lord') was read in it's place. When the vowel
sounds were invented, and eventually added to the Hebrew texts, the true vowel
sounds for the tetragrammaton were NOT added, either because of fear this would
encourage someone to sin by saying it aloud, or because they had been
forgotten, or both. Instead, the vowels for 'adonai' were written, to remind
the reader to say 'lord' instead of trying to utter YHVHs true name.
Hope it adds to ETWolverines clear explanation.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 09/16/03 - what was really written? Many of the modern Bibles translate some strange animals/monsters into its pages. Unicorns, cockatryce, dragons, etc. grace the pages.
What are the real animals/words that the original Hebrew's wrote in the following verses?
deuteronomy 32:33
Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.
Psalms 29:6
He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.
Isaiah 34:13
And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls.
Isaiah 34:14
The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.
curious98 answered on 09/17/03:
In the first place I do not think we can assert that some of the monsters depicted in ancient mythology and/or the Scriptures, have never existed. The same could be said regarding giants or dwarfs.
Modern Paleonthology and Archeology are coming up, practically, every day with new discoveries, some of them rather extraordinary. So what not conclude that these passages refer to animals that actually lived at a certain time?
Dragons appear in many Oriental cultures. Dragons and serpents appear mixed in the Bible so, sometimes they could be considered to be virtually one and the same. In many of the Biblical contexts, the two species are interchangeable (and will appear as different creatures in different translations of the Bible). This is hardly surprising, as in many cultures snakes and dragons are interchangeable, and share the same symbolism. There are a few differences though. Dragons did not seem to share the punishment of the snake in the garden of Eden (Gen 3:13-15). Biblical dragons are water dwelling, sometimes with legs, so evidently do not crawl on their belly: they swim or walk. This fact does not seem to have a great effect on the later symbolism. Also, snakes are venomous, whereas dragons are not attributed as having venom. This leads to more snake metaphors involving biting. However, as a general rule, snakes and dragons appear more on a sliding scale of snakeness versus draconity, rather than solely one or the other.
The major appearances of a dragon relate to Leviathan. This dragon appears to be a huge, sea-dwelling creature, with possible associations with crocodiles. Many of the sea-monsters and sea-serpents of Bible translations are most likely Leviathan.
Leviathan is an exceptionally powerful creature, but is not described as evil at any point in the Bible. In Job, GOD uses Leviathan as an example of the weakness of humans; humans can never hope to defeat a creature as powerful as Leviathan (Job 41:1-34). This symbolism of an undefeatable monster appears to have been extended to describe Egypt. At one point, GOD is described as defeating Leviathan (Psalms 74:13-24). This is repeated again later, and is very similar, except that the monster being defeated is Egypt (Ezekiel 29:3-5). Possibly the earlier account of GOD defeating Leviathan is also the metaphor of Egypt's defeat.
There are some species of snake which have their own specific symbolism. The one which appears most in the Bible is the viper. The viper is a bringer of justice (Gen 49:16-17). The theme of the viper appears in both old and new testaments. In the new testament, Paul is bitten by a viper, and the watchers assume he has committed a terrible crime and will die. When he does not die, it is considered he must be innocent, or the viper's venom would have killed him (Acts 28:3-5). The idea of venom bringing justice is extended to becoming drunk. Alcohol is symbolised by the venom, and the bad after effects the punishment (Deut 32:33; Proverbs 23:32).
Serpents of healing are common in many cultures, such as the serpents of Asclepios, the Greek god of healing. In the Bible, there is one major appearance of a healing serpent. When the Israelites are being bitten by snakes, Moses makes a bronze snake. When the Israelites look at this snake, GOD heals their bites (Num 21:6-9). This snake has the additional symbolism of being made of bronze, a symbol of strength.
The first appearance of the Devil as a dragon or serpent is in the book of Revelation (Rev 12:3-4). Revelation is full of unusual creatures which symbolise the devil and evil works: scorpions, cats, and bizarre hybrids are just a few. The symbolic dragons have many heads, and wear crowns (Rev 12:3-4). There is little to connect them to older Biblical dragons.
As for the serpents. there are signs of them being forgiven in the future; serpents appear in the New Heaven and New Earth, after judgment has come (Isa 65:25). The Devil on the other hand, is not attributed with being forgiven in any way.
It is considered 'general knowledge' that the Bible portrays dragons and serpents in a very negative way. For someone who had read Genesis and then the New Testament, this would seem an accurate conclusion. However, taking the Bible as a whole, the portrayal is not so negative. Themes such as the viper bringing justice and the dragon symbolising strength, are far more common than the dragon or serpents symbolising the Devil. The portrayal of dragons and serpents is as variable as the appearance of Angels (who appear in both good and evil roles).
If this is true, why has such a negative opinion of dragons and serpents arisen? Possibly this is because of the emphasis of the stories. The serpent in the garden of Eden is right at the beginning, so is a very prominent story. Another aspect is the power of imagery. The strength symbolism of dragons can make them seem very frightening. Leviathan was too powerful for humans to subdue, which must have seemed like a great threat. When trying to find a symbol for evil, the more frightening the symbol is, the more vivid the imagery associated with it. Symbols with vivid imagery are likely to gain a great deal of popularity over time. For one, I shall point out to the widely spread imagery re. Saint George and the Dragon.
Re. unicorns the Bible speaks in several different places of the unicorn together with satyrs. There is a trend to consider that neither of these creatures actually existed, but instead had their origins in mythology. Although, of course, as I said before, who can tell for sure? Unicorns could have very well been Rhinoceros
We do not have to forget that, on occasion, Bible writers used phrases, terms, and references that were in common use at the time they penned the books of the Bible. For example, both the writer of Job (9:9; 38:31) and the prophet Amos (5:8) referred to heavenly constellations such as Orion and the Pleiades. And, in order to make an important point to the people to whom he was speaking on one occasion, the apostle Paul even quoted from their own poets (Acts 17:28).
It is true that the word unicorn appears in the King James Version (nine times: Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). What, exactly, was this unicorn? And why is it found in certain versions of the Bible? The editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica answered the first question when they wrote that the unicorn was
a mythological animal resembling a horse or a kid with a single horn on its forehead. The unicorn appeared in early Mesopotamian artworks, and it also was referred to in the ancient myths of India and China. The earliest description in Greek literature of a single-horned (Greek: monokeros; Latin: unicornis) animal was by the historian Ctesias (400 B.C.), who related that the Indian wild ass was the size of a horse, with a white body, purple head, and blue eyes; on its forehead was a cubit-long horn coloured red at the pointed tip, black in the middle, and white at the base. Those who drank from its horn were thought to be protected from stomach trouble, epilepsy, and poison.
It was very fleet of foot and difficult to capture. The actual animal behind Ctesias description was probably the Indian rhinoceros. Right now, Chinese culture still considers that the Rhinos horn has aphrodisiac and other curative powers!
Certain poetical passages of the biblical Old Testament refer to a strong and splendid horned animal called reem. This word was translated unicorn or rhinoceros in many versions of the Bible, but many modern translations prefer wild ox (aurochs), which seems to be the correct meaning of the Hebrew reem (1997, 12:129).
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Toms777 asked on 09/16/03 - Everlasting Ruler Mic 5:2
2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting."
NKJV
This verse refers to the ruler in Israel whose goings forth are from "everlasting".
Who can this be who is from "everlasting"? curious98 answered on 09/16/03:
As this is supposed to be a prophecy, we may just as well decide that the prophecy has not yet been complied with.
If we accept this assumption, it may just very well be that the ruler in Israel whose goings forth are from "everlasting", may just have to come yet For I think, Micah here is referring to a physical power...
Or is this a false assumption?
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Toms777 asked on 09/16/03 - Bethlehem and the Messiah Mic 5:2
2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting."
NKJV
How can the Jewish Messiah come out of Bethelehem, in light of the fact that it is currently a Palestinian town and thus there appears not to be any Jews in Bethlehem? curious98 answered on 09/16/03:
A) Im sure you know the Scriptures do not necessarily have to be taken verbatim. In fact, and in the first place, we should always remember when were they written, by whom and whom they were addressed to.
B) You refer to a JEWISH Messiah. I take for granted that you are a Christian and so am I. Therefore, I also take for granted you believe in A ONE AND ONLY GOD. GOD is the SAME for everybody, Jewish included. If and when GOD would choose to send a Messiah to Earth again, He would not be a Jewish Messiah; once it would have been proved that He was actually the Messiah, He would just be the Messiah for all of us.
C) To the best of my understanding, the Messiah announced in this passage of Micah 5, did already arrive from Bethlehem, or didnt He?
D) Last, but not least, from your question you seem to consider there are limits to what GOD can do. If we accept the fact that GOD is ALMIGHTY and I think we agree on that, if we believe in GOD- can you explain what would be the problem for GOD to make the Messiah arrive, once more from Israel, Palestinians or no Palestinians, or from the Grand Canyon, if that would be GODs design? Besides, can you say of which date are you talking about? Right now Bethlehem is Palestinian alright. But who knows what it will be 100 years from now, or 1000 years from now? Is there in the Jewish Scriptures a clear cut date for the arrival of the Messiah?
Would like to hear from you in this regard
Thanks and best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Toms777 asked on 09/14/03 - Rabbi Schneerson and Messianic Prophecy Rabbi Menachem Schneerson of the Lubavitcher movement was thought by many to be the Moschiach (Messiah). One comemnt that I have heard was that when he suffered a stroke near the end of his life and was unable to speak, that some thought that this was a fulfillment of Is 53:
Isa 53:7
7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
NKJV
Any thoughts or comments about this?
For those who are interested, the Lubavitch website is located here:
http://www.lubavitch.com/ curious98 answered on 09/15/03:The Jewish world, like the Christian world and, in general, all the world has plenty of instances of personages that could have been Moschiach. Maybe not in the full sense of the word the Jewish world means but certainly because the example they give is surrounded by an aura of sanctity.
Im thinking, for instance, of Mother Therese of Calcutta...
Im not familiar with the person of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, so Ill just copy an excerpt of an article Ive found on the Net.
On June 12, 1994, the grand rebbe of the ultra-Orthodox Lubavitch branch of Hasidic Judaism, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, passed away after a lengthy illness. To the hundreds of thousands of Lubavitchers worldwide, the passing of their 92-year-old leader left a vacuum of seismic proportions. As their religious leader, Rabbi Schneerson had played an integral part in the day-to-day lives of his followers.
"The mail would come in every day by the sackful," says Rabbi Yehuda Krinsky, who served as one of the rebbe's secretaries and is now the executive administrator of the worldwide Lubavitch movement. "People looked to the rebbe for guidance on matters ranging from choosing a wife to choosing a doctor."
"He was always there for us," states Lubavitcher Chaim Zirkind. "When he looked at you with his piercing eyes, he would be able to look into your soul. It was as if you were the only person in the world who mattered."
Compounding the loss of this fatherly, Sorbonne-educated leader was the almost unanimous hope that Schneerson was the messiah. When the rebbe died, so did the dreams of many who longed to see the messiah's coming.
"It was," says follower David Siegal, "like getting four out of the five numbers in the lottery...
I do not know whether or not he might have been the Messiah the Jewish world has been waiting for, for well over 2000 years. But when so many people mourn his passing away, there is no question in my mind that, at least, he was a remarkably good person.
May GOD have him in Paradise!
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Toms777 asked on 09/14/03 - The Teaching of Rabbi Shneur Zalman I was at a Bible Study last night and mention was made of a comment by Rabbi Shneur Zalman, the founder of the Lubavitch. Apparently disciples of the Rabbi came to him and asked why Moshiach (Messiah) has not arrived. The Rabbi reportedly responded by saying:
"Maybe the Moschiach that you are looking for is not the same moschiach that God intends!".
I am interested in any thoughts or comments as to what Rabbi Shneur Zalman's comment might mean and what might be the implication of this comment. curious98 answered on 09/15/03:There is no doubt that Rabbi Shneur Zalman was a very remarkable and capable personage.
With his concise answer we are given to understand that GODs designs are inscrutable.
Obviously, the image of the Moshiach, Rabbi Schneur Zalmans disciples had, may have very little to do with that of any Moshiach GOD might eventually decide to send over.
Just as the ideas or hopes we all may have of GODs designs may not necessarily coincide with actual events.
Therefore, there is no doubt Rabbi Shneur Zalman knew what he was talking about.
The substance of Rabbi Shneur Zalman's teachings can be found in his major contribution to Rabbinic literature, the Tanya. It seems to contain a concise outline of his philosophical system as a way of life, and attests to his vast knowledge and the depth of his understanding and mastery of both the revealed and esoteric teachings of the Sages. To the best of my knowledge the Tanya has been and still is a sacred text. It is religiously studied and memorized by the youngest as well as the oldest members of the Lubavitch movement, and they claim it seems inexhaustible at every level of approach and interpretation.
Best regards,
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ldmitch asked on 09/12/03 - Were these Christian leaders guilty of heresy? These are just a few samples of "Christian leaders" who taught that God had cursed the Jews because they killed Christ. It seems to be a consensus from the experts, both historically and biblically that the Jews did not kill Christ. Should we consider the following teaching heretical?
Cyrian: 250 A.D. The Jews will never be restored to their former condition. For they have committed a crime of the most unhallowed crime, in conspiring against the Savior of the human race
John Chrysotom 407 A.D. How can Christian dare have the slightest converse with Jews the most miserable of all men Why are Jews so degenerate? Because of their odious assassination of Christ. There is no expiation possible. The rejection and dispersion of the Jews was the work of God not the emperors. It was done by the wrath of God and his absolute abandon of you. It is the duty of Christians to hate the Jews. He who can never love Christ enough will never have done fighting against those Jews who hate him.
St. Augustine: 430 A.D. Jewish people are like Cain, having a divine mark upon them. They are an example to the Gentile people and the church. As we see them marked, we ought to consider the divine judgment of them for rejecting Christ and thus receive Christ ourselves, noting the fearful consequences of not doing so. Upon seeing the Jewish people, Gentiles would realize that God had set aside the Jewish people and be reminded of Gods favor for the Gentiles.
Martin Luther 1543: Concerning the Jews and their lies: "What then shall we Christians do with this damned rejected race of Jews? First their synagogues should be set on fire. Secondly their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed. Thirdly they should be deprived of their prayer books and Talmuds. Fourthly their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any moreJews should not merely be slaves but slaves of slaves that they might not even come in contact with ChristiansLet us drive them out of the country for all time. To sum up princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains if this advice does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may be free of this insufferable devilish burden, the Jews.
curious98 answered on 09/14/03:
The Christian Leaders you have chosen may have been Christian but they were either ignorant (quite probable) or stupid (also probable) or in bad faith (more than likely).
The fact that you may call yourself a Christian does not imply that you are one true one, according to the Gospels.
Just as well as not all those who call them Moslems, are true followers of the Al-Coram.
However, I will say in defence of those characters you mention, that until the Ecumenical Council lead by John XXIII, that idea was widespread amongst Catholics and, perhaps amongst Protestants too.
Which shows that the Church can make and does make mistakes.
To give you an instance.
I attended a religious school when I was a boy millions of years ago I remember very clearly one of my professors saying that we could not shake hands with a Protestant, because that would be a mortal sin!
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ldmitch asked on 09/12/03 - famous scientists view of creation: Albert Einsteins comments about creation
"The scientists religious feeling takes the form of rapturous amazement at the Harmony of Natural Law, which reveals an Intelligence of such superiority that compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." Why we believe in creation not evolution, Fred John Meldau, Christian Victory Publishing, page 59.
Johann Kepler: 1571-1630. (The founder of physical astronomy) "Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God." Men of Science, Men of God, Henry Morris, Master Book Publishers, San Diego, 1984, page 34-35
Francis Bacon: 1561-1626. (The founder of the scientific method in science). There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the creatures, which express his power." Ibid. page 35
Blaise Pascal: 1623-1662. (mathematics and hydrostatics). "How can anyone lose who chooses to become a Christian? If when he dies, there turns out to be no God and his faith was in vain, he has lost nothing - in fact, he has been happier in life than his non-believing friends. If, however, there is a God and a heaven and hell, then he has gained heaven and his skeptical friends will have lost everything in hell!" ibid. page 38-39
Isaac Newton: 1642-1727 (physics) "We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever." Ibid. page 46-47
Michael Faraday 1791-1867 (physics) "The Bible, and it alone, with nothing added to it nor taken away from it from man, was the sole and sufficient guide for each individual, at all times and in all circumstancesFaith in the divinity and work of Christ is the gift of God, and the evidence of this faith is obedience to the commandment of God." Ibid. page 56.
Samuel Morse (1791-1872) (inventor of the telegraph) "The nearer I approach to the end of my pilgrimage, the clearer is the evidence of the divine origin of the Bible, the grandeur and sublimity of Gods remedy for fallen man and more appreciated, and the future is illuminated with hope and joy." Ibid. page 61-62.
John Herschel 1792-1871 (astronomy) "All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more strongly the truths come from on high and contained in the sacred writings."
Ibid. page 71
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin: 1824-1907 (physics) "With regard to the origin of life, sciencepositively affirms creative power." Ibid. page 87.
King Solomon was known for his wisdom. He wrote these words
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Ecclesiastes 12:13-14
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. For by me thy days shall be multiplied, and the years of thy life shall be increased. If thou be wise, thou shalt be wise for thyself: but if thou scornest, thou alone shalt bear it." Proverbs 9:10-12
What scientific evidence is there to show there is a creator?
curious98 answered on 09/14/03:
Of course, in the splendid assortment of cites you have chosen, there is no scientific evidence to show there is a creator, unless you give all those scientists (great brains, btw) credit for believing THERE MUST BE a superior FORCE or ENERGY (we call GOD) to explain the wonderful miracle of the Universe we know.
If you consider that such amazingly intelligent scientists could not produce a scientific evidence of how our Universe was created; if you consider that right now, all we have are theories, and theories that cannot be proven either; then, it seems reasonably enough abide by what the wise men you have selected, thought when they were asked
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ldmitch asked on 09/14/03 - Has God chosen the Jews to be Jehovah Witnesses? Isaiah 43:10 says, Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD (Jehovah) and my servant whom I have chosen.
Is this a reference to the Jews, God's chosen people or to the Watchtower Society? curious98 answered on 09/14/03:Bearing in mind when the Jehovah Witnesses first appeared, I would feel inclined to believe this is a reference to the Jews, as GOD's chosen people.
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | ldmitch asked on 09/14/03 - eternal city Would God's eternal city be Mecca, Rome, Salt Lake City, Jerusalem or other city? curious98 answered on 09/14/03:You ask this question as if it would be known by a few chosen ones which would be GODs Eternal City.
Some Jews will say Jerusalem. Catholics will go for Rome, bearing in mind that we already name it the Eternal City. Moslems whose GOD is the same as ours, for there is only ONE GOD- would choose Mecca, and others may still select some other city.
Whatever reply you may be given to this question is nothing but sheer speculation and, as some would say, wishful thinking.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ldmitch asked on 09/14/03 - Pure language Zephaniah 3:9 prophesies "For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent."
Would this pure language be Latin, Arabic, Hebrew or some other language? curious98 answered on 09/14/03: "Then will I purify the lips of the peoples,
that all of them may call on the name of the LORD
and serve him shoulder to shoulder.
10 From beyond the rivers of Cush [2]
my worshipers, my scattered people,
will bring me offerings.
11 On that day you will not be put to shame
for all the wrongs you have done to me,
because I will remove from this city
those who rejoice in their pride.
Never again will you be haughty
on my holy hill.
This prophesy refers, obviously, to the day when GOD will send ITS Messenger again.
The language this Messenger will use then is not for us to know until that Day.
At any rate, I would feel inclined to believe it will be a widely spoken language, certainly not Latin nor Hebrew, which are understood by a minority only. I would bet for English.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Toms777 asked on 09/13/03 - What is Chilianism? Could someone please provide an overview of Chilianism?
Thanks. curious98 answered on 09/14/03:
Chiliaism is divided into two syllables Chilia-ism. The word "chilia" comes from the Greek word for 1,000, "chilioi," "Ism" means in a sense, a doctrine or study of a particular belief or held tenet of Faith. Hence, "Chilianism" means the study or belief in the 1,000. This refers to Revelation 20:1-6 and the 1,000 year literal reign of Messiah upon the earth. That Amillenialism was an Augustine attempt to "REPLACE" the much older "Chilianism," is admitted by William E. Cox, in his book: Amillennialism Today:
"Chiliasts of the early centuries after Christ had no teachings about a secret rapture Here, the amillennialist admit that the "Chiliasts" existed early in the Church as if it was the ORIGINAL view of the Apostles and Saints.
"Augustine (A.D. 400) usually is credited with having crystallized amillennial teachings "Amillennialism, ...is the historic Protestant view, as expressed in the creeds of the Reformation period including the Westminster "
Please read this paper:
Anyone with clear perception can see the obvious connection between Catholicism and Protestantism in regards to the doctrine of amillennialism. From the days of Augustine until the Reformation, the doctrine of Catholicism was amillennialism. Because of hatred against Johns Revelation by the Catholic Church, brought on by those who alleged the Catholic Church was the great whore, coupled with denial of the doctrine of the millennial by the antichiliasts, Rome refused to Canonize the book of Revelation. Although they were fearful not to include it among the accepted writings because of the threats within it, it was not until the Council of Trent [1545 AD], that the book of Revelation was Canonized.
Martin Luther, like the Catholics, did not hold that the book of Revelation should be among the Canonical books. Therefore, Lutheranism attempts to continue Augustine-Catholicism and prove what is in the book of Revelation by other Scriptures, while at the same time saying that their interpretations are the true de-coding of what is symbolized in the book of Revelation. To them, all of Prophecy was fulfilled by the end of the year in 70AD, and this negates the value of the book of Revelation in its entirety after the 70AD date. They also believe water baptism is the first resurrection of Rev. 20:1-10. So the Jesus name Pentecostal Apostolics who adopt these Catholic novations are just as much in error as if they believed in the trinity doctrine.
When Lutherans, Presbyterians, Catholics, and other amillennialists see or hear of anyone who believes the book of Revelation contains unfulfilled prophecy, they snicker, and with a chagrin, cover their mouths, and with gestures of thumbs down, indicate that such a person is utterly stupid for not embracing the Augustine-Catholic doctrine as they have done. Martin Luther died a few months after the Council of Trent Canonized the book of Revelation as a useless but historical book of the Church.
When Luther [1483-1546], began what we know as the Reformation, he did not change from the doctrine of Augustine amillennialism, he in fact enshrined it more harshly among his followers. To this day, the amillennialist do not hold the book of Revelation as a holy book. They still treat it with the pre-Trent hatred of the Catholic Church. The proof, is the way they insist on reinterpreting it and spiritualizing its contents into the most wildest and crazy tales since the Gnostics of the first century. Thus, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, and Catholicism, are staunchly amillennial. This attitude forces them to interpret events after 70 AD in the wrong light of Scripture. Events that will lead up to the appearance of the man of sin, will be pooh poohed as foolish and hair-brained sensationalism, incited by a few apostates not in the main-stream Churches. This turns attention from the antichrist system and focuses upon those who might condemn their Augustine reinterpretations. This leads to the amillennialist openly condemning everyone who is a millennialist, while at the same time ignorantly endorsing the antichrist movement, because they believe it was already destroyed by the end of the year in 70 AD. This is a dangerous posture, and will cause many millions to be deceived and lost. Believing that antichrist has already come and Revelation 13 has already been fulfilled, they have no doctrinal reason to expect or to attempt to identify the man of sin or the antichrist, which is soon to appear. It is so easy to deceive millions when the devil can change the interpretation of the Word of God, like he did with Eve: "Ye shall NOT surely die," adding one word, and changing the true interpretation of what God had said. Jesus told John there would be a millennial. The devil comes along and says: There will NOT be a millennial. Same trick word used each time to deceive Gods children.
One of the catalyst that has cemented world-wide unity among a number of Protestant denominations, is their doctrine of amillennialism. By uniting upon the basis of all believing in amillennialism, they have for a central theme of unity, that they can bring the Kingdom of God upon the earth, to fulfill their theory of how the Church age will end just prior to the end of the world and the judgment. Being thus deceived, they fulfill the plot of antichrist to set up the world to accept "MONOTHEISTIC UNIVERSALISM." A bumper sticker seen recently, explains what "MONOTHEISTIC UNIVERSALISM" means. It read: "God is big enough to accept all religions." Many look for antichrist to set up one religion world wide. But what we are finding, is that in the doctrine of monotheistic universalism, antichrist is teaching multi-culturalism, return to pagan religions, and that these are all equally acceptable ways and means to reach the ONE TRUE GOD [the meaning of monotheism]. Most, if not all of the amillennial churches, now believe in multi-culturalism and acceptance of pagan nature religions, thus universal monotheism, or ONE GOD over all religions. Instead of uniting to bring into being the Kingdom of God and convert pagans to Christ, they have brought into being the antichrist world movement of universal monotheism, out of the midst of which, will come the man of sin to rule all multi-cultural nations and religions from Jerusalem.
It is obvious that from Augustine in 400 AD to the death of Martin Luther in 1546, the doctrine enforced with death from the throne of Rome was amillennialism. Although the amillennialist admit where their doctrine came from, they also deny it, when it is convenient to keep those who might be alarmed at its Catholic womb, from fleeing from their Churches. By covering this chilling detail up, they are in fact lying to their congregations, by inferring and claiming that amillennialism was the original doctrine of Christ and the Apostles. They attack dispensationalism, calling it a novation, while elevating amillennialism, which is admitted by them to be an Augustine novation. The fact is, both are wrong. Millennialism as taught by the early Church was neither dispensationalism nor amillennialism. For either group to claim otherwise, openly exposes either a lack of integrity concerning Truth, or they are simply ignorant of the facts, relying rather on the authority of Church traditions and not the Testimony of Scripture.
"It is true that most Roman Catholic theologians are amillenarians "There is no connection between Protestant amillennialism and Roman Catholicism "Most if not all of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation were amillennial in their eschatology, following the teaching of Augustine."
Unless amillennialism was a new Protestant invention, how could anyone claim that the Protestant Reformers did not get their doctrine from the Catholic Church? Let us not lose sight of the fact that amillennialism, like the trinity doctrine, is a Catholic novation, a reinterpretation by Augustine [354-430 AD]. Although Augustine=s mother was supposed to be a Catholic, his father died an unconverted pagan. Augustine followed his father's footsteps and was a pagan and sought education in philosophy, science, and rhetoric. Plato was his mentor. He rejected religion until converted to Manichaeanism which in one aspect many were Monarchian. He rose in the sect of Manichaeans from a hearer to a teacher and then a wonderful debater. In 383 at the age of 29 he went to Rome with the encouragement of his Manichaean friends to debate the trinity and on other issues. There, he became acquainted with the doctrine of Neo-Platoism (Plato he loved), that the Catholic Church had adopted in 325 AD as an explanation of the trinity. He gave up his Monarchian (oneness) doctrine for this new trinity doctrine. Within three years of his visit, in 386 AD he converted to the papacy and was promoted quickly as one of the Pope's greatest theologians and neo-Platonic philosophers. Augustine left his wife and became a monk and founded the Augustinian Benedictine Monk Order (Martin Luther's). While he altered many of his views to those of the papacy, he also brought to it many Manichaean ideas and theories which he adopted over into and applied these to his new Catholicism.
Remember, that other fermenting events were then shaping Catholicism: 1.) The doctrine in 325 AD, of the Father and the Son being co-eternal and of the same substance [Spirit], but different persons; 2.) The addition of the Holy Ghost as a co-eternal and equal separate person, completing the Neo-Platonic concept of the Trinity, done at the Council of Constantinople in 384 AD; 3.) And at this time, Jerome was in Israel consulting with several Jews on his commission from Rome to rewrite and retranslate the Bible into Latin, taking into consideration new newest Jewish and Catholic slants on Biblical reinterpretation [this is noticed in the first person written form in the Gospels being replaced with third person written form, and additions and changes in the text, two of which are John 5:7 and Matthew 28:19, the first now proven not to be in any of the ancient manuscripts, and the latter not at all like it was fabricated in the Vulgate and then in the King James Version. Trinitarian language was injected into the sacred record in hundreds of places to reinforce the new Neo-Platonic doctrines of Rome]. Augustine came among the mix at a time when Catholicism was ripe for novation and reinterpretation from within the abyss of paganized Christendom, which birthed out of the midst, the DARK AGES!
In Augustine's day, much of the doctrine of the Catholic Church was not in any creed or statement of faith. The amillennial doctrine was one of them. It is this writers belief and contention that amillennialism, clearly a Manichaean doctrine, and having wide-spread acclaim by reason of the saturation of the nations with Manichaeanism, was brought into Catholicism by Augustine from his former religion. No one denies that amillennialism rose within Augustineism and then existed against the Chiliaist or believers of the future 1,000 year reign of Christ upon the earth. What is still being debated, is whether those who held the amillennial theory were not in fact originally the Manichaeans. The fact that amillennialism existed and was wide-spread in opposition to "historic" Chiliaism, is no proof that it was the doctrine of the Apostles. The earliest we have traced it is to Clement and Origen, both of whom were gnostics. Until the root of amillennialism is discovered, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that until Augustine, it was not an established doctrine of the Catholic Church or he would not have been the one to establish it, but would have received it in an already accepted form as would have been held in all Catholic Churches in fellowship with Rome.
The doctrine of amillennialism is couched in the Catholic Church's denial of the existence of a literal and physical 1,000 year earthly reign of Christ on the earth, after the Church age.
Hope to have helped
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ldmitch asked on 09/13/03 - Ben Yehuda Zephaniah 3:9 prophesies "For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent."
Is this prophesy speaking about Ben Yehuda?
curious98 answered on 09/13/03:I do not think so. Again, as I said in one of my previous answers, how can we know?
And, at any rate, whom Ben Yehuda are you referring to?
The 11th century Hispanic/Jewish Solomon ben Yehuda ibn Gabirol? Or, perhaps, to Eliezer Ben Yehuda?
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | ldmitch asked on 09/13/03 - 1000 year kingdom Revelation 20:1-10 speaks of a 1000 year period, where Satan will be bound.
Is this when God will restore the kingdom to Israel? See Acts 1:6-7, Deuteronomy 28:1 curious98 answered on 09/13/03:My dear Idmich,
No matter what anyone can say, the answer to your question is:
WHO CAN TELL WHAT GOD'S PLANS ARE?
Any answer such as Yes or No or Maybe, will just be sheer speculation on our part.
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | ~Seraph~ asked on 09/12/03 - Religion versus Science (if you like). Professor Hugh Nibley, in Ancient Documents and the Pearl of Great Price, Lecture Six
I made a bad mistake [the] time before last. I said that Popper said that all religion is cosmology and all cosmology religion. Of course, he didn't say that. He said that all science is cosmology. The other remark that all religion is cosmology could have been made by somebody like Santillana. Goethe would certainly say it. He says, "Who knows or who has science and art, he has religion. And if you don't have them, you'd better get religion." But if you had a complete knowledge of science, then you would have religion. If you have no knowledge of science at all, you'd better get religion.
We've been speaking about Joseph Smith's restoring certain basic religious teachings which the world had lost. Notice, we're not going into scientific things. We are just keeping it scriptural stuff all along herethe old records. And the Pearl of Great Price is the best guide to such lost teachings. So far we have talked about the literalism of it, and the preexistence, and the last time we talked about cosmology.
Now we come to the sorest and touchiest subject of them all. This is a blister. The subject is creation, of course. Even those at BYU are divided on it. There are two totally different schools of creation right in our midst. The problem is that we don't have a dichotomy here; we have a trichotomya tricky trichotomy. Dichotomy is used a good deal by philosophers. Sterling McMurrin up at the University of Utah just adores the word; he works it to death. But nobody ever says trichotomy because that's what we have here. Well, philosophers don't believe in trichotomy. Hegelian dialectic calls for dichotomy. Everything has an opposite; every thesis has an antithesis. They get together and form a new synthesis. That's natural that there should be two. Why should you insert a third element? Well, you can't really. It must come from another world. That's why Joseph Smith spoils it with his trichotomy. It's in the dictionary; I looked it up. Dichotomy means to cut into two piecescut down the center. Trichotomy is to cut into three pieces. That's what we have to deal with here. In the normal dichotomy of things, everything divides in twogood and bad, the two kingdoms, etc. We're in between them now. We don't belong to either one. We'd have to make up our minds between them. In the natural order of things there is no third. It was this and the opposite in the order of the world, but Joseph Smith brought in something else. Mormonism is another world and it just doesn't apply.
Now, the classic dichotomy from the very beginning has been between science and religion. You think science and religion is a modern issue. It isn't at all; it's ancient. In 585 B.C. Thales of Miletus predicted an eclipse, and it happened. And the School of Miletus decided that there is a god but the things of heaven are imponderable. You can't bring them into the laboratory; you can't weigh and measure them. So for our purposes let's just leave them out of our calculations. Since that's an unknown quantity, we can't use it.
We'll just leave it out, and that's what they did. Before long, they decided it's extra baggage; we don't need it anyway. Then it became a pernicious nuisance. We should just get rid of it. To have true science, you don't have it at all. With the Egyptians it was the same thing. So you have this big quarrel between science and religion as if they were different things. The reason is that religion deals with things that science can't find available. If you can't measure it, you can't be sure about it. If it's subjective, keep it out of the laboratory. Well, the laboratory gives you all you have. That's all you know, so forget about the other. That's just excess baggage. So that's the course that has been taken. Well, the classic dichotomy is that, then. And which gives the true explanation is the question, of course. This is the point: When we say science versus religion, we are speaking as you would speak ten thousand years ago or three thousand years ago. As Heraclitus of Ephesus was very well aware (he kept rubbing it in here), you're speaking not of science and religion but only of conventional contemporary science versus conventional contemporary religion. And now we can quote Karl Popper. "Where both are concerned, you are dealing with something that is always tentative. You do not have the final answer. The last returns aren't in. You are not going to settle it until you know a lot more than you do about both of them. And you'll never know enough."
Since the answers are always tentative, what do you do? What Joseph Smith has given us in the Pearl of Great Price is something that conventional contemporary religion doesn't have because they lost it and conventional contemporary science doesn't have because they never found it. So Joseph Smith didn't go to either of these for his instruction, and he offended both of them. His followers have always tended to take sides though because they are stuck with the two. Remember, Joseph said, "Whenever I start talking about this creation business, people fly apart like glass. They can't stand the fire. They will stick to their old traditions. I can't even bring it up. They want to string me up to the nearest tree if I start talking about that because their prejudices are so deep and so established." And it was the same way with the scientists, as we will see here. There are some very interesting remarks. They have taken sides and still do. They are unable to disengage themselves from the world and its ways. We live in it and we're stuck with it until we get rid of certain things. In the same way we have taken sides on matters of economics and politics, both being totally alien to the gospelboth extremes. So today, one feels obliged to be either a fundamentalist or a Darwinist, for example.
Well, the gospel rejects both.
Fundamentalism follows Thomas Aquinas' definition of creation as creation out of nothing. "Instantaneous and simultaneous," as Aquinas says. In one second it was all created, complete all at once. According to the Darwinists it's creation by nothing, without plan and without direction. What created it? Well, chance. Please define chance for me. Well, just what happens, that's all. So we have creation by nothing and creation out of nothing. Of course, we reject both of them. The Pearl of Great Price is the best reply to both of them.
Now, the two journalists who had the greatest impact in the country were Horace Greeley, who was a friend of Brigham Young, and James Gordon Bennett, who founded the New York Herald which for many years was the foremost newspaper in the country.
James Gordon Bennett was a very able man. Both of them had a lot to say about Mormonism. It's an interesting thing. This has to do with the Pearl of Great Price; that's why it's interesting here. This is an editorial in the New York Herald for Sunday, April 3, 1842. Why would that be significant? Because in the middle of March 1842 the first publication of the Pearl of Great Price was in the Times and Seasons. It included the Facsimile No. 1 and the explanations thereof and up to the eighteenth verse of the second chapter of the Pearl of Great Price. Well, less than a month later it was picked up by the New York papers and the Boston papers and they were quite excited about it. It really electrified the nation. We don't pay any attention to it today, but you would be surprised what an effect it had.
You used to hear a lot about James Gordon Bennett in my day. He was the most influential newspaper editor of the time, and he wrote this on April 3, just a couple of weeks later:
"This Joe Smith is, undoubtedly, one of the greatest characters of the age. He indicates as much talent, originality, and moral courage as Mahomet, Odin, or any of the other great spirits that have hitherto produced the revolutions of past ages."
Notice, that he mentioned Odin because at this time it was popular to regard Odin as the great folk hero of the North (a real person) thanks to the writings of Carlyle.
In his On Heroes and Hero-Worship he makes a big thing of Odin, and so did others such as Max Mueller. Odin is the Woden of German mythology. They thought he was a real person and a founder of civilization. He could very well have been. We won't go into that now. That's another story. You take the saga class for that.
Now, this is what Joseph Smith is correcting, according to Bennett. His editorial continues:
"In the present infidel, irreligious, material, ideal, geological, animal-magnetic age of the world..."
It was a time when they thought a lot of science was explained by animal magnetism, that was mesmerism, etc. They didn't know what electricity was. Galvani and Volta were just beginning to be aware of this mysterious power of electricity. Of course, today we know all about electricity. We know it runs through wires and you get a bad shock, etc. But today we still don't know what it is. Nobody has the vaguest idea to this day. Unsatisfied electrons, I suppose, that have to be fed. This was the scientific world of the time of Joseph Smith.
Notice that the religious world is up in arms against him, but look what he's doing to the rest of them here now:
"some such singular prophet as Joe Smith is required to preserve the principle of faith, and to plant some new germs of civilization that may come to maturity in a thousand years. While modern philosophy, which believes in nothing but what you can touch"
Now this [was] in 1842. We might say that's our scientific age today. They were just as disillusioned in those days, and, as we have seen, their religion was abstract and immaterial. You can see why the two couldn't meet because science would believe only in what you could touch, and religion would not believe in what you could touch. Anything tangible was not spiritual. It was irreligious, physical, and corruptNeoplatonism.
"While modern philosophy, which believes in nothing but what you can touch, is overspreading the Atlantic States, Joe Smith is creating a spiritual system, combined also with morals and industry, that may change the destiny of the race." Then he goes on and raves for quite awhile and says, "Joe is a magnet in a large way, which he calls a power or spirit from heaven. In other respects Joe is a mighty man of Godpossessing large stores of human naturegreat shrewdness, and as he has taken the management of the Mormon newspaper organ, the Times and Seasons into his hand, we look for many revelations, and some curious ones, too, pretty soon."
What brought this on is the Book of Abraham, not the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants. The Book of Abraham is what caught people's attention because of its tangible nature. Bennett's editorial began like this:
"We give in this day's paper a very curious chapter from the Book of Abraham which we find published in the last number of a weekly journal called the Times and Seasons, conducted by Jo. Smith, the great Mormon Prophet, in the city of Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois."
And the article concludes:
"We certainly want some such prophet to start up, take a big hold of the public mindand stop the torrent of materialism that is hurrying the world into infidelity, immorality, licentiousness, and crime."
He is talking in 1842, not 1986.
"Professor Lyell, Richard Adams Locke, Dr. Brisbane, Master Emerson, Prophet Brownson, Horace Greeley, and all the materialists of the age, ought to take a leaf of common sense out of Joe's book."
Professor Lyell was the founder of modern geology at that time. He was a Scotsman who went down to the beach and looked at the deposits of sandstone and said,
"This must have taken millions and millions of years," and then started things going.
Brisbane's son was the chief editor of the Hearst newspapers for years. Arthur Brisbane was the oracle of the nation when I was a kid. Not this Brisbane. I was not a kid in 1842. Notice that he even spoofs Emerson here. Wasn't Emerson quite spiritual? No, the whole New England school was enlightened in this way. The Prophet Brownson was really stirring up things. And Horace Greeley was the rival editor.
You notice in this editorial there is not a word about the ministry. Why don't they cheer for him? And Joseph Smith is not attacking anything. You'll find nothing in the Articles of Faith saying we denounce this or that. It doesn't even mention the Apostasy in the Articles of Faith.
It's what we do believe, not what we don't. We're not interested in other people being wrong. Joseph never attacked the ministry, but they certainly attacked him. And he didn't attack the scientists here, but he preached something that would take the placethe Pearl of Great Price filling in the gap. The religionists keep silence, and the scientists here keep silence too.
As Bennett says, Joseph Smith moves into the gap and tells them what will do some good here. But why don't the ministry cheer for him then? What do they teach that so sets them against the Prophet? They didn't like him at all, especially because he was a rival. They rivaled each other and didn't like each other.
This editorial can be found in a book by Jay M. Todd titled The Saga of the Book of Abraham, published by Deseret Book in 1969. We have several copies here [BYU]. It has this and a lot of other relevant material about this. There's a lot about the mummies and things like that which really aren't important as far as I'm concerned. But the author has brought together all sorts of odds and ends in the book, which is quite a useful one.
Todd cites another editorial which appeared the same week. The Boston Daily Ledger which was the big New England paper, the intellectual paper, devoted the whole front page to the Book of Abraham, with a big picture of the Facsimile No. 1. Which does the Book of Abraham most contradict, science or religion? Must we take sides? We must take sides as long as we ignore the Pearl of Great Price. But if we pay more attention to it (which we should begin to do), then we won't be so disturbed and torn apart by this issue. Three days later the Boston Daily Ledger devoted almost the whole front page to the Book of Abraham. The editor, William Bartlett, was from a very eminent family (you've heard of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations).
One William Bartlett was a scientific writer, and another one wrote about art. This is his editorial:
"We shall publish tomorrow Joe Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham, the original of which Joe says he obtained from papyrus found in the catacombs of EgyptSmith is decidedly the greatest original of the present day. He carries all before him when he undertakes an enterprise knows no impedimentand never halts in his course till he has accomplished his objectHe is a geniusand a rare oneand all the armies of Satan, should they confront him in a solid phalanx, would be sure to meet with sore discomfiture, if not complete annihilation.[I don't know how this went over with the ministry in Boston.] We have so high a opinion of Joe Smith, that we intend to open a correspondence with him, in order to acquaint ourselves with all his secret springs of action, and thus, get all the secrets of his success, public and private, worldly and ecclesiastical. The chapter from the recently rediscovered Book of Abraham, and the unique cut which illustrates it, on our outside, [they printed it in that issue, you see] has occasioned us some expense; but we care not for that, so long as we please our patrons, which we mean to do at all hazards"
Note that it is specifically the Book of Abraham that impresses these men here. So our attitude when we talk about the conflict between science and religion is not a plague on both your houses, but rather we say, here comes somebody who has been there, or says he has, and produces a lot of interesting credentials. Let's ask him and see what he says about it. So this semester I intend to avoid the scientific aspects of the question which have sidetracked me again and again (calamitously, since I don't know anything about the subject). There are some very good popular works bringing us to date on science such as the one by Gary Zukav, The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics, which is required reading in the Honors Program.
Anyway, I intend to avoid the scientific aspects of the question. They're always tentative anyway. It's the historical and literary aspects we are going to consider now. There's an awful lot of it, and we are just going to consider it superficially. It should not be ignored in spite of the great problems and difficulties that it too raises. The reason I turn to it is that it is ignored. This year, the thesis has been that we find in the Pearl of Great Price the authentic teachings of the earliest records; not what science would be if science knew all the answers, but what the earliest records actually were. The earliest records of the Jews and Christians [p.6] denounced and deleted by the doctors of the schools in late antiquity and resulting in a very a incomplete recordfaulted, complex, misleading, etc. Well, the Pearl of Great Price will put us back on the track. So the subject today is that touchiest of all subjects, the creation.
And the Council in Heaven is what takes priority here. It looms magnificent. You find it everywhere, and it's one of the things that is overlooked all the time. But it is the first consideration when you talk about the creation. There's something else which was reprinted in BYU Studies, volume seven (Autumn 1965). It was the second faculty research lecture that was given here, and it was by me on this subject. I remember when Eliade read it in Chicago. He was enormously impressed and excited about it. We will have occasion to refer to Eliade here. He is the great authority on comparative religion. Everybody quotes him. I'm going to quote a little from the lecture to show what the early Jews and Christians thought about this, and it played a very dominant role here. It has to do with the Council in Heaven more than anything else. The faculty lecture was given March 17, 1965, twenty years ago. We talk about the newly discovered documents here because they were the oldest and the best we had. Why must they be newly discovered; why didn't we know them all along? They hadn't been destroyed. They were absolutely taboo. Remember, the doctors of the church and the rabbis wouldn't touch them with a forty-foot pole and condemned anyone who did. It says in the Talmud, any student who asks the big questions of Clement: Where did we come from? Where are we going? When was the earth created and what happened? Was there a preexistence? Are there other worlds? If any student asked such questions, it was better he had never been born. That's the way the doctors of the Jews and Christians view it. And so its the newly discovered documents that have been out of the way all this time. How they survived is interesting. Like the Book of Mormon, they were all buried. The Dead Sea Scrolls were buried deliberately to come forth at a later ageburied with great care and blocked up and sanded up. It's the same thing with the Nag Hammadi libraryput in jars and hidden away to come forth later. Remember, the Book of Mormon says, "To come forth in their purity (1 Nephi 14:26)."
Whenever people handle documents, they spoil them [Wesley P Walters, as an example]. Nobody can copy notes without making mistakes, then making corrections. And before you know it you can hardly recognize what started. You can start a simple English sentence going around the class. He copies it down and folds it over. The next person copies down just what he wrote, not what he copied, and folds it over. The next person copies the last one, etc. Before it has gone through ten people, you won't recognize that sentence. This is what happens when you copy things. So the newly discovered ones have come back because they have been preserved in their purity. That's the only way they can be preserved.
They have much to say about the Council in Heaven and the plan laid down at the foundation of the world. According to the wise Ben Sirach, talking about the Old Testament assemblies in Deuteronomy and Leviticus when Israel was required to assemble once a year for great festivals, etc.,
"these were the ritual repetition, not merely of the gathering at the foot of Sinai when Moses brought them together to counsel them, but specifically of the great assembly that met above at the creation of the world. When God set before them, the human race to be, the covenant of the law of life and showed them his judgments, their eyes beheld his glorious majesty and their ears heard his voice."
Now Ben Sirach is the greatest work of Hebrew wisdom literature. That is chapter 17, verses 11-13.
Second Baruch was a contemporary of Jeremiah and Lehi. In fact, he was the secretary of Jeremiah, and he and Ezra both wrote books at the same time. The big question that worried him was why should Israel fall? Why would they become captives? They were bad but not nearly as bad as the people who took them captive. The Lord says that's the very point. Like he said to the Nephites,
"The Lamanites have been cursed with a sore cursing; nevertheless, they shall smite you to destruction."
Let that be a lesson to us. According to II Baruch, the whole plan of the history of the world is set forth in detail when the Mighty One took counsel to create the world. He presented this plan to them. You will find II Baruch in that big book of R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament.
According to the Book of Enoch, a very important recent discovery,
"In the beginning the Head of Days, with head like white wool, sat with the Son of Man beside him upon the throne of his glory and the books of the living were open before him."
These books were the register of the names of those who were to live upon earth. They had a big roll call to make sure that everybody would be there for the presentation of the plan. Then the calling of the mission of the Son and the plan, both of which were kept secret until then, were revealed to the elect before they came here. It was revealed again in the Book of Mormon.
It's not too much to say that the dominant theme of the Thanksgiving Hymn, the Hodayot, is the ecstatic contemplation of the wonder of man's participation in the heavenly affairs back to the beginning. The most wonderful of the Dead Sea Scrolls is a collection of thanksgiving hymns. Now here is hymn six or hymn F from the Hodayot scrolls published in the early 1950s:
"Thou hast caused me to mount up to an eternal height and to walk in an inconceivable exaltation, and I know that there is a hope for everyone whom thou didst form of the dust in the presence of the eternal assembly, and that the sinful spirit whom thou hast purified of great sin may be counted with the hosts of the saints and enter the society of the congregation of the sons of heaven. Thou didst appoint unto man an eternal share with the spirits that know, to praise thy name in joyful unison with them and to recount thy wondrous works in the presence thereof."
This is the great creation hymn it's referring to when the sons of God shouted and the morning stars sang together.
Well, the whole point of this is that man actually belongs by prior appointment to that community of the elect who share in the knowledge of the plan and who shouted for joy at the foundation of the world. In the hymn preceding this, God is hailed as the Prince of the Gods and King of the venerable ones. And we remind ourselves that this is neither a Gnostic nor a pagan production. This was orthodox Judaism back in those early days.
In the first chapter and twenty-fourth verse of the Clementine Recognitions when he meets Peter, Peter tells him of the plan of God which he announced as his own will and desire in the presence of the first angels and which he established as an eternal law for all. He gave it to them as the law in the beginning. In one of the Coptic texts they give it the characteristic Gnostic twist.
"My father, the joyful glorious light," says the Psalm of Thomas, "summoned all the eons of peace [the first angels have now become mere abstractions; they are simply the eons of peace] all his sons and all his angels and established them that they might rejoice in his greatness and share it. All bowed the knee before him in saying his praises together, hailing him as the illuminator of worlds."
It's the same picture, but this is a very early group in Egypt. Were they interpreting this mystically? Whatever it was, they knew about the council. This is the very same picture we get from the Clementines where it says that he summoned all the angels of peace, all his sons and all the angels and established them that they might rejoice in his greatness.
Remember verse 39 in the first chapter of Moses,
"For behold, this is my work and my gloryto bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."
Then there's the newly discovered Creation Apocryphon. Incidentally, we have all these Coptic texts here. And, fortunately, Coptic is not the most difficult language in the world. It was never required of ministers until 1950 at least. I recommend Coptic because it's fun. It hangs together beautifully, and it's not hard. But anyway the Coptic text tells us
"on that day began the discussion in which gods, angels, and men participated [when they were to discuss the creation] and the decisions of the discussion were then carried out by gods, angels and men [' we will go down'] and they saw that their plan was being followed."
This is all told in the Book of Abraham, as you know, third and fourth chapters.
"But Prince Jabub did not understand the power of faith."
Again, what do we read in the Book of Moses where it says Satan sought to destroy the plan of the world for he knew not the mind of God. That's the most encouraging thing in the scriptures to me. Satan has a terrific game going and he wins hands down all the time, but he knows not the mind of God, so he's not going to win.
"But Price Jabub did not understand the power of faith and so was denied authority over matter which the others shared."
That's a very interesting quotation. The power of faith, it will be recalled, was the power, we are told, by which the worlds were created. So we get the same picture from the Coptic source and from the Dead Sea Scrolls source. They were written about the same time.
And then the earliest writings after the New Testament were the seven apostolic fathers. The last of them to be discovered was the Pastor of Hermas. The unimpeachable Pastor of Hermas is quite as specific.
This is in 120 A.D. Hermas was the brother of the bishop of Rome supposedly. This is a lamentation on the speed with which the apostasy has overtaken the church. Everything is going down the drain, and it's a cry of distress with the others, Barnabas and Ignatius. In 2 Clement, he's standing on a headland watching a friend swimming out at sea. The friend is getting farther and farther away from shore. He's calling to the church,
"Come back before it is too late. You're going in the wrong direction."
At last his voice is carried away by the wind. It's very much like the last prophets in the Book of Mormon and the Jaredites.
So the Pastor of Hermas says, "Behold God constructing the world in accordance with the great council [some manuscripts have 'the most honored council'], creating the beautiful world and turning it over to his chosen ones that he might carry out his promise to them which he gave them in the midst of great glory and rejoicing; that is if they kept his laws which they accept in great faith."
Well, there's the situation exactly: "we will prove them herewith." It will become a time of probation.
The plan is placed before them. They vote on it, etc. They would return to his presence and partake of eternal life if they keep his laws. It was to be a test and probation. This life became a time of probation, as Nephi said, which they accepted in great faith. They all voted to come down.
The Mandaean version (very old work from Mesopotamia) is very interesting because it calls the creator Ptah-il, gives him an Egyptian name, combining the archaic Egyptian and the Semitic names. While giving the familiar account of the great council, it adds the important detail that three messengers were sent down to supervise the work and to instruct Adam; these three being glorious angels who were later to live upon the earth as ordinary mortals and prophets. They were to be apostles later on. You find that text in Leipoldt.
I'm going to skip to something very old now. Here's this Eliade. I mentioned him before. He has written many books on this. Just a number of writings to generalize here. Mircea Eliade is Romanian, I think. He was at Swift at the Theological School in Chicago when I was over in the Oriental Institute, but we never met. He had a student who was LDS, and he asked where I was teaching, where this Nibley character was. He said, "He's over at the Oriental Institute just across the quad." But the people at the Oriental Institute never talk to the people in the Theology School. That was Swift Hall, the library. I was doing some very interesting stuff in Swift Library there. It's supposed to be the theological seminary for Chicago, and they had no Catholic books or journals. We have a great collection of them here, one of the best in the country. It's better than you will find at Notre Dame.
Somebody gave Notre Dame eight million dollars for books, and they spent every penny of it on books about Dante. I remember it made my friend Frank Barry so furious because they spent eight million on one writer alone. So the people in the two never met. But in this article on cosmogonic myths, he compares them. His business is prehistoric shamanism and world religions.
You can get a very good comparison of world religions, throughout the world, beginning with so-called primitives and right down to the big religions today. It's the collection of Joseph Campbell called Masks of the Gods. He was here three years ago and gave some very fine talks, and we had some nice talks with him. If you want to review the general situation of world religions from the beginning, you can't do better. The book is very readable, and there are at least three volumes out.
But Eliade says this,
"Wherever you look, you will always find this central myth of the creation which describes the beginning of the world, including the origin of plants, animals and man; and marriage, family and death. Taken all together, these myths in origin constitute a fairly coherent history."
So wherever you go throughout the world you will find about the same story. We are not talking at this time about the process of creation. We are just talking about the council.
W. G. Lambert is perhaps the foremost surviving Babylonian scholar. He is the biggest editor of Babylonian texts today. He says,
"The first major conclusion is that the epic of creation is a norm of Babylonian or Sumerian cosmology (you'll find it there), and it's a sectarian aberration."
We find these things spread around everywhere.
Hermann Grapow is the editor of five big volumes of the Egyptian dictionary. It took him years. There are three million entries in it. He worked with Erman. It was financed by the Kaiser in Berlin and it went for years and years. It is still the standard Egyptian dictionary. He has written in this on the world before the creation. If you turn to the Egyptian text on the subject, you will find exact parallels from the Old Testament; from the Enuma Elish, the old Babylonian epic of creation; from the Rig-Veda, which is the Indo-European work.
In 1700 B.C. it entered into India, but before then it was up in central Asia. Sanskrit is the related language to it. So you will find this both in the religions of Buddhism and Hinduism. And also the Wessobrunner prayer in Old High German. You will find it in the sagas, and you will find it in the Voluspa. Gylfaginning is a marvelous one if you go into the sagas. Their account of the creation is something. And always it's with the council here and their discussion.
In the Lokasenna is one of the best descriptions of the council. Loki, you see, is Satan who will not accept the plan. He comes in and denounces it. He starts exposing the private lives of all the gods, and they don't like that. They keep saying to him,
"Shut up. Don't tell us any more. We don't want to hear that."
So he is cast out. But notice the point is that these are international. You will find it in the Pyramid Texts in the Book of the Dead, in the Greek and Roman temple inscriptions, etc.
These lines from Hesiod's Theogony are good. This is the oldest Greek story of the creationthe beginning of the gods. It's very much in line with the rest of them; some Enoch literature. Some would place him before Homer, but his date is easy to remember. It's 777. He's is supposed to have reached his prime in the year 777 B.C. But I think Milton must have lifted this line here: He hails the muse and asks the muse to teach him.
"Tell me how first in the beginning the gods and the earth came into existence, or how first these things were planted down on earth and the gods set up court on Olympus."
But that's almost exactly the way Milton puts it.
Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit
of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste
brought death into the world, and all our woe,
[p.11] Sing Heavenly Muse, that on the secret top
of Oreb, or of Sinai, didst inspire
That shepherd who first taught the chosen seed
In the beginning how the Heavens and Earth
Rose out of Chaos: or, if Sion hill
Delight thee more, and Siloa's brook that flowed
Fast by the oracle of God, I thence
Invoke thy aid to my adventurous song,
That with no middle flight intend to soar
Above th' Aonian mount, while it pursues
Things unattempted yet in prose or rhyme.
See, he calls the muse to instruct him how things began in the beginning, and this is the way the epic story and the creation stories begin. Almost the identical words are used in Hesiod. We mentioned last time that Milton was condemned because in his work his angels were too literal or too physical. But the oldest Greek account we have starts out "quoting Milton" word for word. What do you know about that?
We don't have much time, but I'm going to talk about the oldest book in the world. We mentioned it before. I suppose we should have a closeup of this. Can you all see it from here? It's reproduced here; it's rather tiny. This is the Memphite Theology or the Shabako Stone. I think it was Breasted's greatest achievement to discover the importance of this. If you want to know about it, read Breasted's book called The Origins of Religion (of course, it's long out of date now; 1912). I say this is the oldest book in the world, and what a religious document it is. Do you expect this to be primitive mumbo jumbo, a lot of hocus pocus, wonders, and miracles, etc.? Ah, just wait. Shabako was the third king of the twenty-fifth dynasty. Interesting relationships to the Book of Mormon here. His name means "wild cat," and he came to the throne about 716 B.C. You say is this the oldest in the world. Ah, just wait. The twenty-fifth dynasty was founded by Kashta, and then his son was Piankhi. It's very funny. The twenty-first dynasty was founded by a person called Korihor whose son was Piankhi. That's a very funny name; you don't invent a thing like that. It wasn't discovered until the 1870s that Piankhi is a name that we have in the Book of Mormon.
Korihor was a priest of Amon who usurped the power of the state. His son Piankhi became king. In the Book of Mormon when they set up the old-fashioned courts, they bring in a man called Korihor. Alma says, "This is the first time this has happened since the old world." They restored these things. You start comparing these names and some amazing names turn up. They certainly impressed Professor Albright.
Well, they were Ethiopian kings. The one that followed after him was Shebitka. Then comes the famous Taharqa. He practically delivered Jerusalem from the Assyrians. So this dynasty was held in great esteem. Their names would have been adopted in Jerusalem by the Jews. This interloping dynasty had championed Israel. We're not going to get into the Book of [p.12] Mormon here. The thing is that to celebrate the founding of this dynasty and to justify and sanctify it, he decided to restore the oldest temple in Egyptthe original temple, the one that was built to celebrate the founding of the first dynasty by Menes. It was the white temple at Memphis. He was to restore it and perform the same rites and ordinances (they didn't know about this at the time) that were performed when the kingdom of Egypt was originally found. The kingdom was "founded" by Menes in about 3100 B.C. But at that time it was very old. See, he was founding the order of God on earth, the celestial order on earth. He built the temple, and there they rehearsed in dramatic form the Council in Heaven, the creation of the earth, and the fall and redemption, and all these things in this document. Well, when Shabako wanted to renew the order of things and reestablish the ancient practices (which were very ancient at the time of Menes, Dynasty I), he decided to renovate the temple, and in the process in the cornerstone they discovered a document. It was a rolled-up scroll of leather. And he tells us about it here. It was the script of a play performed at the installation of the first king of Egypt. The dedication of the first temple that united Egypt to celebrate the beginning of the new rule, a new dynasty, a new nation, a new age of the world. And it was held, of course, at the new year.
Their play begins with the Council in Heaven and the controversy over the right to dominion with Horus winning over Sethbeing recognized as the first born, the sole heir and the opener of the ways. More than a third of the text is missing. That's the middle part. That's where a column stood. It was found at Memphis, and this is the copy that was made at that time. But it was brought to the British Museum way back in 1805 or 1807. See, the French went into Egypt, and then the English came and took over, and they took this to the British Museum. It was very worn so they had difficulty reading it, and various attempts were made. Then new sophisticated methods of lighting and a much better knowledge of old Egyptian grammar (because it turns out that it was in the archaic form of the language), enabled Sethe to produce in 1929 the definitive text. So we have the text of it here, and we know what it says. It is a marvelous document which we will read the next time.
~~~~~~~
That covers a lot of ground, but it does touch on science versus religion. Of course, a scientist making a profession of religious faith is not the same thing as a scientist putting forward scientific evidence for his faith.
Enjoy.
curious98 answered on 09/13/03:Hi Seraph,
I did enjoy reading your post from Mr. Nibley, of the BYU, I assume. I always respect very much those who are trying to investigate the origin of all religions in general, and of theirs in particular for, at least, they show an amount of interest in our CREATOR.
On the other hand, the epic of creation has always been the main concern of Mankind for our very limited capacity of understanding finds it hard to swallow that miracle. Sumerians and Acadians Pantheon is full of divinities that fought amongst themselves to conquer the Earths dominion. We could probably say, without too much risk of being wrong, that the main religions we know or profess now, originated in Sumer which, anyway, seems to be the oldest civilization we know of.
But before that, about 100.000 years ago, Neanderthals characters were probably worrying in their own primitive way, about their origin and their destiny
And this is just because in the process of Creation (whether by nothing or out of nothing) and as far as the Earth is concerned GOD must have implanted in all rational animals (otherwise called men) the need to know our origins.
This is why I respect all this digging into ancient papers, although the purpose may be more that of proving a certain religious denomination to be the only true one, as it seems to be the case with Mr. Nibleys lecture.
In my own case, of course, while I will listen attentively to what he or others may have to say in their favor, Im not going to change my Faith for I believe I keep on repeating myself- in ONE ONLY GOD.
And if I happen to be right, this GOD must necessarily be the SAME ONE whether for me or for the Mormons.
What I must say, though, is that I find it difficult to accept and assume that any mortal anytime, anywhere, has been privileged to work as a secretary to GOD. I find it difficult to believe that GOD dictated Moses the entire Torah, during the 40 years that lasted their crossing of the desert. Or GOD dictating Mohammed the entire Al-Coran. Or John Smith being dictated the entire translation into English of the Book of Mormons
However, I will defend the right, those who believe it, to express their thoughts while trying to convince me.
From this optic, I find your post very interesting.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ~Seraph~ asked on 09/12/03 - Religion versus Science (if you like). Professor Hugh Nibley, in Ancient Documents and the Pearl of Great Price, Lecture Six
I made a bad mistake [the] time before last. I said that Popper said that all religion is cosmology and all cosmology religion. Of course, he didn't say that. He said that all science is cosmology. The other remark that all religion is cosmology could have been made by somebody like Santillana. Goethe would certainly say it. He says, "Who knows or who has science and art, he has religion. And if you don't have them, you'd better get religion." But if you had a complete knowledge of science, then you would have religion. If you have no knowledge of science at all, you'd better get religion.
We've been speaking about Joseph Smith's restoring certain basic religious teachings which the world had lost. Notice, we're not going into scientific things. We are just keeping it scriptural stuff all along herethe old records. And the Pearl of Great Price is the best guide to such lost teachings. So far we have talked about the literalism of it, and the preexistence, and the last time we talked about cosmology.
Now we come to the sorest and touchiest subject of them all. This is a blister. The subject is creation, of course. Even those at BYU are divided on it. There are two totally different schools of creation right in our midst. The problem is that we don't have a dichotomy here; we have a trichotomya tricky trichotomy. Dichotomy is used a good deal by philosophers. Sterling McMurrin up at the University of Utah just adores the word; he works it to death. But nobody ever says trichotomy because that's what we have here. Well, philosophers don't believe in trichotomy. Hegelian dialectic calls for dichotomy. Everything has an opposite; every thesis has an antithesis. They get together and form a new synthesis. That's natural that there should be two. Why should you insert a third element? Well, you can't really. It must come from another world. That's why Joseph Smith spoils it with his trichotomy. It's in the dictionary; I looked it up. Dichotomy means to cut into two piecescut down the center. Trichotomy is to cut into three pieces. That's what we have to deal with here. In the normal dichotomy of things, everything divides in twogood and bad, the two kingdoms, etc. We're in between them now. We don't belong to either one. We'd have to make up our minds between them. In the natural order of things there is no third. It was this and the opposite in the order of the world, but Joseph Smith brought in something else. Mormonism is another world and it just doesn't apply.
Now, the classic dichotomy from the very beginning has been between science and religion. You think science and religion is a modern issue. It isn't at all; it's ancient. In 585 B.C. Thales of Miletus predicted an eclipse, and it happened. And the School of Miletus decided that there is a god but the things of heaven are imponderable. You can't bring them into the laboratory; you can't weigh and measure them. So for our purposes let's just leave them out of our calculations. Since that's an unknown quantity, we can't use it.
We'll just leave it out, and that's what they did. Before long, they decided it's extra baggage; we don't need it anyway. Then it became a pernicious nuisance. We should just get rid of it. To have true science, you don't have it at all. With the Egyptians it was the same thing. So you have this big quarrel between science and religion as if they were different things. The reason is that religion deals with things that science can't find available. If you can't measure it, you can't be sure about it. If it's subjective, keep it out of the laboratory. Well, the laboratory gives you all you have. That's all you know, so forget about the other. That's just excess baggage. So that's the course that has been taken. Well, the classic dichotomy is that, then. And which gives the true explanation is the question, of course. This is the point: When we say science versus religion, we are speaking as you would speak ten thousand years ago or three thousand years ago. As Heraclitus of Ephesus was very well aware (he kept rubbing it in here), you're speaking not of science and religion but only of conventional contemporary science versus conventional contemporary religion. And now we can quote Karl Popper. "Where both are concerned, you are dealing with something that is always tentative. You do not have the final answer. The last returns aren't in. You are not going to settle it until you know a lot more than you do about both of them. And you'll never know enough."
Since the answers are always tentative, what do you do? What Joseph Smith has given us in the Pearl of Great Price is something that conventional contemporary religion doesn't have because they lost it and conventional contemporary science doesn't have because they never found it. So Joseph Smith didn't go to either of these for his instruction, and he offended both of them. His followers have always tended to take sides though because they are stuck with the two. Remember, Joseph said, "Whenever I start talking about this creation business, people fly apart like glass. They can't stand the fire. They will stick to their old traditions. I can't even bring it up. They want to string me up to the nearest tree if I start talking about that because their prejudices are so deep and so established." And it was the same way with the scientists, as we will see here. There are some very interesting remarks. They have taken sides and still do. They are unable to disengage themselves from the world and its ways. We live in it and we're stuck with it until we get rid of certain things. In the same way we have taken sides on matters of economics and politics, both being totally alien to the gospelboth extremes. So today, one feels obliged to be either a fundamentalist or a Darwinist, for example.
Well, the gospel rejects both.
Fundamentalism follows Thomas Aquinas' definition of creation as creation out of nothing. "Instantaneous and simultaneous," as Aquinas says. In one second it was all created, complete all at once. According to the Darwinists it's creation by nothing, without plan and without direction. What created it? Well, chance. Please define chance for me. Well, just what happens, that's all. So we have creation by nothing and creation out of nothing. Of course, we reject both of them. The Pearl of Great Price is the best reply to both of them.
Now, the two journalists who had the greatest impact in the country were Horace Greeley, who was a friend of Brigham Young, and James Gordon Bennett, who founded the New York Herald which for many years was the foremost newspaper in the country.
James Gordon Bennett was a very able man. Both of them had a lot to say about Mormonism. It's an interesting thing. This has to do with the Pearl of Great Price; that's why it's interesting here. This is an editorial in the New York Herald for Sunday, April 3, 1842. Why would that be significant? Because in the middle of March 1842 the first publication of the Pearl of Great Price was in the Times and Seasons. It included the Facsimile No. 1 and the explanations thereof and up to the eighteenth verse of the second chapter of the Pearl of Great Price. Well, less than a month later it was picked up by the New York papers and the Boston papers and they were quite excited about it. It really electrified the nation. We don't pay any attention to it today, but you would be surprised what an effect it had.
You used to hear a lot about James Gordon Bennett in my day. He was the most influential newspaper editor of the time, and he wrote this on April 3, just a couple of weeks later:
"This Joe Smith is, undoubtedly, one of the greatest characters of the age. He indicates as much talent, originality, and moral courage as Mahomet, Odin, or any of the other great spirits that have hitherto produced the revolutions of past ages."
Notice, that he mentioned Odin because at this time it was popular to regard Odin as the great folk hero of the North (a real person) thanks to the writings of Carlyle.
In his On Heroes and Hero-Worship he makes a big thing of Odin, and so did others such as Max Mueller. Odin is the Woden of German mythology. They thought he was a real person and a founder of civilization. He could very well have been. We won't go into that now. That's another story. You take the saga class for that.
Now, this is what Joseph Smith is correcting, according to Bennett. His editorial continues:
"In the present infidel, irreligious, material, ideal, geological, animal-magnetic age of the world..."
It was a time when they thought a lot of science was explained by animal magnetism, that was mesmerism, etc. They didn't know what electricity was. Galvani and Volta were just beginning to be aware of this mysterious power of electricity. Of course, today we know all about electricity. We know it runs through wires and you get a bad shock, etc. But today we still don't know what it is. Nobody has the vaguest idea to this day. Unsatisfied electrons, I suppose, that have to be fed. This was the scientific world of the time of Joseph Smith.
Notice that the religious world is up in arms against him, but look what he's doing to the rest of them here now:
"some such singular prophet as Joe Smith is required to preserve the principle of faith, and to plant some new germs of civilization that may come to maturity in a thousand years. While modern philosophy, which believes in nothing but what you can touch"
Now this [was] in 1842. We might say that's our scientific age today. They were just as disillusioned in those days, and, as we have seen, their religion was abstract and immaterial. You can see why the two couldn't meet because science would believe only in what you could touch, and religion would not believe in what you could touch. Anything tangible was not spiritual. It was irreligious, physical, and corruptNeoplatonism.
"While modern philosophy, which believes in nothing but what you can touch, is overspreading the Atlantic States, Joe Smith is creating a spiritual system, combined also with morals and industry, that may change the destiny of the race." Then he goes on and raves for quite awhile and says, "Joe is a magnet in a large way, which he calls a power or spirit from heaven. In other respects Joe is a mighty man of Godpossessing large stores of human naturegreat shrewdness, and as he has taken the management of the Mormon newspaper organ, the Times and Seasons into his hand, we look for many revelations, and some curious ones, too, pretty soon."
What brought this on is the Book of Abraham, not the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants. The Book of Abraham is what caught people's attention because of its tangible nature. Bennett's editorial began like this:
"We give in this day's paper a very curious chapter from the Book of Abraham which we find published in the last number of a weekly journal called the Times and Seasons, conducted by Jo. Smith, the great Mormon Prophet, in the city of Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois."
And the article concludes:
"We certainly want some such prophet to start up, take a big hold of the public mindand stop the torrent of materialism that is hurrying the world into infidelity, immorality, licentiousness, and crime."
He is talking in 1842, not 1986.
"Professor Lyell, Richard Adams Locke, Dr. Brisbane, Master Emerson, Prophet Brownson, Horace Greeley, and all the materialists of the age, ought to take a leaf of common sense out of Joe's book."
Professor Lyell was the founder of modern geology at that time. He was a Scotsman who went down to the beach and looked at the deposits of sandstone and said,
"This must have taken millions and millions of years," and then started things going.
Brisbane's son was the chief editor of the Hearst newspapers for years. Arthur Brisbane was the oracle of the nation when I was a kid. Not this Brisbane. I was not a kid in 1842. Notice that he even spoofs Emerson here. Wasn't Emerson quite spiritual? No, the whole New England school was enlightened in this way. The Prophet Brownson was really stirring up things. And Horace Greeley was the rival editor.
You notice in this editorial there is not a word about the ministry. Why don't they cheer for him? And Joseph Smith is not attacking anything. You'll find nothing in the Articles of Faith saying we denounce this or that. It doesn't even mention the Apostasy in the Articles of Faith.
It's what we do believe, not what we don't. We're not interested in other people being wrong. Joseph never attacked the ministry, but they certainly attacked him. And he didn't attack the scientists here, but he preached something that would take the placethe Pearl of Great Price filling in the gap. The religionists keep silence, and the scientists here keep silence too.
As Bennett says, Joseph Smith moves into the gap and tells them what will do some good here. But why don't the ministry cheer for him then? What do they teach that so sets them against the Prophet? They didn't like him at all, especially because he was a rival. They rivaled each other and didn't like each other.
This editorial can be found in a book by Jay M. Todd titled The Saga of the Book of Abraham, published by Deseret Book in 1969. We have several copies here [BYU]. It has this and a lot of other relevant material about this. There's a lot about the mummies and things like that which really aren't important as far as I'm concerned. But the author has brought together all sorts of odds and ends in the book, which is quite a useful one.
Todd cites another editorial which appeared the same week. The Boston Daily Ledger which was the big New England paper, the intellectual paper, devoted the whole front page to the Book of Abraham, with a big picture of the Facsimile No. 1. Which does the Book of Abraham most contradict, science or religion? Must we take sides? We must take sides as long as we ignore the Pearl of Great Price. But if we pay more attention to it (which we should begin to do), then we won't be so disturbed and torn apart by this issue. Three days later the Boston Daily Ledger devoted almost the whole front page to the Book of Abraham. The editor, William Bartlett, was from a very eminent family (you've heard of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations).
One William Bartlett was a scientific writer, and another one wrote about art. This is his editorial:
"We shall publish tomorrow Joe Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham, the original of which Joe says he obtained from papyrus found in the catacombs of EgyptSmith is decidedly the greatest original of the present day. He carries all before him when he undertakes an enterprise knows no impedimentand never halts in his course till he has accomplished his objectHe is a geniusand a rare oneand all the armies of Satan, should they confront him in a solid phalanx, would be sure to meet with sore discomfiture, if not complete annihilation.[I don't know how this went over with the ministry in Boston.] We have so high a opinion of Joe Smith, that we intend to open a correspondence with him, in order to acquaint ourselves with all his secret springs of action, and thus, get all the secrets of his success, public and private, worldly and ecclesiastical. The chapter from the recently rediscovered Book of Abraham, and the unique cut which illustrates it, on our outside, [they printed it in that issue, you see] has occasioned us some expense; but we care not for that, so long as we please our patrons, which we mean to do at all hazards"
Note that it is specifically the Book of Abraham that impresses these men here. So our attitude when we talk about the conflict between science and religion is not a plague on both your houses, but rather we say, here comes somebody who has been there, or says he has, and produces a lot of interesting credentials. Let's ask him and see what he says about it. So this semester I intend to avoid the scientific aspects of the question which have sidetracked me again and again (calamitously, since I don't know anything about the subject). There are some very good popular works bringing us to date on science such as the one by Gary Zukav, The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics, which is required reading in the Honors Program.
Anyway, I intend to avoid the scientific aspects of the question. They're always tentative anyway. It's the historical and literary aspects we are going to consider now. There's an awful lot of it, and we are just going to consider it superficially. It should not be ignored in spite of the great problems and difficulties that it too raises. The reason I turn to it is that it is ignored. This year, the thesis has been that we find in the Pearl of Great Price the authentic teachings of the earliest records; not what science would be if science knew all the answers, but what the earliest records actually were. The earliest records of the Jews and Christians [p.6] denounced and deleted by the doctors of the schools in late antiquity and resulting in a very a incomplete recordfaulted, complex, misleading, etc. Well, the Pearl of Great Price will put us back on the track. So the subject today is that touchiest of all subjects, the creation.
And the Council in Heaven is what takes priority here. It looms magnificent. You find it everywhere, and it's one of the things that is overlooked all the time. But it is the first consideration when you talk about the creation. There's something else which was reprinted in BYU Studies, volume seven (Autumn 1965). It was the second faculty research lecture that was given here, and it was by me on this subject. I remember when Eliade read it in Chicago. He was enormously impressed and excited about it. We will have occasion to refer to Eliade here. He is the great authority on comparative religion. Everybody quotes him. I'm going to quote a little from the lecture to show what the early Jews and Christians thought about this, and it played a very dominant role here. It has to do with the Council in Heaven more than anything else. The faculty lecture was given March 17, 1965, twenty years ago. We talk about the newly discovered documents here because they were the oldest and the best we had. Why must they be newly discovered; why didn't we know them all along? They hadn't been destroyed. They were absolutely taboo. Remember, the doctors of the church and the rabbis wouldn't touch them with a forty-foot pole and condemned anyone who did. It says in the Talmud, any student who asks the big questions of Clement: Where did we come from? Where are we going? When was the earth created and what happened? Was there a preexistence? Are there other worlds? If any student asked such questions, it was better he had never been born. That's the way the doctors of the Jews and Christians view it. And so its the newly discovered documents that have been out of the way all this time. How they survived is interesting. Like the Book of Mormon, they were all buried. The Dead Sea Scrolls were buried deliberately to come forth at a later ageburied with great care and blocked up and sanded up. It's the same thing with the Nag Hammadi libraryput in jars and hidden away to come forth later. Remember, the Book of Mormon says, "To come forth in their purity (1 Nephi 14:26)."
Whenever people handle documents, they spoil them [Wesley P Walters, as an example]. Nobody can copy notes without making mistakes, then making corrections. And before you know it you can hardly recognize what started. You can start a simple English sentence going around the class. He copies it down and folds it over. The next person copies down just what he wrote, not what he copied, and folds it over. The next person copies the last one, etc. Before it has gone through ten people, you won't recognize that sentence. This is what happens when you copy things. So the newly discovered ones have come back because they have been preserved in their purity. That's the only way they can be preserved.
They have much to say about the Council in Heaven and the plan laid down at the foundation of the world. According to the wise Ben Sirach, talking about the Old Testament assemblies in Deuteronomy and Leviticus when Israel was required to assemble once a year for great festivals, etc.,
"these were the ritual repetition, not merely of the gathering at the foot of Sinai when Moses brought them together to counsel them, but specifically of the great assembly that met above at the creation of the world. When God set before them, the human race to be, the covenant of the law of life and showed them his judgments, their eyes beheld his glorious majesty and their ears heard his voice."
Now Ben Sirach is the greatest work of Hebrew wisdom literature. That is chapter 17, verses 11-13.
Second Baruch was a contemporary of Jeremiah and Lehi. In fact, he was the secretary of Jeremiah, and he and Ezra both wrote books at the same time. The big question that worried him was why should Israel fall? Why would they become captives? They were bad but not nearly as bad as the people who took them captive. The Lord says that's the very point. Like he said to the Nephites,
"The Lamanites have been cursed with a sore cursing; nevertheless, they shall smite you to destruction."
Let that be a lesson to us. According to II Baruch, the whole plan of the history of the world is set forth in detail when the Mighty One took counsel to create the world. He presented this plan to them. You will find II Baruch in that big book of R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament.
According to the Book of Enoch, a very important recent discovery,
"In the beginning the Head of Days, with head like white wool, sat with the Son of Man beside him upon the throne of his glory and the books of the living were open before him."
These books were the register of the names of those who were to live upon earth. They had a big roll call to make sure that everybody would be there for the presentation of the plan. Then the calling of the mission of the Son and the plan, both of which were kept secret until then, were revealed to the elect before they came here. It was revealed again in the Book of Mormon.
It's not too much to say that the dominant theme of the Thanksgiving Hymn, the Hodayot, is the ecstatic contemplation of the wonder of man's participation in the heavenly affairs back to the beginning. The most wonderful of the Dead Sea Scrolls is a collection of thanksgiving hymns. Now here is hymn six or hymn F from the Hodayot scrolls published in the early 1950s:
"Thou hast caused me to mount up to an eternal height and to walk in an inconceivable exaltation, and I know that there is a hope for everyone whom thou didst form of the dust in the presence of the eternal assembly, and that the sinful spirit whom thou hast purified of great sin may be counted with the hosts of the saints and enter the society of the congregation of the sons of heaven. Thou didst appoint unto man an eternal share with the spirits that know, to praise thy name in joyful unison with them and to recount thy wondrous works in the presence thereof."
This is the great creation hymn it's referring to when the sons of God shouted and the morning stars sang together.
Well, the whole point of this is that man actually belongs by prior appointment to that community of the elect who share in the knowledge of the plan and who shouted for joy at the foundation of the world. In the hymn preceding this, God is hailed as the Prince of the Gods and King of the venerable ones. And we remind ourselves that this is neither a Gnostic nor a pagan production. This was orthodox Judaism back in those early days.
In the first chapter and twenty-fourth verse of the Clementine Recognitions when he meets Peter, Peter tells him of the plan of God which he announced as his own will and desire in the presence of the first angels and which he established as an eternal law for all. He gave it to them as the law in the beginning. In one of the Coptic texts they give it the characteristic Gnostic twist.
"My father, the joyful glorious light," says the Psalm of Thomas, "summoned all the eons of peace [the first angels have now become mere abstractions; they are simply the eons of peace] all his sons and all his angels and established them that they might rejoice in his greatness and share it. All bowed the knee before him in saying his praises together, hailing him as the illuminator of worlds."
It's the same picture, but this is a very early group in Egypt. Were they interpreting this mystically? Whatever it was, they knew about the council. This is the very same picture we get from the Clementines where it says that he summoned all the angels of peace, all his sons and all the angels and established them that they might rejoice in his greatness.
Remember verse 39 in the first chapter of Moses,
"For behold, this is my work and my gloryto bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."
Then there's the newly discovered Creation Apocryphon. Incidentally, we have all these Coptic texts here. And, fortunately, Coptic is not the most difficult language in the world. It was never required of ministers until 1950 at least. I recommend Coptic because it's fun. It hangs together beautifully, and it's not hard. But anyway the Coptic text tells us
"on that day began the discussion in which gods, angels, and men participated [when they were to discuss the creation] and the decisions of the discussion were then carried out by gods, angels and men [' we will go down'] and they saw that their plan was being followed."
This is all told in the Book of Abraham, as you know, third and fourth chapters.
"But Prince Jabub did not understand the power of faith."
Again, what do we read in the Book of Moses where it says Satan sought to destroy the plan of the world for he knew not the mind of God. That's the most encouraging thing in the scriptures to me. Satan has a terrific game going and he wins hands down all the time, but he knows not the mind of God, so he's not going to win.
"But Price Jabub did not understand the power of faith and so was denied authority over matter which the others shared."
That's a very interesting quotation. The power of faith, it will be recalled, was the power, we are told, by which the worlds were created. So we get the same picture from the Coptic source and from the Dead Sea Scrolls source. They were written about the same time.
And then the earliest writings after the New Testament were the seven apostolic fathers. The last of them to be discovered was the Pastor of Hermas. The unimpeachable Pastor of Hermas is quite as specific.
This is in 120 A.D. Hermas was the brother of the bishop of Rome supposedly. This is a lamentation on the speed with which the apostasy has overtaken the church. Everything is going down the drain, and it's a cry of distress with the others, Barnabas and Ignatius. In 2 Clement, he's standing on a headland watching a friend swimming out at sea. The friend is getting farther and farther away from shore. He's calling to the church,
"Come back before it is too late. You're going in the wrong direction."
At last his voice is carried away by the wind. It's very much like the last prophets in the Book of Mormon and the Jaredites.
So the Pastor of Hermas says, "Behold God constructing the world in accordance with the great council [some manuscripts have 'the most honored council'], creating the beautiful world and turning it over to his chosen ones that he might carry out his promise to them which he gave them in the midst of great glory and rejoicing; that is if they kept his laws which they accept in great faith."
Well, there's the situation exactly: "we will prove them herewith." It will become a time of probation.
The plan is placed before them. They vote on it, etc. They would return to his presence and partake of eternal life if they keep his laws. It was to be a test and probation. This life became a time of probation, as Nephi said, which they accepted in great faith. They all voted to come down.
The Mandaean version (very old work from Mesopotamia) is very interesting because it calls the creator Ptah-il, gives him an Egyptian name, combining the archaic Egyptian and the Semitic names. While giving the familiar account of the great council, it adds the important detail that three messengers were sent down to supervise the work and to instruct Adam; these three being glorious angels who were later to live upon the earth as ordinary mortals and prophets. They were to be apostles later on. You find that text in Leipoldt.
I'm going to skip to something very old now. Here's this Eliade. I mentioned him before. He has written many books on this. Just a number of writings to generalize here. Mircea Eliade is Romanian, I think. He was at Swift at the Theological School in Chicago when I was over in the Oriental Institute, but we never met. He had a student who was LDS, and he asked where I was teaching, where this Nibley character was. He said, "He's over at the Oriental Institute just across the quad." But the people at the Oriental Institute never talk to the people in the Theology School. That was Swift Hall, the library. I was doing some very interesting stuff in Swift Library there. It's supposed to be the theological seminary for Chicago, and they had no Catholic books or journals. We have a great collection of them here, one of the best in the country. It's better than you will find at Notre Dame.
Somebody gave Notre Dame eight million dollars for books, and they spent every penny of it on books about Dante. I remember it made my friend Frank Barry so furious because they spent eight million on one writer alone. So the people in the two never met. But in this article on cosmogonic myths, he compares them. His business is prehistoric shamanism and world religions.
You can get a very good comparison of world religions, throughout the world, beginning with so-called primitives and right down to the big religions today. It's the collection of Joseph Campbell called Masks of the Gods. He was here three years ago and gave some very fine talks, and we had some nice talks with him. If you want to review the general situation of world religions from the beginning, you can't do better. The book is very readable, and there are at least three volumes out.
But Eliade says this,
"Wherever you look, you will always find this central myth of the creation which describes the beginning of the world, including the origin of plants, animals and man; and marriage, family and death. Taken all together, these myths in origin constitute a fairly coherent history."
So wherever you go throughout the world you will find about the same story. We are not talking at this time about the process of creation. We are just talking about the council.
W. G. Lambert is perhaps the foremost surviving Babylonian scholar. He is the biggest editor of Babylonian texts today. He says,
"The first major conclusion is that the epic of creation is a norm of Babylonian or Sumerian cosmology (you'll find it there), and it's a sectarian aberration."
We find these things spread around everywhere.
Hermann Grapow is the editor of five big volumes of the Egyptian dictionary. It took him years. There are three million entries in it. He worked with Erman. It was financed by the Kaiser in Berlin and it went for years and years. It is still the standard Egyptian dictionary. He has written in this on the world before the creation. If you turn to the Egyptian text on the subject, you will find exact parallels from the Old Testament; from the Enuma Elish, the old Babylonian epic of creation; from the Rig-Veda, which is the Indo-European work.
In 1700 B.C. it entered into India, but before then it was up in central Asia. Sanskrit is the related language to it. So you will find this both in the religions of Buddhism and Hinduism. And also the Wessobrunner prayer in Old High German. You will find it in the sagas, and you will find it in the Voluspa. Gylfaginning is a marvelous one if you go into the sagas. Their account of the creation is something. And always it's with the council here and their discussion.
In the Lokasenna is one of the best descriptions of the council. Loki, you see, is Satan who will not accept the plan. He comes in and denounces it. He starts exposing the private lives of all the gods, and they don't like that. They keep saying to him,
"Shut up. Don't tell us any more. We don't want to hear that."
So he is cast out. But notice the point is that these are international. You will find it in the Pyramid Texts in the Book of the Dead, in the Greek and Roman temple inscriptions, etc.
These lines from Hesiod's Theogony are good. This is the oldest Greek story of the creationthe beginning of the gods. It's very much in line with the rest of them; some Enoch literature. Some would place him before Homer, but his date is easy to remember. It's 777. He's is supposed to have reached his prime in the year 777 B.C. But I think Milton must have lifted this line here: He hails the muse and asks the muse to teach him.
"Tell me how first in the beginning the gods and the earth came into existence, or how first these things were planted down on earth and the gods set up court on Olympus."
But that's almost exactly the way Milton puts it.
Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit
of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste
brought death into the world, and all our woe,
[p.11] Sing Heavenly Muse, that on the secret top
of Oreb, or of Sinai, didst inspire
That shepherd who first taught the chosen seed
In the beginning how the Heavens and Earth
Rose out of Chaos: or, if Sion hill
Delight thee more, and Siloa's brook that flowed
Fast by the oracle of God, I thence
Invoke thy aid to my adventurous song,
That with no middle flight intend to soar
Above th' Aonian mount, while it pursues
Things unattempted yet in prose or rhyme.
See, he calls the muse to instruct him how things began in the beginning, and this is the way the epic story and the creation stories begin. Almost the identical words are used in Hesiod. We mentioned last time that Milton was condemned because in his work his angels were too literal or too physical. But the oldest Greek account we have starts out "quoting Milton" word for word. What do you know about that?
We don't have much time, but I'm going to talk about the oldest book in the world. We mentioned it before. I suppose we should have a closeup of this. Can you all see it from here? It's reproduced here; it's rather tiny. This is the Memphite Theology or the Shabako Stone. I think it was Breasted's greatest achievement to discover the importance of this. If you want to know about it, read Breasted's book called The Origins of Religion (of course, it's long out of date now; 1912). I say this is the oldest book in the world, and what a religious document it is. Do you expect this to be primitive mumbo jumbo, a lot of hocus pocus, wonders, and miracles, etc.? Ah, just wait. Shabako was the third king of the twenty-fifth dynasty. Interesting relationships to the Book of Mormon here. His name means "wild cat," and he came to the throne about 716 B.C. You say is this the oldest in the world. Ah, just wait. The twenty-fifth dynasty was founded by Kashta, and then his son was Piankhi. It's very funny. The twenty-first dynasty was founded by a person called Korihor whose son was Piankhi. That's a very funny name; you don't invent a thing like that. It wasn't discovered until the 1870s that Piankhi is a name that we have in the Book of Mormon.
Korihor was a priest of Amon who usurped the power of the state. His son Piankhi became king. In the Book of Mormon when they set up the old-fashioned courts, they bring in a man called Korihor. Alma says, "This is the first time this has happened since the old world." They restored these things. You start comparing these names and some amazing names turn up. They certainly impressed Professor Albright.
Well, they were Ethiopian kings. The one that followed after him was Shebitka. Then comes the famous Taharqa. He practically delivered Jerusalem from the Assyrians. So this dynasty was held in great esteem. Their names would have been adopted in Jerusalem by the Jews. This interloping dynasty had championed Israel. We're not going to get into the Book of [p.12] Mormon here. The thing is that to celebrate the founding of this dynasty and to justify and sanctify it, he decided to restore the oldest temple in Egyptthe original temple, the one that was built to celebrate the founding of the first dynasty by Menes. It was the white temple at Memphis. He was to restore it and perform the same rites and ordinances (they didn't know about this at the time) that were performed when the kingdom of Egypt was originally found. The kingdom was "founded" by Menes in about 3100 B.C. But at that time it was very old. See, he was founding the order of God on earth, the celestial order on earth. He built the temple, and there they rehearsed in dramatic form the Council in Heaven, the creation of the earth, and the fall and redemption, and all these things in this document. Well, when Shabako wanted to renew the order of things and reestablish the ancient practices (which were very ancient at the time of Menes, Dynasty I), he decided to renovate the temple, and in the process in the cornerstone they discovered a document. It was a rolled-up scroll of leather. And he tells us about it here. It was the script of a play performed at the installation of the first king of Egypt. The dedication of the first temple that united Egypt to celebrate the beginning of the new rule, a new dynasty, a new nation, a new age of the world. And it was held, of course, at the new year.
Their play begins with the Council in Heaven and the controversy over the right to dominion with Horus winning over Sethbeing recognized as the first born, the sole heir and the opener of the ways. More than a third of the text is missing. That's the middle part. That's where a column stood. It was found at Memphis, and this is the copy that was made at that time. But it was brought to the British Museum way back in 1805 or 1807. See, the French went into Egypt, and then the English came and took over, and they took this to the British Museum. It was very worn so they had difficulty reading it, and various attempts were made. Then new sophisticated methods of lighting and a much better knowledge of old Egyptian grammar (because it turns out that it was in the archaic form of the language), enabled Sethe to produce in 1929 the definitive text. So we have the text of it here, and we know what it says. It is a marvelous document which we will read the next time.
~~~~~~~
That covers a lot of ground, but it does touch on science versus religion. Of course, a scientist making a profession of religious faith is not the same thing as a scientist putting forward scientific evidence for his faith.
Enjoy.
curious98 answered on 09/13/03:Hi Seraph,
I did enjoy reading your post from Mr. Nibley, of the BYU, I assume. I always respect very much those who are trying to investigate the origin of all religions in general, and of theirs in particular for, at least, they show an amount of interest in our CREATOR.
On the other hand, the epic of creation has always been the main concern of Mankind for our very limited capacity of understanding finds it hard to swallow that miracle. Sumerians and Acadians Pantheon is full of divinities that fought amongst themselves to conquer the Earths dominion. We could probably say, without too much risk of being wrong, that the main religions we know or profess now, originated in Sumer which, anyway, seems to be the oldest civilization we know of.
But before that, about 100.000 years ago, Neanderthals characters were probably worrying in their own primitive way, about their origin and their destiny
And this is just because in the process of Creation (whether by nothing or out of nothing) and as far as the Earth is concerned GOD must have implanted in all rational animals (otherwise called men) the need to know our origins.
This is why I respect all this digging into ancient papers, although the purpose may be more that of proving a certain religious denomination to be the only true one, as it seems to be the case with Mr. Nibleys lecture.
In my own case, of course, while I will listen attentively to what he or others may have to say in their favor, Im not going to change my Faith for I believe I keep on repeating myself- in ONE ONLY GOD.
And if I happen to be right, this GOD must necessarily be the SAME ONE whether for me or for the Mormons.
What I must say, though, is that I find it difficult to accept and assume that any mortal anytime, anywhere, has been privileged to work as a secretary to GOD. I find it difficult to believe that GOD dictated Moses the entire Torah, during the 40 years that lasted their crossing of the desert. Or GOD dictating Mohammed the entire Al-Coran. Or John Smith being dictated the entire translation into English of the Book of Mormons
However, I will defend the right, those who believe it, to express their thoughts while trying to convince me.
From this optic, I find your post very interesting.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | rosends asked on 09/12/03 - Clarification failure I went through your answer and had a bunch of stuff which I set up as a followup/clarification. It seems to have disappeared. I'll just touch on one or two things as I am way too lazy to go through the whole thing again.
Anyone who demands conversion as part of business is not only detestable in the business world but a disgrace to Judaism and obviously knows nothing about the rules of his own religion.
Also, no one has blamed 9/11 on the Tibetans, the South Africans or the Catholics. And yet, the Jews get blamed. Go figure.
Barbie is based on the German Lilli character, and the fact that Mattel has Jews working there is immaterial. To say that Hollywood has what seems to be a disproportionate number of Jews working there is not the same as saying "You know, of course, that a great share of Hollywoods movie industry was, and probably still is, in Jewish hands " If Jews were in charge, would Mel Gibson be allowed to make his recent movie? Intimating control to a specific religious group is an insidious form of anti-semitism.
And when it comes to the world's view of minorities, the world seem comfortable to choose any side but Israel's in a variety of circumstances. The world may not always protect the minority (as Arabs HAVE been killing each other with no intervention for a while) but when given a choice between minorities, the world and its media often finds the non-Israeli side sympathetic.
Hope this works... curious98 answered on 09/13/03:Hi Rosend,
You must admit that debating is the salt of life. I dont know whether this means anything in English. In Spanish literally means that it makes life more interesting
OK. Here I go.
ANYONE WHO DEMANDS CONVERSION AS PART OF BUSINESS IS NOT ONLY DETESTABLE IN THE BUSINESS WORLD BUT A DISGRACE TO JUDAISM AND OBVIOUSLY KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE RULES OF HIS OWN RELIGION.
Granted. And, unfortunately, this situation amongst Christians as you probably know-
has historically been repeating itself quite often. Just now it comes to my memory, what happened to the Cathars, way back in the 13th century, in the south of France. As you can see, its always been the same the whole world over
ALSO, NO ONE HAS BLAMED 9/11 ON THE TIBETANS, THE SOUTH AFRICANS OR THE CATHOLICS. AND YET, THE JEWS GET BLAMED. GO FIGURE.
This one I cannot figure it out.
What do you mean the 11/9 was blamed on the Jews?
Everybody knows that, until something to the contrary is proven, the only ones to be blamed for that terrible episode are some Arabs and Egyptians lead by the number 1 terrorist Osama Bin Ladden
Or didnt I understand your statement?
Besides, when you say Tibetans and South Africans you are pointing out to nationalities not to Religions. Tibetans can be Buddhists, Taoists or simply Lay people. Same with South Africans, who may be anything, Catholics, Protestants and/or, certainly Jews.
On the other hand, you do mention Catholics (which can be of any nationality, including Israelis), and, if I would be as sensitive to criticism as you or Avrom seem to be, it would lead me to think you put Catholics as a religious group- next to the worst enemy Judaism may have.
BARBIE IS BASED ON THE GERMAN LILLI CHARACTER, AND THE FACT THAT MATTEL HAS JEWS WORKING THERE IS IMMATERIAL.
Im not referring to the fact that Jews may be working in Mattel. Probably, in their payroll you will find Christians, Agnostics, Atheists and, why not maybe Moslems too.
I was referring to the fact that the property is, or was, Jewish. Which, I said it could be one of the reasons why the Arabs referred to that Jewish doll, I also said, though, in the first place, that Arabs, in general, do cordially hate everything Jewish, so that expression might also have been an expression of comptent
TO SAY THAT HOLLYWOOD HAS WHAT SEEMS TO BE A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF JEWS WORKING THERE IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING "YOU KNOW, OF COURSE, THAT A GREAT SHARE OF HOLLYWOODS MOVIE INDUSTRY WAS, AND PROBABLY STILL IS, IN JEWISH HANDS " IF JEWS WERE IN CHARGE, WOULD MEL GIBSON BE ALLOWED TO MAKE HIS RECENT MOVIE?
Here, again, Im not referring to workers in the Movie Industry, but to controlling capital. For instance, Dreamworks belong to Spielberg, and he is a Jew by religion
The M.G.M. was founded by Mr. Goldwin and by Mr. Mayer, both Jews.
But I do not understand your concern. Some Industry segments have been and are in Jewish hands, like the Corporation I used to work with. But, I do not see anything to be ashamed of because of that. Chinese had always had a reputation for owning dry-cleaners and restaurants.
It would, perhaps, be more reprehensible if one could say that weaponry industries are in the hands of Jews all over the world. But, unfortunately for us Christians, they seem to be in Protestant hands,
I would not dream of making a big fuss out of it, though. I would just think that those who control that Industry .irrespective of their Faith are criminals, for they are who contribute to mass killing all over the world.
As for Gibsons Passion
a) I never said Hollywood was owned by Jews. Only that Jewish capital was, and is, present in the Movie Industry.
b) That I know, Gibsons movie is produced by him, and free enterprise is still allowed in the USA. If he wants to risk his money in that venture, it is his own business, not yours nor mine.
c) In my own personal opinion Gibson, with this picture, is only trying to make money. He does not give a damn about Jews or Jesus. The more conflict he can create between the Jewish and Christian worlds, unfortunately, the more money he will make, because we Christians and Jews will be stupid enough to hurry up to buy tickets to see the movie (not me, BTW).
Mr. Gibson is adamant that the film is not anti-Jewish. He keeps on saying "Anti-Semitism is not only contrary to my personal beliefs, it is also contrary to the core message of my movie," he said. "The Passion is a film meant to inspire not offend."
What can he better say to induce viewers to see it?
The controversy which he has provoked has also put Gibson's own religious beliefs under the spotlight. He funds a "traditionalist Catholic church" in Los Angeles, a spin-off from mainstream Catholicism that rejects the second Vatican council which, among other things, cleared Jews of being collectively responsible for Christ's murder.
I, of course, respect Mr. Gibsons decision, and or beliefs, whatever they are.
But, I maintain what I said. He is most surely not interested in History but on making a lot of dough.
And, Im willing to bet with you what you want, that the movie will be a worlds success, even in Israel
INTIMATING CONTROL TO A SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS GROUP IS AN INSIDIOUS FORM OF ANTI-SEMITISM.
Continuing my previous thought, and according to your own sentence here, when I said above that weaponry industry is in the hands of Christians I would be expressing an insidious form of Anti-Christianism, which, of course, is totally ridiculous.
If I say the Movie Industry is in the hands of Jews, WHAT I actually mean is chapeau, they have proven to be smarter than most and they are contributing to worlds entertainment while making money
AND WHEN IT COMES TO THE WORLD'S VIEW OF MINORITIES, THE WORLD SEEM COMFORTABLE TO CHOOSE ANY SIDE BUT ISRAEL'S IN A VARIETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES. THE WORLD MAY NOT ALWAYS PROTECT THE MINORITY (AS ARABS HAVE BEEN KILLING EACH OTHER WITH NO INTERVENTION FOR A WHILE) BUT WHEN GIVEN A CHOICE BETWEEN MINORITIES, THE WORLD AND ITS MEDIA OFTEN FINDS THE NON-ISRAELI SIDE SYMPATHETIC.
Here I agree, but I can also offer you an explanation. Taking that attitude sells more newspapers than the opposite would.
And, I do not know whether you have realized it, although depending on your age, you should, our World unfortunately does not only rotates around the Sun, but around another god called Money, which is essentially greedy, selfish, cruel and basically UNFAIR!
Shalom to you
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | rosends asked on 09/11/03 - Why Jews react With all the talk of understanding and this progressive age where people aren't judged by their race or religion, people often wonder why Jews still seem to have a persecution complex. "You Jews," they say, "don't need to worry. The Pope has backed off from the Jesus killer thing, and the Germans were defeated. Only the crazies who hate everyone hate you."
And, we are reminded, the US is now allies with more moderate Arab states who recognize that Islam need not be radical and violent.
Then Saudi Arabia comes out and bans Barbie dolls. Fine. You want to ban Barbie, go right ahead. With her ridiculous figure and superficial accessories, she isn't the best role model. But the Saudi government called the doll a "Jewish toy". Where did THAT come from? The fact that most articles I've read haven't jumped on that shows that the world is not sensitive to these anti-semitic attacks, even they are incredibly and obviously false. What's a Jew to do but realize that the majority of the world will not stand up and defend him so he must defend himself -- he is not being paranoid; often it seems that the rest of the world is wearing those rose colored glasses.
Remember -- the Saudies are the ALLIES of the US. With friends like this... curious98 answered on 09/11/03:Hi, Rosend,
What you say about With all the talk of understanding and this progressive age where people aren't judged by their race or religionin my opinion this is an optimistic overstatement.
The way I see it, the entire World keeps on being judged by their race and religion. Most Catholics and Protestants look at each other with a certain apprehension, and whenever possible they also nag (or even kill, as in Northen Ireland) each other. Lots of Catholics and Protestants sort of still put the blame of killing Jesusdespite what the Pope may say, on the Jews, ignoring the fact that while Jesus was indeed indicted by the Sanhedrin He was actually crucified by the Romans in accordance with their own tradition.
But it is simpler to put the blame on all the Jews and keep on doing it.
On the other hand, Jews, Protestants and Catholics together, are afraid and many sincerely hate- Moslems, while it is nevertheless true, many Moslems heartily reciprocate. On other parts of this happy world, Hindus and Moslems kill each other whenever possible, or Hindus kill Tamils and vice versa. Chinese have killed and still kill Buddhists in Tibet, and so on and so forth.
As for races, whites still hate blacks and all other colours of the rainbow, although it is just as true that in fair reciprocity all these colours hate us too. Wherever you go in the Third World from Brazil to South Africa you can see the natives being exploited and abused by us, the superior whites!.
I know, because I have been in most of these countries and witnessed it myself I used to do business with those exploiters
An USA multinational industry built, a few years ago, a production plant off the Taiwan coast, in international waters. Why did they go to that trouble? Just to be able to evade international labour regulations re. child labour and minimum salaries
So, as you can see, dear Rosend, Jews are not the only ones to suffer this indiscriminate persecution you mention. In fact, there are millions who, right now, have it much worse.
With the Holocaust you did have your share, I agree; and we have read many books and seen many pictures about that monstrosity. But, a only few years afterwards, one million people were massacred in Cambodia by a certain Pol Pot (another Hitler of some kind) and very little has been written about it, though I must say I have seen a wonderful movie about it (The Cries of Silence, I think).
Regarding USAs alliances, please bear in mind that they respond to US different Administrations criteria and needs.
Do not forget the US Government was Saddam Husseins ally when Iraq was at war with Jomeinys Iran!
With, maybe the exception of Libya, the USs different administrations have signed alliances with practically all Arab countries that have crude oil wells. Iran is not an Arab country and Iraq was the other exception, so far. SO it makes sense, doesnt?
Now if Saudi Arabia comes out and bans the Barbie Doll (which, apparently, you would ban too, from what you say), and on top of that, they called it a "Jewish toy", that should not be a surprise for anyone. You should know Arabs cordially hate Jews, but they cannot do anything about it for Israel is even a stronger ally of the USA. On the other hand, it might just be that they know that Mattel was founded in the mid 40s by a Jewish American couple, in which case that situation should be similar to their banning those Jewish pictures by Spielberg, or Tom and Jerry cartoons, for they belong to MGM. You know, of course, that a great share of Hollywoods movie industry was, and probably still is, in Jewish hands
BTH, as a personal anecdote, I can tell you that when I was Overseas Director for an important 100% Jewish American Corporation, back in the early 70s, I was proposed by the President to take over a vacancy as Senior Vice President. There was a tiny weenie condition, though. I had to accept converting to Judaism. I, of course, refused very politely, so I lost that opportunity Apparently, only Jews could corner those high level positions I would not call an equal opportunities policy, which was one the Corporations mottos
But, anyway, its true the majority of the world will not stand up and defend you, so you must defend yourselvesBut the majority of the world will not stand up to defend any other minority, as it have been widely seen in Sri Lanka, or Indonesia or right with Palestinians.
From what I know, there are about 13 million Jews all over the World, of which some 5.5 live in Israel.
Palestinians number also some 6 million, and though I know you probably do not agree, they are also a minority with very little help from their Arab brothers or cousins.
All the Palestinians I have met in Kuwait, Ryad or Doha were holding jobs nobody wants and were underpaid and exploited by their brothers in religion.
At any rate, and to close the subject, remember that some of those Saudis which you seem afraid of, did were responsible of the terrorist attack 2 years ago, which the entire World mourns today, and where close to 3000 people died. And, if there were any Jews there, you can be sure the attack was not intended against Judaism but against North America.
Best regards,
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Najiyah asked on 09/10/03 - Life after death What exactly does Judaism teach happens to the soul after death? I have heard several different things, ranging from "we do not necessarily believe in life after death" to "reward and punishment are not eternal" and others. I sort of always assumed previously that the Jewish, Christian and Muslim views of heaven and hell were all very similar, since the Christian and Muslim ones are. But then I heard those things. Alas, you know what they say about assuming.... ;-)
Thanks.
In peace,
Najiyah curious98 answered on 09/11/03:Hi Najyah,
As you probably know, Im a roman catholic, so I can hardly give my opinion on how Judaism tackles the problem of life after death.
Consequently, rather than venturing myself into that risky territory with the Jewish approach, Ill tell you what Rabby Barry H. Block said in a Sermon given on occasion of Yom Kippur Day - Yizkor Service, 5763, September 16, 2002.
He should know!
We have come to our beloved Temple to seek comfort in this sacred hour of memory. We are here, for we are bereaved. We mourn the loss of parents, who gave us life and taught us how to live. We shed a tear for a spouse, who shared our life in so many ways, both precious and mundane. We grieve for a child, God forbid, who was our promise of tomorrow. We are bereft of a sister or a brother, a grandparent, a precious member of our extended family, a life-long friend. We feel our loved ones absence keenly. The emptiness at our side is palpable. She should be here, sitting next to me at worship. He should have been with me, tasting the apples and honey on Rosh Hashanah. How empty the holidays feel without the loving phone call, the lshanah tovah greeting across the miles.
We seek solace in our prayers. We look for comfort in a congregation of mourners; none of us is alone. We search for peace in our blessed memories.
In other houses of worship, comfort in the loss of a loved one is derived primarily from faith in life after death. In most Christian churches, belief in life everlasting is frequently articulated and widely accepted. In the wake of bereavement, the expectation of heaven is a magnificent source of healing.
Most Jews, though, are frustrated when our Christian friends ask us about our own faith in eternal life. Some of us have an answer ready, but most stammer through an attempted explanation. If we are honest, we will admit that most Jews know very little of our own religious teaching about life after death. Our ignorance makes interfaith dialogue difficult; but worse, we are missing a potential well-spring of hope in the aftermath of loss.
We are familiar with the teaching of Classical Reform Judaism, so beautifully stated in our prayer book: Our beloved, whom we now remember, have entered into the peace of life eternal. They live on in the acts of goodness they performed, and in the hearts of those who cherish and revere their memories.
We tend to focus on the second sentence. The message is powerful, it is rational, and it is indisputably true. Our deceased loved ones are very much alive in their goodness, which death can never destroy. Their impact on this world, whether large or small, does yet touch lives, even now that they are gone. They do still live in our hearts.
This rational faith of Reform Judaism can comfort us even further, as we consider its implications. We are offered a role in assuring our loved ones immortality. If we will smile, as he once did, then his joy will live, here on Earth. If we will unite the family, which was always her role, then her values can never die. If we will alleviate the suffering of the poor and oppressed, the sick and the lonely, as she once did, then her goodness yet lives.
But what of that first sentence of our statement of faith: Our beloved, whom we now remember, have entered into the peace of life eternal. What exactly does that mean to us?
Perhaps those words may simply mean that our loved one has died, entering eternal sleep, which is peaceful. Many among us derive comfort from the faith that our loved ones live on, here on Earth, and otherwise believe that, when we die, we die, with no expectation of everlasting life for the individual. Some among us will accept no faith that can not be rationally proven; blessedly, many who think this way find solace nonetheless.
Our Jewish tradition, though, does teach us that we live on, in Gods domain, even after we have died. Hebrew has at least three words that mean soul: nefesh, neshamah, and ruach. Each of these words also means breath. The Rabbis taught that, when we breathe out our last, the breath that leaves us is our immortal soul.
The human being, as described in the second chapter of Genesis, is created from the dust of the Earth; dust we are, and to dust shall we return. Dust, perhaps, was ancient peoples way of describing the collection of atoms, the chemicals that make up our body and every other physical thing in the universe. But we are not just that dust; we are more than the chemicals of which we are composed. Torah tells us that God has breathed a neshamah, an immortal soul, the breath of life, into us. When we die, the neshamah returns to God.
Where do our souls go? Technically, we Jews dont use the word heaven to describe the abode of the dead. Our words are more ephemeral: olam haba, the world to come; or gan Eden, the Garden of Eden. When we die, the immortal part of us will rejoice forever with God, and with the souls of all the dead, in paradise.
What will it look like? Our Rabbis teach us that we should not spend too much time speculating on the specific nature of the world to come. You have probably heard of the traditional Jewish teaching of bodily resurrection. Some believe that, after the Messiah comes, our corpses will be resurrected from the grave, flesh will cling to our bones once again, and our souls will reunite with our bodies. One could explore this teaching to the point of absurdity. Will I be resurrected with the body I have at the time of my death, or at the prime of my life? Will I have my hair once again? Will I get my figure back? Judaism almost always encourages us to question, but the Rabbis discouraged investigation into the details of life after death. The ancient Rabbis beliefs in afterlife ranged from bodily resurrection to gilgulei hanefashot, the recycling of souls, more commonly called reincarnation. We are required to believe none of them. Perhaps thats why we often do such a poor job of explaining life after death.
Please do not think that I have offered you today an exhaustive lecture on Jewish teachings about afterlife. For a fuller explanation, I can suggest an excellent book, What Happens After I Die? Judaism offers us a wide variety of afterlife teachings. We are free to accept them all, for they need not be mutually exclusive. Others of us will remain quietly sceptical.
Ultimately, in the face of death, Judaism teaches us to live our lives and to do Gods will by performing mitzvot. Whatever else will happen, we will live on here on Earth. Our lives do have an impact on Gods creation. During our lifetimes, we are to concern ourselves with the redemption of the entire universe. God will take care of us, individually, one by one, as we die.
And so today, as we gather to mourn, let us draw strength from the beauty of our Temple and the wisdom of Torah. May we find comfort in our Jewish teachings of life after death. May we find solace in the work that remains before us, here on Earth.
Let us live, and one day die, with the faith that God is always with us. Living or dead, God is at our side. We are never alone.
Amen.
I find this Sermon to be excellent and one that I, as a Catholic, can endorse in more than one way. We all make a great fuss, in all religions, about Life after Death, simply because Man needs to have that hope that if he abides by the rules whatever they may be- he will eventually get the well deserved reward.
A good instance of that need, you can find it in all those Moslems that commit suicide for they have been promised (promised by their Ulemas, that is, not by God itself) they will enjoy Paradise surrounded by beautiful hurisand fountains of honey and delicious fruits
The trouble with all this is that none of us whether Jews or Gentiles- has ever come back from that whatever it is to tell us, poor living souls, what our hopes should be aiming at.
I agree with Rabbi Barry H. Block that we have different options to consider. As far as Im concerned and bearing in mind that my time is getting closer and closer every day- is that if, after I go, my soul is given the possibility to understand GOD that will be my Heaven and Paradise. If Im denied that possibility, that will probably be my Hell.
This is why Im hurrying to prepare my statement of accountsin the best possible way so as to impress the Authorities Up There
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ldmitch asked on 09/06/03 - Good question by Zimbob88 Zimbob asked a very good question on the my last question. Can anyone give any proof for the resurrection of dead?
Zimbob question:
"how can someone come back to life...Where is your proof?????"
curious98 answered on 09/06/03:To me, the matter of Jesus' resurrecttion, is a matter of Faith. Either you believe or you do not.
However, for others, things are much clearer.
Maybe you would let Mr. Zimbob read the followibg paper:
"Evidence for the Resurrection
by Josh McDowell
For centuries many of the world's distinguished philosophers have assaulted Christianity as being irrational, superstitious and absurd. Many have chosen simply to ignore the central issue of the resurrection. Others have tried to explain it away through various theories. But the historical evidence just can't be discounted.
A student at the University of Uruguay said to me. "Professor McDowell, why can't you refute Christianity?"
"For a very simple reason," I answered. "I am not able to explain away an event in history--the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
How can we explain the empty tomb? Can it possibly be accounted for by any natural cause?
A QUESTION OF HISTORY
After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history.
Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was crucified. Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb found the body gone. In subsequent weeks, His disciples claimed that God had raised Him from the dead and that He appeared to them various times before ascending into heaven.
From that foundation, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and has continued to exert great influence down through the centuries.
LIVING WITNESSES
The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.
The writers of the four Gospels either had themselves been witnesses or else were relating the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events. In advocating their case for the gospel, a word that means "good news," the apostles appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning the facts of the resurrection.
F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records as primary sources: "Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective."
IS THE NEW TESTAMENT RELIABLE?
Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.
By the end of the 1 9th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.
Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."
Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "
I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .
E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University
BACKGROUND
The New Testament witnesses were fully aware of the background against which the resurrection took place. The body of Jesus, in accordance with Jewish burial custom, was wrapped in a linen cloth. About 100 pounds of aromatic spices, mixed together to form a gummy substance, were applied to the wrappings of cloth about the body. After the body was placed in a solid rock tomb, an extremely large stone was rolled against the entrance of the tomb. Large stones weighing approximately two tons were normally rolled (by means of levers) against a tomb entrance.
A Roman guard of strictly disciplined fighting men was stationed to guard the tomb. This guard affixed on the tomb the Roman seal, which was meant to "prevent any attempt at vandalizing the sepulcher. Anyone trying to move the stone from the tomb's entrance would have broken the seal and thus incurred the wrath of Roman law.
But three days later the tomb was empty. The followers of Jesus said He had risen from the dead. They reported that He appeared to them during a period of 40 days, showing Himself to them by many "infallible proofs." Paul the apostle recounted that Jesus appeared to more than 500 of His followers at one time, the majority of whom were still alive and who could confirm what Paul wrote. So many security precautions were taken with the trial, crucifixion, burial, entombment, sealing, and guarding of Christ's tomb that it becomes very difficult for critics to defend their position that Christ did not rise from the dead. Consider these facts:
FACT #1: BROKEN ROMAN SEAL
As we have said, the first obvious fact was the breaking of the seal that stood for the power and authority of the Roman Empire. The consequences of breaking the seal were extremely severe. The FBI and CIA of the Roman Empire were called into action to find the man or men who were responsible. If they were apprehended, it meant automatic execution by crucifixion upside down. People feared the breaking of the seal. Jesus' disciples displayed signs of cowardice when they hid themselves. Peter, one of these disciples, went out and denied Christ three times.
FACT #2: EMPTY TOMB
As we have already discussed, another obvious fact after the resurrection was the empty tomb. The disciples of Christ did not go off to Athens or Rome to preach that Christ was raised from the dead. Rather, they went right back to the city of Jerusalem, where, if what they were teaching was false, the falsity would be evident. The empty tomb was "too notorious to be denied." Paul Althaus states that the resurrection "could have not been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned."
Both Jewish and Roman sources and traditions admit an empty tomb. Those resources range from Josephus to a compilation of fifth-century Jewish writings called the "Toledoth Jeshu." Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source, which is the strongest kind of historical evidence. In essence, this means that if a source admits a fact decidedly not in its favor, then that fact is genuine."
Gamaliel, who was a member of the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin, put forth the suggestion that the rise of the Christian movement was God's doing; he could not have done that if the tomb were still occupied, or if the Sanhedrin knew the whereabouts of Christ's body.
Paul Maier observes that " . . . if all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea, in which Jesus was buried, was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement."
FACT #3: LARGE STONE MOVED
On that Sunday morning the first thing that impressed the people who approached the tomb was the unusual position of the one and a half to two ton stone that had been lodged in front of the doorway. All the Gospel writers mention it.
There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.
Clark Pinnock
Mcmaster University
Those who observed the stone after the resurrection describe its position as having been rolled up a slope away not just from the entrance of the tomb, but from the entire massive sepulcher. It was in such a position that it looked as if it had been picked up and carried away. Now, I ask you, if the disciples had wanted to come in, tiptoe around the sleeping guards, and then roll the stone over and steal Jesus' body, how could they have done that without the guards' awareness?
FACT #4: ROMAN GUARD GOES AWOL
The Roman guards fled. They left their place of responsibility. How can their attrition he explained, when Roman military discipline was so exceptional? Justin, in Digest #49, mentions all the offenses that required the death penalty. The fear of their superiors' wrath and the possibility of death meant that they paid close attention to the minutest details of their jobs. One way a guard was put to death was by being stripped of his clothes and then burned alive in a fire started with his garments. If it was not apparent which soldier had failed in his duty, then lots were drawn to see which one wand be punished with death for the guard unit's failure. Certainly the entire unit would not have fallen asleep with that kind of threat over their heads. Dr. George Currie, a student of Roman military discipline, wrote that fear of punishment "produced flawless attention to duty, especially in the night watches."
FACT #5: GRAVECLOTHES TELL A TALE
In a literal sense, against all statements to the contrary, the tomb was not totally empty--because of an amazing phenomenon. John, a disciple of Jesus, looked over to the place where the body of Jesus had lain, and there were the grave clothes, in the form of the body, slightly caved in and empty--like the empty chrysalis of a caterpillar's cocoon. That's enough to make a believer out of anybody. John never did get over it. The first thing that stuck in the minds of the disciples was not the empty tomb, but rather the empty grave clothes--undisturbed in form and position.
FACT #6: JESUS' APPEARANCES CONFIRMED
Christ appeared alive on several occasions after the cataclysmic events of that first Easter . When studying an event in history, it is important to know whether enough people who were participants or eyewitnesses to the event were alive when the facts about the event were published. To know this is obviously helpful in ascertaining the accuracy of the published report. If the number of eyewitnesses is substantial, the event can he regarded as fairly well established. For instance, if we all witness a murder, and a later police report turns out to he a fabrication of lies, we as eyewitnesses can refute it.
OVER 500 WITNESSES
Several very important factors arc often overlooked when considering Christ's post-resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning. One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." Let's take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and burial, and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 people were to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50 hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and you would well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history.
HOSTILE WITNESSES
Another factor crucial to interpreting Christ's appearances is that He also appeared to those who were hostile or unconvinced.
Over and over again, I have read or heard people comment that Jesus was seen alive after His death and burial only by His friends and followers. Using that argument, they attempt to water down the overwhelming impact of the multiple eyewitness accounts. But that line of reasoning is so pathetic it hardly deserves comment. No author or informed individual would regard Saul of Tarsus as being a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. Saul despised Christ and persecuted Christ's followers. It was a life-shattering experience when Christ appeared to him. Although he was at the time not a disciple, he later became the apostle Paul, one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection.
If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.
F. F. Bruce
Manchester University
The argument that Christ's appearances were only to followers is an argument for the most part from silence, and arguments from silence can be dangerous. It is equally possible that all to whom Jesus appeared became followers. No one acquainted with the facts can accurately say that Jesus appeared to just "an insignificant few."
Christians believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected in time and space by the supernatural power of God. The difficulties of belief may be great, but the problems inherent in unbelief present even greater difficulties.
The theories advanced to explain the resurrection by "natural causes" are weak; they actually help to build confidence in the truth of the resurrection.
THE WRONG TOMB?
A theory propounded by Kirsopp Lake assumes that the women who reported that the body was missing had mistakenly gone to the wrong tomb. If so, then the disciples who went to check up on the women's statement must have also gone to the wrong tomb. We may be certain, however, that Jewish authorities, who asked for a Roman guard to be stationed at the tomb to prevent Jesus' body from being stolen, would not have been mistaken about the location. Nor would the Roman guards, for they were there!
If the resurrection-claim was merely because of a geographical mistake, the Jewish authorities would have lost no time in producing the body from the proper tomb, thus effectively quenching for all time any rumor resurrection.
HALLUCINATIONS?
Another attempted explanation claims that the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection were either illusions or hallucinations. Unsupported by the psychological principles governing the appearances of hallucinations, this theory also does not coincide with the historical situation. Again, where was the actual body, and why wasn't it produced?
DID JESUS SWOON?
Another theory, popularized by Venturini several centuries ago, is often quoted today. This is the swoon theory, which says that Jesus didn't die; he merely fainted from exhaustion and loss of blood. Everyone thought Him dead, but later He resuscitated and the disciples thought it to be a resurrection. Skeptic David Friedrich Strauss--certainly no believer in the resurrection--gave the deathblow to any thought that Jesus revived from a swoon: "It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to His sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that He was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life,
For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.
A. N. Sherwin-White
Classical Roman Historian
an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He had made upon them in life and in death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship."
THE BODY STOLEN?
Then consider the theory that the body was stolen by the disciples while the guards slept. The depression and cowardice of the disciples provide a hard-hitting argument against their suddenly becoming so brave and daring as to face a detachment of soldiers at the tomb and steal the body. They were in no mood to attempt anything like that.
The theory that the Jewish or Roman authorities moved Christ's body is no more reasonable an explanation for the empty tomb than theft by the disciples. If the authorities had the body in their possession or knew where it was, why, when the disciples were preaching the resurrection in Jerusalem, didn't they explain: "Wait! We moved the body, see, He didn't rise from the grave"?
And if such a rebuttal failed, why didn't they explain exactly where Jesus' body lay? If this failed, why didn't they recover the corpse, put it on a cart, and wheel it through the center of Jerusalem? Such an action would have destroyed Christianity--not in the cradle, but in the womb!
THE RESURRECTION IS A FACT
Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God bath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said: "raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."
REAL PROOF: THE DISCIPLES' LIVES
But the most telling testimony of all must be the lives of those early Christians. We must ask ourselves: What caused them to go everywhere telling the message of the risen Christ?
Had there been any visible benefits accrued to them from their efforts--prestige, wealth, increased social status or material benefits--we might logically attempt to account for their actions, for their whole-hearted and total allegiance to this "risen Christ ."
As a reward for their efforts, however, those early Christians were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified. Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking.
Yet, they laid down their lives as the ultimate proof of their complete confidence in the truth of their message.
WHERE DO YOU STAND?
How do you evaluate this overwhelming historical evidence? What is your decision about the fact of Christ's empty tomb? What do you think of Christ?
When I was confronted with the overwhelming evidence for Christ's resurrection, I had to ask the logical question: "What difference does all this evidence make to me? What difference does it make whether or not I believe Christ rose again and died on the cross for my sins!' The answer is put best by something Jesus said to a man who doubted--Thomas. Jesus told him: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6).
On the basis of all the evidence for Christ's resurrection, and considering the fact that Jesus offers forgiveness of sin and an eternal relationship with God, who would be so foolhardy as to reject Him? Christ is alive! He is living today.
You can trust God right now by faith through prayer. Prayer is talking with God. God knows your heart and is not so concerned with your words as He is with the attitude of your heart. If you have never trusted Christ, you can do so right now.
The prayer I prayed is: "Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and trust You as my Savior. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be. Thank You that I can trust You."
Josh McDowell, according to a recent survey, is one of the most popular speakers among university students today. He has spoken on more than 650 university and college campuses to more than seven million people in 74 countries during the last 21 years.
1992 Josh McDowell Ministry"
Of course, your friend may still have doubts.
To me it is irrelevant. As I believe in GOD ALMIGHTY, WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE WE KNOW, if GOD chose to ressucitate Jesus, it does not seem to me an impossible or difficult task for GOD to ressucitate Jesus. Probably, it was more difficult to create the Matter which the entire Universe (zillions of worlds, stars and galaxies) comes from...
Regards
Curious98
. | | Question/Answer | | ldmitch asked on 09/06/03 - Are the Jews Christ killers? Jesus made this statement:
Mark 10:33-34
33Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: 34And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.
Since Jesus himself said that he would be crucified by the Gentiles, would it be wrong to accuse the Jews of killing Christ? curious98 answered on 09/06/03:Hi Idmitch,
Having recourse to demagogy seems to be a favourite pastime when it comes to discussing Religion.
I have found the following article:
The massacres at Sabra and Shatila provide an interesting comparison to the September 11th tragedy. Both killed around 2800 innocent people (although the exact count at Sabra and Shatila may be much higher). Both were probably guided by men with a history of terrorism. However, while Sepember 11th is remembered in the west, Sabra and Shatila are largely ignored.
In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon and killed between 2000 and 3500 innocent civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. The striking thing is that the west almost ignores it. Try a web search for "Sabra and Shatila" and look for western sources. For example, the Time Magazine web site just headlines the invasion as "Israel Strikes at The PLO" and barely mentions the massacre. Yet everyone agrees that it took place.
"In 1983, an Israeli state inquiry found Mr Sharon, then defence minister, indirectly responsible for the killing of hundreds of men, women and children at Sabra and Shatila camps during Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon." ."(1)
On December 16, 1982 the United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. Sharon resigned as defence minister, but later became Israeli Prime Minister.
The massacre was recently investigated by the BBC and the conclusions were damning. The BBC team reported on their investigation, and included this interesting comment:
"In Beirut we confronted the man accused of leading the slaughter. There was in Lebanon a sense of surprise that we would wish to revisit such an event. As one former militia leader said, 'For God's sake if you prosecuted for war crimes here we'd all be in jail.'"
A British parliamentary motion requested:
"That this House congratulates the BBC for Panorama's recent in-depth analysis of the massacres in Sabra and Shatilla during the war in Lebanon in 1982; notes that following the massacres an internal Israeli commission of inquiry forced the resignation of the then Israeli Defence Minister, Ariel Sharon; believes there is sufficient prima facie evidence to indicate that Ariel Sharon, now the Israeli Prime Minister, should be tried for war crimes; and calls upon the international community to ensure that he is duly charged at the earliest possible opportunity.' (3)
The motion added "that 400,000 people in Israel demonstrated their horror and disgust at such a crime against humanity"
How does this compare with the World Trade Centre bombings - in numbers and in how it happened?
"The precise number of victims of the massacre may never be exactly determined. The International Committee of the Red Cross counted 1,500 at the time but by September 22 this count had risen to 2,400. On the following day 350 bodies were uncovered so that the total then ascertained had reached 2,750. Kapeliouk points out that to the number of bodies found after the massacre one should add three categories of victims:
(a) Those buried in mass graves whose number cannot be ascertained because the Lebanese authorities forbade their opening;
(b) Those who were buried under the ruins of houses; and
(c) Those who were taken alive to an unknown destination but never returned.
The bodies of some of them were found by the side of the roads leading to the south. Kapeliouk asserts that the number of victims may be 3,000 to 3,500, one-quarter of whom were Lebanese, while the remainder were Palestinians."
At time of writing (late January 2002) these issues are finally coming before a court in Belgium.
Will Sharon and others be tried for war crimes? Possibly.
Will they be found guilty? Probably not.
Since the trial was announced, key witnesses have been tracked down and assassinated:
"A potential key witness in the Belgian war crimes case against the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, was blown up outside his house in Beirut yesterday [January 25th], together with three bodyguards. Elie Hobeika, a Lebanese warlord involved in the massacre of more than 1,000 Palestinians in the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in 1982, died only a few days after saying he would give evidence in Belgium."
"The secrets of the Sabra and Chatila Palestinian camp massacres in 1982 have gone to the grave with yet another former Phalangist militiaman, the third Lebanese to die mysteriously in little more than two months. Michael Nassar, who was a former associate of Elie Hobeika - the Phalangist leader murdered in a car bombing in Beirut in January - was shot dead in Brazil by a man firing a pistol equipped with a silencer. His young wife, Marie, was shot down beside him.
I have picked up this paper to answer you question for, in my opinion, it may help clarifying it.
In the 1st place it proves that the similar events or dramatic situations can be judged in a much different way depending on who writes the history.
The 9/11 terrorist attack against N.Y. and Washington horrified the whole world, possibly, mostly for what it meant than for the number of casualties which, finally, turned out to be, thanks GOD, less than expected. Do not misunderstand me. Had there been just one victim, it would have been one victim too many. And there could have been many, many more.
Almost 2 years now, we all remember it with horror and we are afraid some new terrorist attack of some kind may occur on occasion of its 2nd anniversary.
But why did it affect all of us and I mean non-USA citizens- ? I think, just because it was against the most powerful country in the world right now, and against 2 of the most emblematic buildings of USA.
On the other hand, the Sabra and Chatila massacres, which were even more important from the standpoint of human casualties, have been quickly forgotten and/or plainly ignored by many, just because it happened against Palestinians -who cares about them?- and in remote Lebanon, which many do not even know where it is.
On top of that, the responsible party enjoyed the sympathy of the Western World.
The crucifixion of Jesus can be similarly approached. According to us Christians, not to the Jews nor the Moslem, Jesus is the Son of GOD. It seems logical, but only to a certain extent, that Christians wished to consider that as a Deicide, which is not the case, as I said before, with Jews and Moslems, which may consider it as the killing or murder of another Prophet. There were 2 other persons who were crucified together with Jesus but practically nobody know who were they.
Now then, it would be just as unfair to blame all the Islam for the 11/9 (although some seem tempted to do it) as it would to blame all the people of Israel for the Sabra and Chatila massacres. The respective direct or indirect main responsible parties are Osama Bin Ladden and Ariel Sharon.
In very much the same way you cannot hold all the Jews responsible for Jesus crucifixion, but rather the priests and scribes, or Herod and Pilate, but never the entire Jewish nation.
And let us not forget that it is Mark who puts those words in Jesus lips.
I am not saying that Jesus did not pronounce them. But, right now, there are many exegetes who claim that the four evangelists enjoyed these 4 privileges:
They could be Selectors from among the many things Jesus said and did, they could chose what they wanted to include and what to omit.
They could be Arrangers they organized the materials into various blocks, not necessarily chronologically but often thematically.
They could be Shapers they adapted their sources and told the stories in ways that emphasized the themes they wanted to stress.
They could be Proclaimers they preached the "good news" about God and about Jesus in ways appropriate to their own audiences and, naturally, to their epoch.
To sum it up, therefore, at this stage of the game rather than trying to put the blame on the Jewish people for something that happened 2000 years ago, may be we should all be thinking of how we can all contribute to bring peace into Israel, which is a much more realistic and dangerous situation for all of us.
And let us not forget either that before dying Jesus words were Father, forgive them; they do not know what they are doing.
It would be just great that we now would correct Jesus words of forgiveness to substitute them by other words of punishment
Regards
| | Question/Answer | | ldmitch asked on 09/05/03 - Jeremiah 31:35-37 How would you interpret this passage?
35Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: 36If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. 37Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD. curious98 answered on 09/05/03:
This prophecy could be interpreted in that, as surely as the heavenly bodies will continue their settled course, according to the will of their Creator, to the end of time, and as the raging sea obeys him, so surely will the Jews be continued a separate people. Words can scarcely set forth more strongly the restoration of Israel. The rebuilding of Jerusalem, and its enlargement and establishment, shall be an earnest of the great things God will do for the gospel church. The personal happiness of every true believer, as well as the future restoration of Israel, is secured by promise, covenant, and oath. This Divine love passes knowledge; and to those who take hold upon it, every present mercy is an earnest of salvation.
But, of course, this just a point of view, and there may be many others
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ldmitch asked on 09/05/03 - Psalm 129:5 Let them all be confounded and turned back that hate Zion. Psalm 129:5
What is the application for us today? curious98 answered on 09/05/03:This Psalm indicates, in the first place, that GOD subjects his Church to divers troubles and affections, to the end IT may the better prove ITSELF her deliverer and defender. The Psalmist, therefore, recalls to the memory of the faithful how sadly GOD's people (Israel) had been persecuted in all ages, and how wonderfully they had been preserved, in order by such examples to fortify their hope in reference to the future. In the second part, under the form of an imprecation, he shows that the Divine vengeance is ready to fall upon all the ungodly, who without cause distress the people of GOD.
The following is a short commentary on this Psalm:
All who hate Zion shall be confounded, and tutored backward.
Whether we take this as a prayer or a promise, the Prophet has a respect to the time to come. Since all the verbs are in the future tense, it is certainly a very appropriate interpretation to understand him as deriving from times past instruction as to what is to be hoped for in future, even to the end. In whichever way we understand the passage, he declares that the faithful have no reason to be discouraged when they behold their enemies raised on high. The grass which grows upon the house-tops is not, on account of its higher situation, more valuable than the blade of corn which in the low ground is trampled under foot; for although it stands elevated above men's heads, it is, in the first place, unprofitable; and secondly, it quickly withers away.4 The verb, Pls, shalaph,5 which we have translated comes forth, is by some rendered, is plucked up. According to this translation the sense is, that without the hand or labor of man the grass on the house-tops is dried up. But as the verb properly signifies to be brought forth, or to come forth, the meaning, in my opinion, is that the grass'. on the housetops, so far from continuing long in a state of freshness, withers and perishes at its first springing up, because it has no root under it, nor earth to supply it with sap or moisture for its nourishment. Whenever, then, the splendor or greatness of our enemies strikes us with fear, let us bring to our recollection this comparison, that as the grass which grows upon the house-tops, though high, is yet without root, and consequently of brief duration, so these enemies, the nearer they approach the sun by the height of their pride, shall be the sooner consumed by the burning heat, since they have no root, it being humility alone which draws life and vigor from God.
With which the mower hath not filled his hand.6 We have here an additional confirmation of the truth, that although the wicked mount high or elevate themselves, and form an extravagant opinion of their own importance, yet they continue mere grass, not bringing forth any good fruit, nor reaching a state of ripeness, but swelling only with fresh appearance. To make this obvious, the Psalmist sets them in opposition to fruit-bearing herbs, which in valleys and low grounds produce fruit for men. In fine, he affirms that they deserve to be hated or despised of all, whereas commonly every one in passing by the corn fields blesses them and prays for the harvest?7 Farther, he has borrowed this illustration of his doctrine from the affairs of ordinary life, we are taught that whenever there is a hopeful prospect of a good harvest, we ought to beseech God, whose peculiar province it is to impart fertility to the earth, that he would give full effect to his blessing. And considering that the fruits of the earth are exposed to so many hazards, it is certainly strange that we are not stirred 'up to engage in the exercise of prayer from the absolute necessity of these to man and beast. Nor does the Psalmist, in speaking of passers by blessing the reapers, speak exclusively of rite children of God, who are truly taught by his word that the fruitfulness of the earth is owing to his goodness; but he also comprehends worldly men in whom the same knowledge is implanted naturally. In conclusion, provided we not only dwell in the Church of the Lord, but also labor to have place among the number of her genuine citizens, we will be able fearlessly to despise all fire might of our enemies; for although they may flourish and have a great outward show for a time, yet they are but barren grass, on which the curse of heaven rests.
This Psalm as so many parts of the Scriptures- may be applied-in my opinion- to all those who believe in GOD no matter the name we give IT- for it fills all of us with the Hope that carrying a life of true love and justice most surely will lead us to eternal rest in Heaven.
And, in any case, it cannot hurt us to behave like that
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ldmitch asked on 09/05/03 - least of these my brethren - Matthew 25:40 and 25:45 Was Jesus refering to God's chosen people (i.e. the Jews) when he spoke about the least of these my brethren. It would seem to be a parallel passage to Joel chapter 3, where the nations (Gentiles) will be judged on account of their treatment towards the Jews.
Read Matthew 25:31-46 and Joel 3:1-15 and give me your opinion. curious98 answered on 09/05/03:Matthew 25:31-46
When reading this passage one might be reminded of Michelangelo's "Last Judgment." After the second half of this passage in particular, I would suppose one could get an impression of "fear." The words in verse forty-one, "Depart from me, o accursed ones, into the eternal fires prepared for the devil and his followers," are truly dreadful. Fear certainly becomes one of the motivators for, in those days, most people did pay attention to fear of Hell. Then, could it be assumed the purpose of this passage as a picture of hell a motivational spur for good deeds through fear? Are we being exhorted towards deeds of love in order to enter into the kingdom of God and to escape the flames of hell?
So then, as far as understanding this message of the Lord, according to Matthew, first of all, it would be, perhaps, good to keep several facts in mind.
First and foremost is the fact that this passage does not stand on its own. It means that this passage is written in continuation from chapter twenty-four with the narrative on the end times and in continuation from such parables as "The Parable Of The Faithful Servant And The Wicked Servant," "The Parable Of The Ten Virgins," and "The Parable Of The Talents."
If we go back a bit and look at chapter twenty-four and verse thirty-six, in the narrative regarding the end times, Matthew recorded the following words of the Lord. "That day, that hour no one knows. Neither the angels nor the son know. Only the Father knows." This means that in this story concerning the end times it does not place great concern on [the question of] "When will the end be?" Also, even though it is a depiction of the end, it is deliberate that not many words are spent on it. Even in the passage of scripture under discusion, only the minimum is spoken. That is very clear, for example, when compared to The Book Of Revelation by John. In other words, it means that a great concern is intentionally not placed on this matter of "What is to take place?"
Where should therefore the concern of this series of narratives be placed? It is not on the events at the end times, but on "the now." It is about "How should we live [in the here and] now?" Therefore, the phrase is repeated, "Please, therefore, wake up," (24:42, 25:13). Now is the time we should awaken. And we understand after all that the subject has to do with "the now" even in the series of parables seen in chapters twenty-four and twenty-five.
In short, and according to many Bible scholars, if we can only think, as we read this "When is the final judgment?" or "Will I enter into the kingdom of God or go into the fires of hell?," it means that we have never read this passage in its true sense. Or, in thinking of "the now" if we are ultimately only concerned about the judgment in order to escape the flames of hell and enter the kingdom of God and pile up the good deeds and love for our neighbors as if for insurance -- we might get that kind of mentality. If our good deeds and works of love are like that, then when you think about it, it is no more than using other people for a footstool for one's salvation. The original intention of this passage, we might believe, was not supposed to make that type of exhortation for works.
And secondly is the fact that the ambiguous degree of the Lord's words is left to us. In this respect, I copy one commentary from a Japanese Reverend Takao Kiyohiro, Osaka
It is not necessarily definite who [the phrase] "one of the least of persons who are my brethren" particularly points to in the Lord's response. This might be pointing to all who need some assistance. Even in Judaism, alms for the poor was encouraged. When we look at this passage as parallel with that, we might understand this passage as pointing to our lowly selves, to the person who is oppressed and forsaken by humankind
But, if we claimed then that all that could be said about it has been said, we'd simply say no.
Please look at chapter ten and verse forty-two of this gospel.
"I clearly say to you. For the reason that he is my son, the person who gives just one cup of cold water to one of these least of persons will surely receive a reward." [In] this case, "least person or smallest person" means to point to a Christian. Furthermore, it is the Christian sent by the Lord to preach. It says those who welcome them are welcoming Christ. So then, the interpretation came to be that said, the entire world will be judged by how they treated those sent by Christ to pass on the gospel. In truth, the words "lend a place when I was traveling" and "came to visit me when I was in jail," make us think about the image of missionaries in the old days who used to evangelize circulating in the midst of difficulties
Thus, it is not for sure who "one of these least of persons" points to. And when the scriptures are ambiguous it is important to go the effort to keep it that way. It is not always necessary to rigorously stipulate a relationship with ourselves and "one of these least of persons." We had better place in it all different sorts of relationships involving us. Moreover we are permitted to place ourselves in the position of "one of these least of persons." Well, let's read this passage keeping these two points above in our minds
First, let's read this passage placing ourselves as two flocks on the left and the right before the Lord, that is, amidst the goats to be judged and the sheep.
What are the first words we hear? Please look from verse thirty-four to verse forty
(So, the king says to those on his right side. 'Well, o blessed ones by my father, inherit the land prepared for you from the time of the creation of heaven and earth because you fed me when I was hungry, gave me drink when I was thirsty, and lent me a room when I was traveling, dressed me when I was naked, called on me when I was sick, and visited me when I was in prison.' Thus, the righteous will answer to the Lord. 'O Lord, when did we see you hungry and present you food, see you thirsty and offer you a drink? When did we see you traveling and lend you a room, see you naked and clothe you? When did we see you sick or you were in jail and we visited you?' Then the Lord will answer. "I clearly say to you. What you did to one of these least of persons who is my brother you did for me,'" (verses thirty-four through forty).
When he says "o blessed ones" they on the right make a kind of doubtful face. None of them present thought that inheriting the kingdom of God was a reward they deserved to receive. The king explains [it] to them, but the explanation of the king made them more confused. They answered, "When did we ever do such a thing?" What was left behind in their memory was very small as far as they remembered. Wait, it might not even have been left in their memory. It wasn't that they accomplished a great work for God for all to see. It wasn't that they paid a huge sacrifice of the kind that helped someone to change his or her life. Unless they were some great evangelist, they weren't some saint whose actions would be passed on into the afterlife. What they did could have been that they only offered a cup of water to a thirsting person
But, the Lord puts his attention on this. And he says that it "is done to me." What people see and the Lord sees are different. What is a small thing in the eyes of humankind is not small at all in the Lord's. We don't need to demean the smallness of the things we do. Because the Lord, no matter how small the actions, treats it as an act done unto him. This is definitely an important encouragement for us.
So, please look at the next part to the story.
"Then, Jesus said to those on the left, 'O accursed ones, depart from me and go into the eternal flames prepared for the devil and his followers because you did not give me food when I was hungry, you did not give me to drink when I was thirsty, you did not lend me a room when I was traveling, you did not clothe me when I was naked, you did not visit me when I was sick or in prison' Therefore, they answered. 'O Lord, when did we see you hungry, thirsty, traveling, naked, sick or in prison and did not help you?' Then the Lord answered. 'I clearly say to you. When you did not [help] one of the least of these persons you did not help me,'" (verses forty-one through forty-five).
On the other hand, the Lord says, "O accursed ones" and those on the left also make a doubting face. No one there even thought going into the eternal fire was a reward they should justly receive. The Lord explains [it] to them, [but] the Lord's explanation confused them. They ask, "When did we do anything so awful?" What was left behind in their memory was very small as far as they remembered. No, it probably didn't even remain in their memory at all. They never worked at stealing. They surely never committed the sin of adultery. What they did was probably a minor [mis]treatment towards another person. They probably only neglected to offer a cup of water to a thirsty person
However, the Lord put his attention on that. And, he even says, "You didn't [help] me." The places the Lord sees is different from the places humanity sees. If we look at it from the Lord's perspective, it is the same as a deed from Satan and his helpers. But, who would ever be able to dismiss such a charge against him or her?
These words crush us. Often times, these words smash us to pieces when we love the Lord but are conceited thinking that we have accomplished something for the Lord. We are made to learn our lesson that we deserved hell, confessing "I myself treated you coldly" and that we've no alternative but to ask for the Lord's mercy.
Putting Oneself On The Lord's Side
However, this doesn't say it all. We can read it by placing ourselves on the Lord's side, that is, placing ourselves on the level of "one of the least." Thus a completely different scene opens up to us.
The Lord is standing to the side and he thus says pointing to me, "I clearly say to you. What you did to the least of the people who are my brothers, you did for me." What does he say? The Lord calls us "my brothers." And the Lord puts himself in the same class as us. The Lord rejoices over the deed of love we received as done to him even if we had received a cup of water. The Lord and we are one in joy.
And also we hear the following words. "I clearly say to you. When you did not [help] one of the least of these persons, you did not help me." The One standing there is not greatly rejoicing on my behalf. As long as we live in this world we will repeatedly experience its coldness from the people in it. We have been slighted. We have been unloved. We have received harsh treatment by those more powerful than us. But, the Lord is sad, in pain, and angry that we have experienced those things. At those times, the sadness, hurt, and anger we had in us are absorbed into the Lord's anger. There's no need for us to be sad or angry anymore.
Well then, today's passage is situated just before the passion narratives of the Lord. Just after this, the Lord will say to his disciples that "As you know, in two days is the Passover. The son of man will be handed over for the purpose of being crucified," (Matthew 26:2). The Lord went to the cross in order to make himself one with "the least of persons." On the cross the Lord became one with the poor, the lowly, the oppressed, those rejected by others, and above all else, with all of us who are unable in the midst of our sins not to cry out, "O Lord, show us mercy."
Being able to see and place ourselves at the side of such a Lord as that is not unrelated to having been able earlier to see and place ourselves among the goats and the sheep. Looking to the side of the Lord, the one who rejoices that the Lord calls him or her "one of the least of persons who is my brother" should come to see the Lord on the side of others as well. They ought to see others as "one of the least" at the side of the Lord. When we look at other such persons in relationship with the Lord, we realize that it is a work for the other person, that is, it is a work for the Lord. In this manner, then, there are no achievements to bring out before God, there is no insurance for entering into the kingdom of God, the works of love which do not return glory to an individual in any form whatsoever, though the least, begin from there. And, even if it is small, it will never be despised or made light of in the eyes of the Lord. "I clearly say to you. What you have done for the least of persons who are my brothers, you did for me."
Unquote:
And mind you, whether you believe in the Gospels or you do not accept Jesus words as those from the Fathers Son, one should admit that they express Love and Charity for the others in its purest form. That is, without using them as a launching platform towards our salvation...
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ldmitch asked on 09/05/03 - The restoration of the kingdom to Israel The New Testament (Acts 1:6-7) indicates that someday God will restore the kingdom to Israel. What is the implications for the church?
For the benefit of our Jewish friends who may not have a copy of the New Testament, I have enclosed the words of Acts 1:6 through Acts 1:7:
6When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. curious98 answered on 09/05/03:Yesterday, I already answered this question, but it disappeared in thin air.
I copied the entire episode of Acts of the Apostles 1, and I added that, in my humble opinion, the message thereby was quite obvious. Jesus was just letting His apostles know that it is for man to question GODs inscrutable designs. We are not that important
As for the Church I assume you mean, Christians - It has always been a common Jewish expectation that the Messiah would establish Israel as the ruling kingdom on earth, subduing those who had oppressed them under His rule. Jesus' disciples were hoping the time had come. They were as anxious as anyone to be free of Roman rule. Jesus did not correct the disciples in their assumptions, He just told them the time was not for them to know. If you study the book of Revelation, youll see that G-d is not finished with Israel. Those who would seek to subdue her today will find themselves in opposition to G-d.
Again, whatever will be, will be, as the song goes!
At any rate, as things seem to be going lately in Israel I thing it would be a good idea for all believers of all faiths to pray together for a prompt peace over there. Otherwise, that ruling kingdom on earth may just be a passing fancy, or an utopia.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ldmitch asked on 09/01/03 - Ezekiel 33:13 The words of the LORD as recorded in Ezekiel, "When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; IF HE TRUST TO HIS OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it." Ezekiel 33:13
In light of this verse, how can the self righteous man escape the wrath to come? (see Matthew 3:7)
curious98 answered on 09/02/03:Hi,
Precisely, and according to the N.T., this is why Jesus died in the cross. For us and to save us
And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" Lk-18:7"
The point is that when we repent, do we really? Do we, at heart? Probably, we think we do but, in true fact, we do not, for sooner than expected we shall commit that same fault which we repented from or others, equally sinful And when the Son of Man finally came He didnt find too much faith around. So He was crucified to save us ALL, not Christians or Jews, but all living souls on this planet of ours.
However, and despite that passage from Ezekiel 33:13. I prefer to believe in GOD's INFINITE MISERICORDY towards ITS creatures.
In Ezekiel 33:13, Ezekiel is forecasting that GOD is simply laying out the options of what will happen when someone turns from their sin. If our LORD has actually chosen to speak to us through prophets or saints the LORD MUST HAVE SPOKEN in UNDERSTANDABLE ways COHERENT with the times when such prophecies were made and, as in this case, relevant to our choices of repentance.
Ezekiel, whose name, Yehzq'el signifies "strong is God", or "whom God makes strong" (Ezek. i, 3; iii, 8), was the son of Buzi, and was one of the priests who, in the year 598 B.C., had been deported together with Joachim as prisoners from Jerusalem (IV Kings, xxiv, 12-16; cf. Ezek. xxxiii, 21, xl, 1). With the other exiles he settled in Tell-Abib near the Chobar (Ezek. i,1; iii, 15) in Babylonia, and seems to have spent the rest of his life there.In the fifth year after the captivity of Joachim, and according to some, the thirtieth year of his life, Ezekiel received his call as a prophet (Ezek. i, 2, 4 etc) in the vision which he describes in the beginning of his prophecy (Ezek. i,4; iii, 15). From Ezek. xxix, 17 it appears that he prophesied during at least twenty-two years.
Ezekiel was called to foretell GODs faithfulness in the midst of trials, as well as in the fulfilment of His promises. During the first period of his career, he foretold the complete destruction of the kingdom of Juda, and the annihilation of the city and temple. After the fulfilment of these predictions, he was commanded to announce the future return from exile, the re-establishment of the people in their own country and, especially, the triumph of the Kingdom of the Messiah, the second David, so that the people would not abandon themselves to despair and perish as a nation, through contact with the Gentiles, whose gods had apparently triumphed over the GOD of Israel.
This is the principal burden of Ezekiel's prophecy, which is divided into three parts. After the introduction, the vision of the calling of the prophet (Ezek. i-iii,21), the first part contains the prophecies against Juda before the fall of Jerusalem (Ezek. iii, 22-xxiv). In this part the prophet declares the hope of saving the city, the kingdom, and the temple to be vain, and announces the approaching judgment of GOD upon Juda. This part may be subdivided into five groups of prophecies.
After a second revelation, in which God discloses to the prophet His course of action (iii,22-27), the prophet foretells by symbolic acts (iv,v) and in words ( vi-vii ), the siege and capture of Jerusalem, and the banishment of Juda.
In a prophetic vision, in the presence of the elders of Israel, God reveals to him the cause of these punishments. In spirit he witnesses the idolatry practiced in and near the temple (viii); God commands that the guilty be punished and the faithful be spared (ix); God's majesty departs from the temple (x), and also, after the announcement of guilt and punishment, from the city. With this the judgment which the prophet communicates to the exiles ends (xi).
In the third group (xii-xix) many different prophecies are brought together, whose sole connection is the relation they bear to the guilt and punishment of Jerusalem and Juda. Ezekiel prophesies by symbolic actions the exile of the people, the flight of Sedecias, and the devastation of the land (xii, 1-20). Then follow Divine revelations regarding belief in false prophecies, and disbelief in the very presence of true prophecy. This was one of the causes of the horrors (xiii, 21-xiv, 11), to be visited upon the remnant of the inhabitants of Jerusalem (xiv, 12-23). The prophet likens Jerusalem to the dead wood of the vine, which is destined for the fire (xv); in an elaborate denunciation he represents Juda as a shameless harlot, who surpasses Samaria and Sodom in malice (xvi), and in a new simile, he condemns King Sedecias (xvii). After a discourse on the justice of God (xviii), there follows a further lamentation over the princes and the people of Juda (xix).
In the presence of the elders the prophet denounces the whole people of Israel for the abominations they practiced in Egypt, in the Wilderness, and in Canaan (xx). For these Juda shall be consumed by fire, and Jerusalem shall be exterminated by the sword (xxi). Abominable is the immorality of Jerusalem (xxii), but Juda is more guilty than Israel has ever been (xxiii).
On the day on which the siege of Jerusalem began, the prophet represents, under the figure of the rusty pot, what was to befall the inhabitants of the city. On the occasion of the death of his wife, God forbids him to mourn openly, in order to teach the exiles that they should be willing to lose that which is dearest to them without grieving over it (xxiv).
In the second part (xxv-xxxii), are gathered together the prophecies concerning the Gentiles. He takes, first of all, the neighbouring peoples who had been exalted through the downfall of Juda, and who had humiliated Israel. The fate of four of these, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Edomites, and the Philistines, is condensed in chapter xxv. He treats more at length of Tyre and its king (xxxvi-xxviii,19), after which he casts a glance at Sidon (xxviii,20-26). Six prophecies against Egypt follow, dating from different years (xxix-xxxii. The third part (xxxiii-xlviii), is occupied with the Divine utterances on the subject of Israel's restoration. As introduction, we have a dissertation from the prophet, in his capacity of authorized champion of the mercy and justice of GOD, after which he addresses himself to those remaining in Juda, and to the perverse exiles (xxxiii). The manner in which GOD will restore His people is only indicated in a general way. The LORD will cause the evil shepherds to perish; He will gather in, guide, and feed the sheep by means of the second David, the Messiah (xxxiv).
Though Mount Seir shall remain a waste, Israel shall return unto its own. There GOD will purify His people, animate the nation with a new spirit, and re-establish it in its former splendour for the glory of His name (xxxv-xxxvii). Israel, though dead, shall rise again, and the dry bones shall be covered with flesh and endowed with life before the eyes of the prophet. Ephraim and Juda shall, under the second David, be united into one kingdom, and the LORD shall dwell in their midst (xxxvii). The invincibleness and indestructibility of the restored kingdom are then symbolically presented in the war upon Gog, his inglorious defeat, and the annihilation of his armies (xxxviii-xxxix). In the last prophetic vision, GOD shows the new temple (xl-xliii), the new worship (xliii-xlvi), the return to their own land, and the new division thereof among the twelve tribes (xlvii-xlviii), as a figure of His foundation of a kingdom where He shall dwell among His people, and where He shall be served in His tabernacle according to strict rules, by priests of His choice, and by the prince of the house of David.
From this review of the contents of the prophecy, it is evident that the prophetic vision, the symbolic actions and examples, comprise a considerable portion of the book. The completeness of the description of the vision, action and similes, is one of the many causes of the obscurity of the book of Ezekiel. It is often difficult to distinguish between what is essential to the matter represented, and what serves merely to make the image more vivid. On this account it happens that, in the circumstantial descriptions, words are used, the meaning of which, inasmuch as they occur in Ezekiel only, is not determined. Because of this obscurity, a number of copyist mistakes have crept into the text, and that at an early date, since the Septuagint has some of them in common with the earliest Hebrew text we have. The Greek version, however, includes several readings which help to fix the meaning. The genuineness of the book of Ezekiel is generally conceded. Some few consider chapters xl-xlviii to be apocryphal, because the plan there described in the building of the temple was not followed, but they overlook the fact that Ezekiel here gives a symbolic representation of the temple, that was to find spiritual realization in God's new kingdom. The Divine character of the prophecies was recognizes as early as the time of Jesus the son of Sirach (Eccles. xlix, 10, 11). In the New Testament, there are no verbatim references, but allusions to the prophecy and figures taken from it are prominent. Compare St. John x etc. with Ezek. xxxiv, 11 etc.; St. Matthew xxii, 32, with Ezek. xvii, 23. In particular St. John, in the Apocalypse, has often followed Ezekiel. Compare Apoc. xviii-xxi with Ezek. xxvii, xxxviii etc., xlvii etc.
Summarizing, whether inspired by GOD or else, Ezekiels prophecies responded naturally to the needs of his epoch, and therefore, have to be taken in my opinion in that context.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 08/28/03 - To my Jewish teachers: A Graven Image (as referenced in the 10 commandments):
I am learning that graven means 'engraved, carved, raised, sculpted, bas-relief', etc.
questions: Does a pencil or chalk sketch on paper count? the image itself is 'raised' by virtue that the graphite sits on top of the paper. If seen in cross section, the edges of the image would be raised higher than the level of the media on which it was done.
Image: what exactly is an image? a representation of an object? the representation of a concept? If I carved a word into a block of wood, is that an 'image' since the word represents an object, thought or concept? What about a statue of a letter C or something? Legal or not legal? The Letter C does not convey a concept or idea in and of itself.
What about Chinese Characters? SInce they represent an image or entire concept, do they differ? Could you carve a giant "dog symbol" and be legal?
ETW, you mentioned that as long as an image is incomplete, it was okay. You also asked about the statue of liberty, and I conjenctured that since the statue does not have arm hair, and every human has arm hair, that it was incomplete. Is that enough to make it 'legal'? What is completeness?
curious98 answered on 08/29/03:Hi Greeylin,
As I'm not -as you know- a jew, I consulted my friend -the orthodox French rabbi - in Paris, and I have just received his answer, which I'm copying for you.
I have the feeling that either I did not make myself clear with my question -which was a copy of yours- or he has not understood what you wanted.
Anyway, it is first hand information from a very -as I say- orthodox rabbi, who is also very understanding and tollerant
"All of G-d's Laws (not just the Ten Commandments) are Holy, Righteous and Good.
After all, they were given by the wise and loving Creator, Hashem. They have always been for our benefit, whether we like them, or not. They will never change, just as Hashem never changes. Malachi 3:6, "For I am the L-RD, I change not.."
We would be in bad shape if G-d and His Word changed. We would have a G-d we could not depend on. The Law (Torah) was never given for our Salvation. That was not its purpose. It's purpose was to show man how to treat their fellow man, and how to respect and respond to G-d, in the way He desires.
Blessed be His Holy Name.
A study of Psalm 119 should show each of us just how King David responded to Hashem's Laws. With the help of the "Ruach HaKodesh" (the Holy Spirit ), we can see that Hashem's Laws are for our own good. It is good that parents forbid their children to play on the expressway. It is good, they are taught not to play with guns, snakes, knives, etc.
In like manner, Hashem's Laws are for our good, as well. We may not see that at first, just like we couldn't understand the constraints that were placed upon us, by our earthly parents. We understand, now. We have "grown-up," and many of us place these same rules upon our own children. The rules that we once thought were so harsh and cruel.
So it is, with Hashem's Laws. When we grow-up, spiritually, we will be able to see that His Laws are for our own good. We will desire to obey them, because we love the One, who gave them to us! These Laws have, now been written in our hearts, and in our minds.
We, now trust Him, and desire to please Him. We thank Him for all His Commandments, Statutes and Ordinances. King David said in Psalm 119:47 "And I will delight myself in Thy Commandments, which I have loved." He tells us how long these Commandments will last in verse 44, "So shall I keep Thy law (Torah) continually for ever and ever." King David knew they were eternal. They have always been, they are, and they always will be! "Forever, O LORD, Thy Word is settled in heaven." (Psalm 119:89)
King David tells us in Psalm 119:85 "The proud have digged pits for me, which are not after Thy Law." Obviously, many despised Hashem's Laws, even then. So it is in our very day! Man will choose either "Torah" or "Torahless" (law or lawlessness). There is no middle ground. One either walks with G-d, or against Him. Psalm 119:136 says, "Rivers of water run down mine eyes, because they keep not Thy Law." Most people are not taught these things. In fact, they have been taught that Hashem's Laws are a "bad" thing, and as such, no longer have any meaning for us.
This leads us to Psalm 119:53 "Horror hath taken hold upon me because of the wicked that forsake Thy Law (Torah)." Judgment Day is around the corner because people have "tried to do away" with G-d's Laws! Who are the wicked? According to the "Word of G-d," they are those who forsake Hashem's Laws.
The Book of Galatians is speaking mostly of the ritual laws. Naturally, the new male converts did not want to be circumcised.
What is in question here is the ritual laws, specifically, circumcision. Galatians 3:13 says, "Messiah (Christ) has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree:" Many people fly over this verse, and somehow get, "Messiah redeemed us from the Law (Torah)." But, that is not what it says. The Messiah redeemed us from the "curse" of the Law! It is the "curse" that is "bad," not the Law (Torah), itself!
Hashem's Laws cannot be Holy, Righteous, and Good on one hand, and "cursed" on the other hand! It would be impossible to be so! Deuteronomy 30:19 tells us, that Hashem has set before us life and death, and we have a choice to make. We are told to choose life and live. The curse is spiritual death, eternal separation from G-d. The curse is not the Law (Torah)! One cannot truly have a "Jewish" heart, and not honor and respect, Hashem's Laws!
Proverbs 28:9 tells us, "He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law (G-d's Teachings and Instructions - "Torah") even his prayer shall be an abomination." This verse speaks for itself. Those who refuse to hear (or heed) G-d's Teachings and Instructions, G-d considers their prayers as something "detestable," in His eyes! It doesn't say He just "ignores" these prayers! It says, He literally "hates" them! We don't need to expect G-d to answer prayers that He despises, for He will not!
Sha'ul (Apostle Paul) says in Romans 7:22, "For I delight in the law of G-d (Torah) after the inward man." He talks about a struggle that goes on, within him. Romans 7:23 tells us, "But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into capitivity to the law of sin which is in my members. The law that was in his mind was Torah, the first five Books in the Bible.
These Books came from the very Mouth of G-d, Himself. The "law of sin" is opposite to all that is Holy, Righteous and Good ( Romans 7:12). It is opposite to G-d's Holy Laws, the Torah, for it is the law of sin. It is carnal (worldly), not spiritual. With that in mind, let's look at Romans 8:6-7, "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind (worldly-mind) is enmity (hostile) against G-d: for it is not subject to the law of G-d (Torah), neither indeed can it be."
We can get an idea of direct opposites and their results from this small chart:
G-d hasatan (satan-the advesary)
Good Evil
Life comes with G-d Death comes with hasatan
Torah (G-d's Laws) Torahless (no laws - anything goes)
Law of mind Law of sin
Blessings Curses
Obedience Disobedience
Hashem's Laws have not been done away with. Since the first five Books in the Bible are His laws - Torah, just try and remove the first Book - "Genesis." In order for this Book to be done away with, Creation, itself would have to be done away with! Does not the very first verse say, "In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth? The very fact, I wrote this and you are reading it, shows Creation took place. For I am here and you are there. There can be no denying it, G-d's Laws still stand, and they shall do so forever and ever!"
Hope this will help you to know a little more about Judaism Faith.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Ursulagertrudis asked on 08/29/03 - trying to learn about religions Not being sure about my faith, I'm wondering:
Is it helpful to learn about different religions?
curious98 answered on 08/29/03:Hi Ursula,
Well, yes. I think it definitely is. I was born a Roman Catholic, and I have spent a good deal of my free time studying the most important religions of our era, and even of the past.
The end result is that, after 76 years, Im still a Roman Catholic, but with some reservation or mistrust towards those who have to give example, that is the different priesthoods.
If you are trying to learn about different religions as much as you can that means you already believe in GOD, and you are only trying to channel your faith through one confession or other, perhaps that one which suits you better.
And you may end up, as I have since many years ago, by realizing that the only thing that matters is GOD not the channel.
There is a saying that goes All the ways lead to Rome
And I believe that all channels (or religions) lead to GOD! If they are honestly followed, that is
In a way, some could say that Im half a Deist, i.e., one who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason."
To a certain extent, that would be true
Through the years I have found out that all confessions guarantee you your salvation provided you blindly follow what they tell you. And they all say that, theirs being the only true one, all the rest are wrong or simply false.
And this has been going on for centuries, quite often leading to bloody confrontations.
And to me, that is sheer nonsense
The true fact is that most religious leaders are trying to sell you their own philosophical point of view as if they were selling some dentifrice in the market, They may say the competition is not bad but, unquestionably, theirs is better.
A great instance of what Im saying can be found in the Catholic Opus Dei, whose motto is Finding God in Work and Daily Life , as if that would not be the same motto for all true and bona fide Catholics. They define themselves as follows The Opus Dei is a personal Prelature of the Catholic Church that helps
ordinary lay people seek holiness in their work and everyday activities...
But this is exactly the same obligation that all Catholics have if they want to really follow the Gospel
Besides, the O.D. are basically catering to a segment of the Catholic world with power, influence and money The result is that, right now, is unquestionably the wealthiest and most influential organization within our Church.
It is true they carry on a wonderful job in some Latin American countries helping to develop some communities, but they also have a number of important drawbacks.
Such as:
The danger inherent in the undemocratic structure of blindly following orders.
The danger inherent in the psychological control they have of their members due to the ``weekly chat'' where they have to tell the innermost details of their souls to their spiritual leaders.
The aggressive and manipulative way in which they try to catch new members.
The fact that they do not reveal their true goals and keep a lot of material secret from the public.
The smug thinking of belonging to an elite
And, most important of it all, their fundamentalism, their intolerance towards other religions, including other Catholic congregations.
But if you take Protestantism you find yourself lost in scores of denominations which in the USA can differ from town to town. Differences are small, some times just a special interpretation of a passage of the Scriptures, and yet, there are zealots who would cut your throat just to show you are wrong and they are right
Take Islam, as another instance. Their religion, which is similar in many ways to Christianism, has been so much manipulated by some of their priests and fundamentalists Ayatollahs that if Mohammed would raise from the dead, he would probably decide to go back to the tomb And yet, their God is the same GOD as ours.
And what about the Jews? We share almost the same Holy Books of the O.T. and yet differences between them and Christians, or them and Moslems, seem to be irreconcilable
And, again, their G-d, Yahweh or Jehovah is our very same GODDoes that make sense?
So, you see, the only unquestionable truth is that there is only ONE GOD ALMIGHTY and ETERNAL, whose Son, Envoy or Messenger (whatever you prefer) willingly gave His life for ALL HUMANS, to show them, us, the importance of loving each other.
Not that we are generally paying much attention to that message, but anyway, there it is, written with Jesus blood.
I think thats the only real truth.
All the rest, without trying to be disrespectful, is peccata minuta or, if you prefer, the kind of wrapping or decoration each one of us, would prefer for the important contents which is our Faith in GOD.
Hope to have helped you despite my spiel
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 08/26/03 - what does "honor" mean? The Bible commands us to "honor" our parents. What exactly does that mean? How do we interpret that? What are the nuances there?
Recent situations here have brought this to my mind: Parents of two children (5 year old twins, i believe) had locked them in a cage all their life. The twins could not even speak, they had not been around language enough to develop the skills. Parents let them out an hour a day or so to clean the cage, etc. then locked them back up.
Another child had a parent that doused them with gasoline and set them on fire. Plenty of children are abused, beaten, neglected, raped, etc. by parents.
How does one honor the parents in those cases? What form does it take?
How would the child of a racist/bigot 'honor' their parent? How would the child of a Nazi death camp commandant 'honor' their father? The answers most certainly go beyond "obeying" and "following their example", wouldn't they?
How does one go about 'honoring' in situations like that? curious98 answered on 08/27/03:Hi Graeylin,
(BIOLOGICALLY, CAN YOU PROVIDE ANY PROOF THAT 'HONOURING PARENTS' IS INSTINCTIVE OR HEREDITARY?
I suppose it could be scientifically established that certain abstract feelings like love- can be inherited through our genes. Not being a biological scientist though, Im not able to provide you with that evidence. But, Im sure you have read, as I have, that when we are born the NDA contained in our genes already have all the information gathered from our parents that will conform our personality and physical traits. Later on, both can suffer alterations depending on the environment we are living in. I can also add that, at least in those mammals up in the ladder, we can always witness the same reciprocal and instinctive love amongst mother and offspring There must be a reason for that, dont you think so?
ALSO, AS A DEBATE TOPIC, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY NATURAL LAW? I SUSPECT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BIOLOGICAL NATURE (WHICH IS WHY YOU CAPITALIZED IT!). WHAT DOES IT MEAN IN YOUR CONTEXT?
In a previous clarification I have already pointed out how I define Natural Law, i.e. the part of the Universe Laws that controls what happens in our Earth, independently of mans misbehaviour on It.
AND FINALLY, ARE YOU SAYING THAT ABOUT THE ONLY WAY A CHILD CAN HONOR THEIR PARENTS IF THE PARENT IS DESPICABLE IS THROUGH PRAYER? THAT IS HOW THEY WOULD FULFILL THEIR DUTY UNDER THE COMMANDMENT?
Not the only way, perhaps, but most certainly one positive way. When you believe in prayer you are holding a considerable weapon where to get strength from to keep on fighting
This is evidenced time and again by people with a profound faith in prayer (not necessarily Christians; more probably, Orientals) who have successfully fought against terminal diseases! This phenomenon is scientifically explained by psychology and psychiatrists.
I do think you have captured the essence of my answer, which is not very complicated, is it ?
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 08/26/03 - what does "honor" mean? The Bible commands us to "honor" our parents. What exactly does that mean? How do we interpret that? What are the nuances there?
Recent situations here have brought this to my mind: Parents of two children (5 year old twins, i believe) had locked them in a cage all their life. The twins could not even speak, they had not been around language enough to develop the skills. Parents let them out an hour a day or so to clean the cage, etc. then locked them back up.
Another child had a parent that doused them with gasoline and set them on fire. Plenty of children are abused, beaten, neglected, raped, etc. by parents.
How does one honor the parents in those cases? What form does it take?
How would the child of a racist/bigot 'honor' their parent? How would the child of a Nazi death camp commandant 'honor' their father? The answers most certainly go beyond "obeying" and "following their example", wouldn't they?
How does one go about 'honoring' in situations like that? curious98 answered on 08/26/03:The Ten Commandments, as I have already mentioned yesterday, are basically and substantially the principles of Natural Law by which Mankind should go by if we are to live peacefully together.
Honour your parents is a principle that is embodied in our instinct or in our genes. A different thing altogether and that has nothing to do with religion- is that some parents are unworthy of any filial honour and despicable before their family.
GOD created man, and man was provided with instincts like any other terrestrial animal. But man was also given a will and freedom to follow those natural instincts in anyway man would choose it fit.
I believe the great majority of humans follow these instincts normally well and so, they love their sons, for this is natural too. But, unfortunately, there are many others who behave like monsters or are simply sick. Religion can do nothing but pray for the latter
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 08/25/03 - Is it okay to make an image? The Bible commands us to not make images (one of the 10 commandments, in fact). And yet, God ordered the making of images as well.
What's the deal? curious98 answered on 08/26/03:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. The 2nd Commandment seems to refer to 3-D images. On the other hand, and taking for granted it actually was GODs FINGERS WHICH wrote the Commandments given to Moses at this point, it seems irrelevant to me to start an argument as to whether this is a historical fact or just a beautiful tradition- it is just common sense, for who has ever seen GODs image? Certainly, not Moses nor his people waiting for him. All Moses heard according to the Exodus 19:5, was GODs voice. But he never really saw GOD. In Egypt, Moses saw and spoke to a Burning Bush
So how can anyone reproduce or engrave GODs image? Assuming GOD has an image, of course, because in our stubbornness we insists on our resemblance to GOD
Moslems do follow that principle for they forbid any sort of images in their mosques, and I, as a Roman Catholic, very much resent when I see in some of our beautiful romanesque and gothic churches and cathredals, those otherwise splendid paintings and sculptures showing a venerable bearded elder crowned with a shining triangle representing GOD and the SAINT SPIRIT. As if the artist had had GOD posing as a model
On the other hand, it is very unlikely that GOD had ever ordered any one the making of images. I feel more inclined to believe that he who wrote it thought it was a good idea to have the possibility of making reproductions of GOD as people of those ages would have liked GOD to look like
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 08/25/03 - Who was Salah's father? Who was Salah's father? Arphaxad or Cainan? curious98 answered on 08/26/03:
Hard to say, when there seems to be two different theories in this respect.
The following verses either state or imply Arphaxad fathered Salah:
Genesis 10:24 - fathered
Genesis 11:13 - fathered
1 Chron 1:18 - fathered
1 Chron 1:24.
However, Luke 3:35-36 suggests Arphaxad fathered Cainan and then some time
afterward Cainan fathered Shelah(Salah).
Luke 3:35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 6 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
Given the apparent contradiction, how do we resolve the question of who fathered Salah?
Further, who is the 'Cainan' of Luke 3:36?
No one else in Scripture is
known by this name, except the pre-Flood Cainan who died centuries earlier.
Any reasonable consideration of who the person named 'Cainan' in Luke 3:36
actually is, would have to consider Canaan the son of Ham.
The man Canaan - A) lived at the appropriate time,
B) was a person of biblical significance
C) the land of his descendants was given to the children of Israel), and
D) for some sexual reason was cursed by Noah
(Gen 9:25-27).
[ Note: While the names 'Cainan' and 'Canaan' in English look similar
in Hebrew they differ, the name 'Cainan' meaning 'fixed' and the name 'Canaan' meaning 'humiliated'. ]
In Genesis 9:20-25 there are recorded the events which lead to a curse being
placed upon Canaan.
Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard.
:21 Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent.
:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.
:23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were not turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness.
:24 So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him.
:25 Then he said:
"Cursed be Canaan;
A servant of servants he shall be to his brethren."
This area of Genesis chapter 9 has never been clearly understood. How many
times have biblical commentaries condemned Ham, assuming he was the guilty
party in this account. They never explain why Canaan, and not Ham, was
cursed! (It should be noted Canaan was only one of several sons of Ham.
Gen 10:6. Canaan was not even the eldest son of Ham!)
In the Genesis 9:20-25 events Canaan, and not Ham, was guilty! In verse
24 the notion 'youngest son' would on the surface appear to identify the
offender as Ham, but the Hebrew meaning of the word 'son' is not as
specific as it is in English. In Hebrew the word 'son' is 'builder of
family name', an expression which may equally be used to refer to a
grandson or even a further removed descendant!
Prior to the incident recorded in Genesis 9:20-24 there is the mention of
only one grandson of Noah, his grandson Canaan. Refer verse 9:18. No other
grandson is mentioned until after the incident. Canaan also appears to have
been the youngest son of Ham (refer Gen 10:6 and 1Chr 1:8) and of course
Ham was the youngest son of Noah. So it is likely that at the time of the
incident the youngest male descendant of Noah was Canaan. Since the curse
was actually placed on Canaan, it is quite clear that by the description
'youngest son (descendant)' Canaan was being identified.
In this Genesis narrative more is being said than an initial impression
would indicate. The notion of 'nakedness' in Scripture has a broader
meaning than it does normally!
Lev 18:8 The nakedness of your father's wife you shall not uncover; it is your father's nakedness.
20:11 The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness; ...
Deut 27:20 Cursed is the one who lies with his father's wife, because he has uncovered his father's bed, ...
These verses imply the person compromised in Genesis chapter nine was Noah's wife. However, notice the following verse which seems to widen the application of the definition of one's 'nakedness'.
Lev 18:10 The nakedness of your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for theirs is your own nakedness.
It seems unlikely that Canaan would be attracted to his own grandmother,
but a younger daughter(or granddaughter) of Noah could have been dwelling
with Noah and his wife.
In summary, it seems that a lady related to Noah was uncovered and then
subsequently became compromised by Canaan. Noah being drunk was unable
to prevent this transgression. Ham, Canaan's father, discovered this
offence and Shem and Japheth acted to cover the nakedness.
How is this linked to Luke 3:35-36?
Meshing the Genesis 9 account with the Canaan perspective of Luke 3:36
tells us that a son was 'fathered' by Canaan, as a result of the act for
which Canaan was cursed. That the young lady concerned was (or became)
the wife of Arphaxad.
Luke 3:35-36 in stating 'of Shelah, of Cainan, of Arphaxad' was merely
documenting that Shelah was a son of both Cainan and Arphaxad. Of both
Canaan and Arphaxad.
Why does the name 'Cainan' appear in Luke 3:36? This was most likely the
original name of the youngest son of Ham. The name 'Canaan' by which he
is known in the Old Testament means, as I said before, 'humiliated', a name which it seems
was given to him after the Genesis chapter 9 incident.
This clarification of Luke 3:35-36 also extends the breadth of the meaning
of the word 'fathered'. It shows the word can be in reference to:
1) a biological father or
2) the male parent who raised the child
(ie. the husband of their mother).
So who was the father of Salah? - Canaan was probably the biological father, while
- Arphaxad was the parental father.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 08/25/03 - Does the Bible approve of or condemn astrology? Does God approve of astrology, or despise it? Should christians follow the stars and signs in the heavens, or avoid them? I ask for support for your position solely from the Bible, not your personal views on astrology. curious98 answered on 08/26/03:No matter how strange this answer may look to you, or to some of my colleagues in this forum, I feel compelled to once again-
emphasize the fact that, in my opinion, no one in this planet of ours can truly brag of having been told anything by GOD ITSELF.
One exception might be depending upon whether you believe it happened like that or not- The Ten Commandments as they were given to Moses. But, in any case, they were just a very brief, though quite clear, exposition of how we are to behave.
One learned rabbi, friend of mine, with whom we sustain very interesting discussions on religion, have been trying to convince me without any success, so far, that GOD dictated the entire Torah (Christians Pentateuc) to Moses, during the 40 years he spent in the desert.
To me, it is extremely presumptuous and pretentious for any man to affirm whether GOD approves or despises anything we may do here on Earth!
Through the different books of the O.T. prophets have indeed told us what GOD does not want us to do and, sometimes, what GOD likes. But, when we start digging or going more deeply into history we see that going back to what probably was the first civilization on Earth Summer, 4000 years b.C.- priests and prophets in every other religion have always claimed they were, at one moment or other, in direct communication with their gods. Which was only logical if they had to preserve their prestige and reputation
But, to start with, I cannot even start to grasp the concept of the GOD I believe in. For me it is absolutely unconceivable that the CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE and everything therein contained- has decided to tell us what to do and what not to do. And on top of that, that GOD had chosen to do it in the shape of a nice and respectable white bearded grand father
In fact, Im more prepared to accept the possibility of my acquiescing to tell the ants how they must run their lives
What happens, in my opinion, of course, and with all due respect to others that may be in disagreement with me, is that, we men, are so extraordinarily conceited and vains that we are convinced we are our LORDs most important work of art and that HE created the Universe just for our enjoyment and fun
Otherwise, it is hard to understand that passage of the Genesis that says "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Genesis 1:27).
Mans arrogance and pride are such that we could not accept anything short of being as close to being like God as humanly possible. Plus the additional bonus, that this makes us unique in the Universe!
Apart of that, those who believe in Jesus Christ as I do- and, consequently, try to follow His Gospels to the best of their possibilities, should not be concerned either about astrology as such, for I do not think there is any mention whatsoever to it in the Gospels.
To sum it up, therefore, any mention to the stars and the firmament you may find out in the O.T. books, are astronomical references, not astrological ones. Consequently, I am of the opinion that whether Christians are prone to follow their horoscopes or indifferent does not enter into any kind of conflict with our Faith.
This said, let me say that Astrology is also as old as Humanity. The Sumerians, who settled in Mesopotamia around 4000 BC, mark the first example of a people who worshipped the Sun, Moon and Venus. They considered these heavenly bodies gods, or the homes of gods. The moon gods name was Nanna, the sun god was called Utu, and the god of Venus was named Inanna, although these were not the only gods they worshipped. The Akkandians, near Sumer, also adopted the Sun, Moon and Venus gods, though changing their names. This was common with the gods in ancient times: the gods were accepted by a society, but their names were changed, depending on who had conquered whom.
The priests of the time who communicated with the gods were the first rulers. Temple systems were created and staffs of as many as several hundred to several thousand people in various roles were "employed" to fulfill various needs of the priests. There were junior priests, counselors, musicians, potters, etc. Later, it became necessary to have military leaders and some of these became kings. These kings usually had in their company a seer, or "baru-priest." This person was an interpreter of the skies -- he would read the sky for warnings, which usually involved eclipses of the moon. It could be said that the "baru-priests" were the first actual astrologers. In order to be able to communicate with the gods, mounds were built which represented shrines. These, over time, grew to larger structures called "ziggurats." (Later, these ziggurats would be used to map the star formations and to watch the sky for omens.)
The Sumerian baru-priests were under quite a bit of pressure to predict correctly. Predictions became more an art than science, since the priests had to be a bit crafty in their work. They did succeed in predicting eclipses with correct mathematics; thus contributing greatly to the later development of the laws of astronomy. I imagine you are well aware of the difference.
Astronomy is the scientific study of the stars and planets and their movements. Astrology is the pseudoscientific study of the influence those heavenly bodies and their movements have on humankind. Astrology as we, or even the ancient Greeks, would consider it did not exist at this time. The priests were concerned with predicting natural events (weather, eclipses, etc.) in order to maintain their power. Their efforts, however, did contribute to the development of astrology.
The beginnings of actual astrology can be seen during the Old Babylonian period, during the second millennium. The focus of the Babylonians was on the well-being of the kingdom and the king, not of the individual. For this reason, predictions revolved around things that would affect this well-being. The Babylonian priests correctly documented Venuss appearances and disappearances and because of this erratic behavior (due to the fact that Venus revolves about the sun backwards) Venus became associated with love and war. Somewhere around 1300 BC, the precursors of the individual birth horoscopes were formulated. These were merely predictions based on which month a child was born in. By this time the astral bodies have become quite significant at this point.
The Assyrian Era marked a new phase in the development of astrology. This time period lasted from about 1300 to 600 BC. The Assyrians overcame a long time problem -- they created a consistent and accurate calendar. Star maps were plotted correctly, constellations were formed, and astrolabes, or lists of stars were made. Omens were very important to the Assyrians and the priests-astrologers-astronomers would present their omens to the courts often. Those who could forecast good things were well-respected.
The next phase in the history of astrology is the New Babylonian period (600-300 BC). Some of the prominent astrologers of this period were Kiddinu, Berossus, Antipatrus, Achinopoulus, and Sudines. Up to this point, really the only kind of astrology being practiced was omen astrology, or the foretelling of major events. It was during the New Babylonian period that the signs of the zodiac were invented and horoscope, or birth, astrology had its beginnings. As of 1996, sixteen Babylonian horoscopes have been found and it was not uncommon for these horoscopes to contain little or no prediction. They mostly consist of the position of the skies at the time of conception or birth of the individual.
The Greeks began their immense influence on astrology during the fifth and fourth centuries BC. Alexander the Great managed to spread the Greek way of life, also known as Hellenism, to places such as Alexandria and Antioch. The Hellenistic period spanned from the time of his death in 323 BC to the middle of the second century BC, when the Romans took the eastern Mediterranean. The Greeks were responsible for incorporating mythology into astrology. The names we are familiar with today when we think of mythology came into existence. Up to this point, the same gods existed, just under different names and personalities.
This was the age of such famous forerunners of modern science as Plato, Pythagoras, who asserted that the earth was round and traveled around the sun; Leucippus, whose theory would later be the beginnings of atomic science; and Aristotle. The Romans were not as accepting of astrology. About 250 BC, a large number of the common citizenry became interested in astrology, but the conservatives fought against most any outside religion, including Christianity. They presented quite logical arguments against the use of astrology and horoscopes, saying that people born on the same day at the same time had very different destinies, and that people born on different days at different times sometimes died at the same times. Nevertheless, astrology spread into Rome, despite several attempts to expel all astrologers from the empire. Eventually, astrology gained acceptance, mostly because the Romans had a certain respect for the Greeks education. If the Romans had not finally allowed astrology into their culture, things might have been very different as far as the Egyptians contributions to the art.
In 331 BC, Alexander the Great founded the city of Alexandria. This marks the beginning of the Graeco-Roman period in Egypts history. Alexandria became one of the most famous of the Hellenistic capitals. Hellenism is the term describing the Greek way of life. The people of Alexandria retained some of their Egyptian culture, but it became mixed with that of the Greeks, Romans, Macedonians, Persians, Syrians, Jewish, and Chaldeans. When the Roman Empire began its decline, Alexandria managed to maintain its prestige as a center for cultural activity. By the time Alexandria began its decline, the scientific revolution was over, and astrology was accepted and believed by almost everyone. It was at this time that Claudius Ptolemy surfaced.
Almost nothing is known about Claudius Ptolemy. It is known that he was not Greek and was not even a Ptolemy (that is, he was not related to the Ptolemaic rulers). He was an Egyptian astronomer, mathematician, and geographer who lived in the vicinity of Alexandria. Bits and pieces of information from his writings and from comments from his contemporaries are the only sources of information about Ptolemys life. He was born in Upper Egypt, and some say that he was the head librarian at the museum or library at Alexandria.
Ptolemy worked from the data of past astrologers to map over one thousand stars. He compiled a list of 48 constellations, and, for the most part, described the longitude and latitude lines of the earth. He was a believer that the earth was the center of the universe and worked to advance this theory. His effort in this area was in his thirteen volume work called the Almagest. Here, the Ptolemaic system is described, thus explaining why some planets seemed to move backwards for periods of time in their orbit around earth. He theorized that each planet also revolved in a smaller circle as well as a larger one. This was called the "epicycle." This theory would survive for 1400 years, until it was finally accepted that the earth was itself another planet in orbit around the sun.
After Ptolemy, many astrologers followed. Some notable Egyptians in the field were Paul of Alexandria, Hephaestion of Thebes, and Palchus, though little other than their names are known about these people. Ptolemys work was continued and commented on by the Alexandrian mathematician Pappus, the mathematician/astronomer Theon of Alexandria, and the Greek mathematician Proclus, who wrote a paraphrase of Ptolemys Tetrabiblos.
After about AD 500, astrology died away for a while. It came alive again in the eighth century when Islam began practicing Hellenistic astrology. It was Albumasar, a Muslim intellectual, who was instrumental in bringing astrology as we know it to the Western world.
In conclusion, it can be said that Egypt has played a major role in the development of astrology. Egypt has had the pleasure of experiencing many different cultures in its land, which has enriched Egypts history and aided its people to become innovators of new ideas that would last for centuries and even on into today.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Yiddishkeit asked on 08/24/03 - Chief Justice refused to remove monument... "Alabama's chief justice (Roy Moore) was suspended Friday for refusing to obey a court order to remove his Ten Commandments monument from a courthouse."
Any views regarding the matter?
Bobby curious98 answered on 08/24/03:Hi Bobby,
I have seen on TV Fox News the sculpture reproducing the ten commandments in the rotunda of Montgomerys State Judicial Building and, to me, it looks like a very nice one, at least from a aesthetic point of view.
From what I understand, the Federal Court decision is based on the premise the monument violates your constitution's ban on government promotion of religion.
Almost simultaneously, in Pennsylvania, on Wednesday 13, a federal appeals court refused to reconsider a ruling that allowed a decades-old Ten Commandments plaque to remain on the facade of a courthouse in suburban Philadelphia.
A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel had ruled in June that the 1920 plaque did not constitute an official endorsement of religion because county commissioners who wanted to keep it were motivated by historic preservation. However, the full court on Wednesday unanimously refused to reconsider that ruling.
Now, my question is this. Why, all of a sudden, your Federal Courts seem to have deemed it convenient to determine that both the Philadelphias plaque and the Montgomery monument are either an endorsement of religion or, apparently too, an offence to those who are not either Christians nor Jews.
I know that, officially, the USA are a non confessional country. However, out of the almost 300 million people you are at present, and according to your own statistics, 56% are Protestant (all denominations included); 28% Roman Catholic and 2%, Jewish. That is 86% of your total population do accept at least on the paper- Moses 10 Commandments. A 4% include Moslems and the remaining 10% declare themselves aconfessional. Furthermore, your present Government openly declares itself more Christian than most of the precedent ones. So, whom these Federal Judges are trying to impress to? Or are they, perhaps, to be included within the 10% of atheists or non-confessional?
On the other hand, are not the 10 commandments basically similar or equal to the Natural Law?
To the best of my knowledge, the following Commandments
HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER.
YOU SHALL NOT MURDER.
YOU SHALL NOT STEAL.
REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY BY KEEPING IT HOLY
YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR.
YOU SHALL NOT COVET YOUR NEIGHBOR'S WIFE
are consistent with what our common sense and practically all of Mankinds tell us how we should behave, irrespective of our Faith. Practically all over the World, civil laws are also, with equal or similar wording, enforcing these very same commandments.
As for:
YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.
YOU SHALL NOT COVET YOUR NEIGHBOR'S GOODS
Although they may not be contemplated as illegal in some civil societies, I do not think they can offend the sensibility of anyone unless he/she is a confirmed selfish person who only cares about him/herself.
Finally,
I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD, YOU SHALL HAVE no other gods BEFORE ME
YOU SHALL NOT MISUSE THE NAME OF THE LORD YOUR GOD.
I think that in all religions these 2 commandments, one way or other, are compulsory for their followers.
Precisely, what practically priesthood in all religions has always been trying to emphasize upon their respective followers is the respect to their deities. Its hard to believe in any god, without being prepared to respect and worship it.
So, I repeat my question. What are your Federal Courts trying to prove, at this stage of the game, coming up with decisions like these which, I feel, will repeal the majority of North Americans?
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ~Seraph~ asked on 08/21/03 - Religious Tolerance What are the 1) social, 2) economic, and 3) religious benefits of religious tolerance?
What do each of the major faiths say about religious tolerance?
~Sephie~ curious98 answered on 08/22/03:Hi Seraph,
By applying just a small dose of common sense, we humans should quickly conclude that religious tolerance when practiced with honesty- should immediately produce immense benefits for mankind. Socially, it would teach us to accept each other for what we are, irrespective of colour, faith, culture, gradually leading us all to live in peace. Economically, it would finally teach all of us to better share what we have with those that have less or just nothing at all. Religiously, it would at long last make us understand that no matter how we call GOD, HE IS OUR CREATOR of us all and of everything that surrounds us.
There is BUT ONE GOD and GOD is the same for all of us. So, why so many differences?
Professor Dr. Hans Kng (Switzerland)
Professor of Ecumenical Theology, University of Tbingen, President of the Foundation for a Global Ethic (Welethos, said:
"No peace among the nations without peace among the religions. No peace among religions without dialogue between the religions. No dialogue between the religions without investigation of the foundation of the religions."
You, and I, and everyone else have two options:
Promote religious tolerance --the right of people to hold religious beliefs that are strange to us, without hindrance, or oppression.
To continue living in a world saturated with religious intolerance. We will then experience more religiously-based wars, terrorism, and civil disturbances, as we have seen recently in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Cyprus, India, Kosovo, Israel, Macedonia, Nigeria, Northern Ireland, Pakistan, Palestine, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Sudan, etc. The ultimate cause of the 9-11 terrorist attacks was religious hatred and intolerance.
As to what the main religions say about religious tolerance, I can just say that ecumenical moves are spreading all over as people start understanding that tolerance is the answer.
The main religions are gradually but surely changing their point of view in this respect.
Of course, there is still a long way to go, for the stumbling stone to achieve this ideal tolerance has always been and still is human ambition and selfishness!
Each religious leader no matter his faith- is adamant in refusing to share his sphere of influence with others. Plus the fact, that deep inside, some may actually feel they are in possession of the final truth
But, we have to be hopeful that, eventually, they will understand
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Ursulagertrudis asked on 08/22/03 - Do you think Thomas Paine is right? OF THE WORD "RELIGION,"
AND OTHER WORDS OF
UNCERTAIN SIGNIFICATION
by Thomas Paine
The word religion is a word of forced application when used with respect to the worship of God. The root of the word is the Latin verb ligo, comes religo, to tie or bind over again, to make more fast - from religo, comes the substantive religo, which, with the addition of n makes the English substantive religion.
The French use the word properly: when a woman enters a convent she is called a novitiate, that is, she is tied or bound by that oath to the performance of it. We use the word in the same kind of sense when we say we will religiously perform the promise that we make.
But the word, without referring to its etymology, has, in the manner it is used, no definite meaning, because it does not designate what religion a man is of. There is the religion of the Chinese, of the Tartars, of the Brahmins, of the Persians, of the Jews, of the Turks, etc.
The word Christianity is equally as vague as the word religion. No two sectaries can agree what is it. It is lo here and lo there. The two principal sectaries, Papists and Protestants, have often cut each other's throats about it.
The Papists call the Protestants heretics, and the Protestants call the Papists idolaters. The minor sectaries have shown the same spirit of rancor, but as the civil law restrains them from blood, they content themselves with preaching damnation against each other.
The word protestant has a positive signification in the sense it is used. It means protesting against the authority of the Pope, and this is the only article in which the Protestants agree. In every other sense, with respect to religion, the word protestant is as vague as the word Christian.
When we say an Episcopalian, a Presbyterian, a Baptist, a Quaker, we know what those persons are, and what tenets they hold; but when we say a "Christian," we know he is not a Jew nor a Mahometan, but we know not if he be a trinitarian or an anti-trinitarian, a believer in what is called the immaculate conception, or a disbeliever, a man of seven sacraments, or of two sacraments, or of none. The word "Christian" describes what a man is not, but not what he is.
The word theology, from Theos, the Greek word for God, and meaning the study and knowledge of God, is a word that strictly speaking belongs to Theists or Deists, and not to the Christians. The head of the Christian Church is the person called Christ, but the head of the Church of the Theists, or Deists, as they are more commonly called (from Deus, the Latin word for God), is God Himself; and therefore the word "Theology" belongs to that Church which has Theos or God for its head, and not to the Christian Church which has the person called Christ for its head. Their technical word is Christianity, and they cannot agree what Christianity is.
The words revealed religion, and natural religion, also require explanation. They are both invented terms, contrived by the Church for the support of priestcraft. With respect to the first, there is no evidence of any such thing, except in the universal revelation that God has made of His power, His wisdom, His goodness, in the structure of the universe, and in all the works of creation.
We have no cause or ground from anything we behold in those works to suppose God would deal partially by mankind, and reveal knowledge to one nation and withhold it form another, and then damn them for not knowing it. The sun shines an equal quantity of light all over the world - and mankind in all ages and countries are endued with reason, and blessed with sight, to read the visible works of God in the creation, and so intelligent is this book that he that runs may read.
We admire the wisdom of the ancients, yet they had no Bibles nor books called "revelation." They cultivated the reason that God gave them, studied Him in His works, and arose to eminence.
As to the Bible, whether true or fabulous, it is a history, and history is not a revelation. If Solomon had seven hundred wives, and three hundred concubines, and if Samson slept in Delilah's lap, and she cut his hair off, the relation of those things is mere history that needed no revelation from heaven to tell it; neither does it need any revelation to tell us that Samson was a fool for his pains, and Solomon too.
As to the expressions so often used in the Bible, that the word of the Lord came to such an one, or such an one, it was the fashion of speaking in those times, like the expression used by a Quaker, that the spirit moveth him, or that used by priests, that they have a call. We ought not to be deceived by phrases because they are ancient. But if we admit the supposition that God would condescend to reveal Himself in words, we ought not to believe it would be in such idle and profligate stories as are in the Bible; and it is for this reason, among others which our reverence to God inspires, that the Deists deny that the book called the Bible is the Word of God, or that it is revealed religion.
With respect to the term natural religion, it is upon the face of it, the opposite of artificial religion, and it is impossible for any man to be certain that what is called revealed religion is not artificial.
Man has the power of making books, inventing stories of God, and calling them revelation, or the Word of God. The Koran exists as an instance that this can be done, and we must be credulous indeed to suppose that this is the only instance, and Mahomet the only impostor. The Jews could match him, and the Church of Rome could overmatch the Jews. The Mahometans believe the Koran, the Christians believe the Bible, and it is education makes all the difference.
Books, whether Bibles or Korans, carry no evidence of being the work of any other power than man. It is only that which man cannot do that carries the evidence of being the work of a superior power. Man could not invent and make a universe - he could not invent nature, for nature is of divine origin. It is the laws by which the universe is governed.
When, therefore, we look through nature up to nature's God, we are in the right road of happiness, but when we trust to books as the Word of God, and confide in them as revealed religion, we are afloat on the ocean of uncertainty, and shatter into contending factions. The term, therefore, natural religion, explains itself to be divine religion, and the term revealed religion involves in it the suspicion of being artificial.
To show the necessity of understanding the meaning of words, I will mention an instance of a minister, I believe of the Episcopalian Church of Newark, New Jersey. He wrote and published a book, and entitled it "An Antidote to Deism." An antidote to Deism must be Atheism. It has no other antidote - for what can be an antidote to the belief of a God, but the disbelief of God? Under the tuition of such pastors, what but ignorance and false information can be expected?
http://www.deism.com/paine_essay11.htm
Ursula
curious98 answered on 08/22/03:follow up for Wolverine.
You are probably right. Maybe I did not make myself clear in this paragraph, so I did say I also generally agree. Do not forget, that English is not my mother language and I make many faults when trying to express myself in that beautiful language.
I probably can do it better in French!
I'm sorry
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | Ursulagertrudis asked on 08/22/03 - Do you think Thomas Paine is right? OF THE WORD "RELIGION,"
AND OTHER WORDS OF
UNCERTAIN SIGNIFICATION
by Thomas Paine
The word religion is a word of forced application when used with respect to the worship of God. The root of the word is the Latin verb ligo, comes religo, to tie or bind over again, to make more fast - from religo, comes the substantive religo, which, with the addition of n makes the English substantive religion.
The French use the word properly: when a woman enters a convent she is called a novitiate, that is, she is tied or bound by that oath to the performance of it. We use the word in the same kind of sense when we say we will religiously perform the promise that we make.
But the word, without referring to its etymology, has, in the manner it is used, no definite meaning, because it does not designate what religion a man is of. There is the religion of the Chinese, of the Tartars, of the Brahmins, of the Persians, of the Jews, of the Turks, etc.
The word Christianity is equally as vague as the word religion. No two sectaries can agree what is it. It is lo here and lo there. The two principal sectaries, Papists and Protestants, have often cut each other's throats about it.
The Papists call the Protestants heretics, and the Protestants call the Papists idolaters. The minor sectaries have shown the same spirit of rancor, but as the civil law restrains them from blood, they content themselves with preaching damnation against each other.
The word protestant has a positive signification in the sense it is used. It means protesting against the authority of the Pope, and this is the only article in which the Protestants agree. In every other sense, with respect to religion, the word protestant is as vague as the word Christian.
When we say an Episcopalian, a Presbyterian, a Baptist, a Quaker, we know what those persons are, and what tenets they hold; but when we say a "Christian," we know he is not a Jew nor a Mahometan, but we know not if he be a trinitarian or an anti-trinitarian, a believer in what is called the immaculate conception, or a disbeliever, a man of seven sacraments, or of two sacraments, or of none. The word "Christian" describes what a man is not, but not what he is.
The word theology, from Theos, the Greek word for God, and meaning the study and knowledge of God, is a word that strictly speaking belongs to Theists or Deists, and not to the Christians. The head of the Christian Church is the person called Christ, but the head of the Church of the Theists, or Deists, as they are more commonly called (from Deus, the Latin word for God), is God Himself; and therefore the word "Theology" belongs to that Church which has Theos or God for its head, and not to the Christian Church which has the person called Christ for its head. Their technical word is Christianity, and they cannot agree what Christianity is.
The words revealed religion, and natural religion, also require explanation. They are both invented terms, contrived by the Church for the support of priestcraft. With respect to the first, there is no evidence of any such thing, except in the universal revelation that God has made of His power, His wisdom, His goodness, in the structure of the universe, and in all the works of creation.
We have no cause or ground from anything we behold in those works to suppose God would deal partially by mankind, and reveal knowledge to one nation and withhold it form another, and then damn them for not knowing it. The sun shines an equal quantity of light all over the world - and mankind in all ages and countries are endued with reason, and blessed with sight, to read the visible works of God in the creation, and so intelligent is this book that he that runs may read.
We admire the wisdom of the ancients, yet they had no Bibles nor books called "revelation." They cultivated the reason that God gave them, studied Him in His works, and arose to eminence.
As to the Bible, whether true or fabulous, it is a history, and history is not a revelation. If Solomon had seven hundred wives, and three hundred concubines, and if Samson slept in Delilah's lap, and she cut his hair off, the relation of those things is mere history that needed no revelation from heaven to tell it; neither does it need any revelation to tell us that Samson was a fool for his pains, and Solomon too.
As to the expressions so often used in the Bible, that the word of the Lord came to such an one, or such an one, it was the fashion of speaking in those times, like the expression used by a Quaker, that the spirit moveth him, or that used by priests, that they have a call. We ought not to be deceived by phrases because they are ancient. But if we admit the supposition that God would condescend to reveal Himself in words, we ought not to believe it would be in such idle and profligate stories as are in the Bible; and it is for this reason, among others which our reverence to God inspires, that the Deists deny that the book called the Bible is the Word of God, or that it is revealed religion.
With respect to the term natural religion, it is upon the face of it, the opposite of artificial religion, and it is impossible for any man to be certain that what is called revealed religion is not artificial.
Man has the power of making books, inventing stories of God, and calling them revelation, or the Word of God. The Koran exists as an instance that this can be done, and we must be credulous indeed to suppose that this is the only instance, and Mahomet the only impostor. The Jews could match him, and the Church of Rome could overmatch the Jews. The Mahometans believe the Koran, the Christians believe the Bible, and it is education makes all the difference.
Books, whether Bibles or Korans, carry no evidence of being the work of any other power than man. It is only that which man cannot do that carries the evidence of being the work of a superior power. Man could not invent and make a universe - he could not invent nature, for nature is of divine origin. It is the laws by which the universe is governed.
When, therefore, we look through nature up to nature's God, we are in the right road of happiness, but when we trust to books as the Word of God, and confide in them as revealed religion, we are afloat on the ocean of uncertainty, and shatter into contending factions. The term, therefore, natural religion, explains itself to be divine religion, and the term revealed religion involves in it the suspicion of being artificial.
To show the necessity of understanding the meaning of words, I will mention an instance of a minister, I believe of the Episcopalian Church of Newark, New Jersey. He wrote and published a book, and entitled it "An Antidote to Deism." An antidote to Deism must be Atheism. It has no other antidote - for what can be an antidote to the belief of a God, but the disbelief of God? Under the tuition of such pastors, what but ignorance and false information can be expected?
http://www.deism.com/paine_essay11.htm
Ursula
curious98 answered on 08/22/03:Hi Ursula,
From what I have read, Thomas Paine was a remarkable 18th century person, a freethinker and someone who has probably been neglected by most USAs historians.
Since there are parts of this paper I agree and others where Im in disagreement, Ill inject my comments in between according to my viewpoint.
The word religion is a word of forced application when used with respect to the worship of God. The root of the word is the Latin verb ligo, comes religo, to tie or bind over again, to make more fast - from religo, comes the substantive religo, which, with the addition of n makes the English substantive religion.
I AGREE, BUT THIS IS JUST A SEMANTIC CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, I WOULD SAY THAT, THROUGH THE GENERAL USE, EVERYWHERE AND THROUGH THE YEARS, OF THE WORD RELIGION, WE HAVE ALL COME TO CONSIDER IT AS AN EQUIVALENT TO FAITH. WE MAY JUST AS WELL SAY, THAT PERSON BELIEVES IN THE MOSLEM RELIGION OR THAT PERSON PROFESSES THE MOSLEM FAITH. SO RELIGION IS, I THINK, EQUIVALENT TO BELIEF OR BELIEVING.
The French use the word properly: when a woman enters a convent she is called a novitiate, that is, she is tied or bound by that oath to the performance of it. We use the word in the same kind of sense when we say we will religiously perform the promise that we make.
RIGHT, THAT IS CORRECT.
But the word, without referring to its etymology, has, in the manner it is used, no definite meaning, because it does not designate what religion a man is of. There is the religion of the Chinese, of the Tartars, of the Brahmins, of the Persians, of the Jews, of the Turks, etc.
TRUE BUT, AGAIN, A SEMANTIC QUESTION.
The word Christianity is equally as vague as the word religion. No two sectaries can agree what is it. It is lo here and lo there. The two principal sectaries, Papists and Protestants, have often cut each other's throats about it.
The Papists call the Protestants heretics, and the Protestants call the Papists idolaters. The minor sectaries have shown the same spirit of rancor, but as the civil law restrains them from blood, they content themselves with preaching damnation against each other.
UNFORTUNATELY, HE IS RIGHT HERE. WHEN THE WORD CHRISTIANITY SHOULD DEFINE THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST AS THE SON OF GOD OR AS A PROPHET, BUT IN ANY CASE IN SOMEONE WHO PREACHED WE HAVE TO LOVE EACH OTHER FOR WE, HUMAN BEINGS, ARE ALL EQUAL IN FRONT OF GOD, WE, CHRISTIANS, IN THE BEGINNING OF THE 21ST CENTURY, ARE STILL JOYOUSLY CUTTING OUR RESPECTIVE THROATS OVER INSIGNIFICANT MATTERS.
The word protestant has a positive signification in the sense it is used. It means protesting against the authority of the Pope, and this is the only article in which the Protestants agree. In every other sense, with respect to religion, the word protestant is as vague as the word Christian.
When we say an Episcopalian, a Presbyterian, a Baptist, a Quaker, we know what those persons are, and what tenets they hold; but when we say a "Christian," we know he is not a Jew nor a Mahometan, but we know not if he be a trinitarian or an anti-trinitarian, a believer in what is called the immaculate conception, or a disbeliever, a man of seven sacraments, or of two sacraments, or of none. The word "Christian" describes what a man is not, but not what he is.
WELL, YES, BUT IN ANY CASE PROTESTANT ALSO DEFINES ALL THOSE CHRISTIANS WHO ARE NOT ROMAN CATHOLICS NOR ORIENTAL ORTODOX, SO THE WORD ALSO EXPLAINS WHAT THEY ARE.
The word theology, from Theos, the Greek word for God, and meaning the study and knowledge of God, is a word that strictly speaking belongs to Theists or Deists, and not to the Christians. The head of the Christian Church is the person called Christ, but the head of the Church of the Theists, or Deists, as they are more commonly called (from Deus, the Latin word for God), is God Himself; and therefore the word "Theology" belongs to that Church which has Theos or God for its head, and not to the Christian Church which has the person called Christ for its head. Their technical word is Christianity, and they cannot agree what Christianity is.
HERE I DISAGREE. FOR AN ATHEIST HE MAY BE RIGHT. BUT CHRISTIANS SHOULD BELIEVE JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD; IN GENERAL, SOME MAY SAY THAT EARLY CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY WAS A MIXTURE OF STOIC, GNOSTIC, AND PLATONIC ELEMENTS INCONGRUOUSLY WELDED UPON THE OLD JEWISH IDEA OF A SPIRIT OF GOD OR WISDOM OF GOD WORKING IN THE SON OF GOD, INTERPRETED AS JESUS CHRIST. BUT THE FIRST CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY WAS GIVEN IN THE WORDS "I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE ' AND THE PLAIN FAITH OF THE EARLY CHURCH MEMBERS WHO WERE NOT DOCTRINAIRES WAS JUST THIS AND NOTHING MORE. JESUS IS GOD. SO PROCLAIMED THE FIRST HYMNS, SUNG BY THE EARLY CHURCH. SUCH HYMNS ARE ATTESTED BY PLINY THE YOUNGER. PAUL OF SAMOSATA HAD TO PUT A BAN UPON HYMNS EXTOLLING CHRIST AS GOD. SO IGNATIUS, WHO HAS AS YET NO TRINITARIAN FORMULA, PROCLAIMED, "ONE GOD JESUS
The words revealed religion, and natural religion, also require explanation. They are both invented terms, contrived by the Church for the support of priestcraft. With respect to the first, there is no evidence of any such thing, except in the universal revelation that God has made of His power, His wisdom, His goodness, in the structure of the universe, and in all the works of creation.
We have no cause or ground from anything we behold in those works to suppose God would deal partially by mankind, and reveal knowledge to one nation and withhold it from another, and then damn them for not knowing it. The sun shines an equal quantity of light all over the world - and mankind in all ages and countries are endued with reason, and blessed with sight, to read the visible works of God in the creation, and so intelligent is this book that he that runs may read.
I TEND TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH PAINES THOUGHT HERE. BUT IT IS NONTHELESS TRUE ALSO THAT PRIESTS FROM ALL RELIGIONS, ALL OVER THE WORLD, AND SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIMES, HAVE ALWAYS CLAIMED THEY WERE IN DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH THEIR GODS TO MAKE THEIR AUDIENCE BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAID WAS GODS WORD. THIS IS STILL VALID NOW. IF YOU ALLOW ME TO SAY SO, WHEN MR. BUSH CLAIMS THROUGH TV., THAT GOD IS BEHIND HIM AND THE USA, HE IS DOING NOTHING ELSE BUT THAT. AND, SURPRISING AS IT MAY BE, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS HAIL THAT IDEA FORGETING THERE IS BUT ONE GOD FOR ALL OF MANKIND AND GOD IS CLEARLY AND UNQUESTIONABLY OVER OUR PETTY PROBLEMS NO MATTER HOW BIG THEY MAY LOOK TO US- TO TAKE SIDES.
We admire the wisdom of the ancients, yet they had no Bibles nor books called "revelation." They cultivated the reason that God gave them, studied Him in His works, and arose to eminence.
As to the Bible, whether true or fabulous, it is a history, and history is not a revelation. If Solomon had seven hundred wives, and three hundred concubines, and if Samson slept in Delilah's lap, and she cut his hair off, the relation of those things is mere history that needed no revelation from heaven to tell it; neither does it need any revelation to tell us that Samson was a fool for his pains, and Solomon too.
As to the expressions so often used in the Bible, that the word of the Lord came to such an one, or such an one, it was the fashion of speaking in those times, like the expression used by a Quaker, that the spirit moveth him, or that used by priests, that they have a call. We ought not to be deceived by phrases because they are ancient. But if we admit the supposition that God would condescend to reveal Himself in words, we ought not to believe it would be in such idle and profligate stories as are in the Bible; and it is for this reason, among others which our reverence to God inspires, that the Deists deny that the book called the Bible is the Word of God, or that it is revealed religion.
AGAIN, THERE IS A LOT OF COMMON SENSE (REMEMBER THAT IN 1776 PAINE FORMULATED HIS IDEAS ON AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE IN HIS PAMPHLET COMMON SENSE.)
IN FACT, I MUST SAY I FULLY AGREE WITH HIM HERE, THOUGH SOME MAY BE SHOCKED AT THIS STATEMENT.
With respect to the term natural religion, it is upon the face of it, the opposite of artificial religion, and it is impossible for any man to be certain that what is called revealed religion is not artificial.
Man has the power of making books, inventing stories of God, and calling them revelation, or the Word of God. The Koran exists as an instance that this can be done, and we must be credulous indeed to suppose that this is the only instance, and Mahomet the only impostor. The Jews could match him, and the Church of Rome could overmatch the Jews. The Mahometans believe the Koran, the Christians believe the Bible, and it is education makes all the difference.
YES. HOWEVER THESE BOOKS SPREAD WORDS REVEALED OR NOT- OF WISDOM. THE PROBLEM IS WHEN THESE BOOKS ARE BEING MANIPULATED FOR THE PROFIT OF A FEW. TO-DAY, MILLIONS TEND TO CONSIDER ISLAM AS A RELIGION BEING PRONE TO PRODUCE TERRORISTS. BUT THIS IS TRUE ONLY TO THE EXTENT AS THEIR KORAN HAS BEEN REWRITTEN AND MANIPULATED BY THE DIFFERENT ULEMAS AND AYATOHLAS INTERESTED IN HAVING A PERMANENT STOCK OF SO CALLED MARTYRS WHO ARE WILLING TO DIE FOR THE SAKE OF HEAVENLY REWARDS AND THE PRIVILEGE OF SITTING AT THE RIGHT SIDE OF ALLAH.
MOHAMMED DIDNT WRITE ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
AND IF SOMEONE SHOULD SEAT AT THE RIGHT HAND OF ALLAH, IT RATHER BE MOHAMMED HIMSELF.
AS IN OUR APOSTLES CREED
WHERE WE SAY HE ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN
AND SITS AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, WHENCE HE SHALL COME TO JUDGE THE LIVING AND THE DEAD
Books, whether Bibles or Korans, carry no evidence of being the work of any other power than man. It is only that which man cannot do that carries the evidence of being the work of a superior power. Man could not invent and make a universe - he could not invent nature, for nature is of divine origin. It is the laws by which the universe is governed.
When, therefore, we look through nature up to nature's God, we are in the right road of happiness, but when we trust to books as the Word of God, and confide in them as revealed religion, we are afloat on the ocean of uncertainty, and shatter into contending factions. The term, therefore, natural religion, explains itself to be divine religion, and the term revealed religion involves in it the suspicion of being artificial.
To show the necessity of understanding the meaning of words, I will mention an instance of a minister, I believe of the Episcopalian Church of Newark, New Jersey. He wrote and published a book, and entitled it "An Antidote to Deism." An antidote to Deism must be Atheism. It has no other antidote - for what can be an antidote to the belief of a God, but the disbelief of God? Under the tuition of such pastors, what but ignorance and false information can be expected?
RIGHT! LETS NOT FORGET THE MANY TIMES MANKIND HAS FOUGHT BATTLES IN THE NAME OF GOD.
IN HIS SPEECH AT THE COUNCIL OF CLERMONT (FRANCE), IN 1095, POPE URBAN II LAUNCHED THE FIRST CRUSADE TO RECOVER PALESTINE FROM THE RULE OF THE MOSLIMS. THIS CRUSADE AND ALL THE 7 OTHERS WERE PUT UNDER THE PROTECTION OF GOD, WHILE THE MUSLIMS MADE THE SAME THING.
THE INQUISITION IS ANOTHER INSTANCE OF USING GODS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF OTHER CHRISTIANS WHO DISSENTED IN SOME ASPECTS WITH THE OFFICIAL FAITH. SUCH AS THE CATHARS THAT WERE DESTROYED, FOLLOWING ORDERS OF POPE INNOCENCE II, IN THE SOUTH OF FRANCE, BY SIMON THE MONTFORT, A FORMER CRUSADER.
AND IN THE 21TH CENTURY, SOME CATHOLICS AND SOME PROTESTANTS JOYOUSLY KILL EACH OTHER IN NORTHERN IRELAND, BOTH INVOKING GOD AS THEIR SHIELD
STUPID, ISNT IT?
REGARDS
CURIOUS98
| | Question/Answer | | ~Seraph~ asked on 08/20/03 - James 1:7 What is the significance of Jame' curious98 answered on 08/20/03:
I suppose you are referring to the significance of this passage which I am quoting below:
Quote: James 2:1-7
1 My brethren, show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. 2 For if a man with gold rings and in fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, 3 and you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "Have a seat here, please," while you say to the poor man, "Stand there," or "Sit at my feet," 4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brethren. Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you, is it not they who drag you into court? 7 Is it not they who blaspheme the honorable name which was invoked over you? Unquote:
Commentary: from the King James Bible:
When we are in the midst of trials we often feel tempted to believe we are powerless and without hope. We do not want to stay where we are, in the midst of the difficulty. We want to find a way out if we can, and we want to associate ourselves with those that we think can help. We look for people whom we think have some glory, some prestige that will rub off when we are with them. Or maybe we are hoping that they will share some of their prestige with us and that we will be lifted out of our difficulties because of our association with them. Our lives, in the middle of these trials seem without glory, without anything good in them.
It is tempting to deal with difficult circumstances by comparing ourselves with others and by using the world's standards to decide who is worth giving honor to and who is not. I might even feel some shame associated with my struggles in life. I may look at someone who seems to have it all together and to be blessed and wonder what is wrong with me. What did I do to deserve this? Am I not as good as these people who are so well off in their lives? Why does my life have to be so hard?
Or I may look at those who don't have much in the world and are obviously struggling and think, well at least I am not as bad as them? What is their problem? Why did they allow themselves to get into such a mess?
It is interesting how easy it is to judge others and size up their worth compared to us. We are tempted to do it all the time and when life is hard, the temptation is even stronger. James is warning his readers against doing just this. You could almost title this section, "Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places." The people in this congregation are honoring the rich who come to their worship services. The rich have power and authority in our world. In Biblical times people often thought that riches was a special sign of God's blessings. James' readers hope in their preferential treatment of these rich people that they will receive some blessing as well. It seems that they believe these people have to some important degree the ability to tell them who they are and to provide them with real life.
But James reminds them of the sad truth about these very people they are so eager to please. They are the ones who, in general, oppress them, drag them into court, and even "blaspheme the honorable name which was invoked over (them)." These are not people primarily interested in what is best for those James is writing to. They are not attempting to reflect to others the good truth about our heavenly Father and our real identities as His beloved children. In fact they view others in terms only of what benefits themselves. They are unable to see the truth about others because they do not know the truth about God and themselves. Why, James is asking his readers, are you seeking to honor these rich and so receive some glory or blessing from them for yourselves?
There are some among you, James tells them, that can bless you, can remind you of the wonderful reality that we know only by faith. These are the poor among you! Unfortunately, they have not yet seen the richness of these people. They are missing the blessings these people have to offer because they see them only as the world sees them. They are assuming because the poor have no earthy prestige, power, or authority, that they have nothing helpful to offer. Notice the irony: James' congregation is treating the poor in a similar way to how the rich treat them, with contempt.
How did it happen that in this congregation people were seeking for blessing from those least interested in blessing them and missing the blessing that others could give them because they didn't see any good in them? Because they forgot in their troubles that Jesus is "the Lord of glory." We struggle and so we wonder, where is the glory in this? What blessing can be had here? And then we look around us at those who seem to be blessed compared to us, who seem to "have it all together" or just have it better than we do and we are tempted to look to them to tell us who we are, to give us a share in the more glorious life they seem to have.
But Jesus is the one and only "Lord of glory." Why does James give Jesus this title here, in this passage? Because his readers need to be brought back to the right place to look for help in their times of trouble. Jesus is the one who is truly glorious, honorable, all-powerful and prestigious. And He is intimately interested in sharing His glory with us. He is making us His very own sisters and brothers. He is the God who "gives to all generously and without reproach,"(1:5) and He is the One who gives "every good endowment and every perfect gift."(1:17)
Before Jesus, we are all the same. We at best share in and reflect His glory. There is no need for distinctions when we see He is our one true source of glorious life. We can stop running after others for affirmation, stop honoring only those we think might be able to benefit us, and be open to receive blessings from God from the surprising places He desires to give them. What a freedom and a joy when we truly allow God to tell us who we are, when we allow Him to show us His presence and work in our lives right now. We often miss out on receiving fully and enjoying what He is doing in our lives, how He is sharing His glory with us, because we are looking for it--in all the wrong places, that is, any place outside of our relationship with Jesus Christ.
Is that clear enough?
Hope to have helped
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Ascah asked on 08/16/03 - Comments please "Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose
out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile
explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to
explain. It postulates the difficult to explain, and leaves it at that.
We cannot prove that there is no God, but we can safely conclude the He
is very, very improbable indeed."
[Richard Dawkins, from the _New Humanist_, the Journal
of the Rationalist Press Association, Vol 107 No 2] curious98 answered on 08/17/03:Dear Ascah,
There have always been, and there will always be, atheists, and some of them are or have been very intelligent people. So, whenever I read something from anyone of those, I limit myself to shrug my shoulders and say, this is a large world and everybody is entitled to his own opinion. And I close the subject, at that.
This fellow, whom I had never heard of, until now, seems to be a cultured guy.
Here is his biography, should you be interested in knowing a little more about him:
His father moved to Kenya from England during the Second World War to join the Allied Forces
Richard Dawkins was born in Nairobi in 1941
His family returned to England in 1949
Studied at Oxford University and graduated in 1962
Remained at Oxford to work for his doctorate with ethologist Niko Tinbergen
Assistant Professor of Zoology at the University of California at Berkeley 1967-1969
Lecturer in Zoology at Oxford University and a Fellow of New College from 1970
Published his first book, The Selfish Gene in 1976
Holder of the newly endowed Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science 1995
Elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997
Richard Dawkins is married to actress and artist Lalla Ward. She has illustrated two of his books, River out of Eden, and Climbing Mount Improbable
However, what he may be saying about GODs existence leaves me completely cold. It is true we cannot prove there is a GOD as much as Dawkins already admits he cannot prove it does not exist.
However, I have something he, obviously does not have. Which is FAITH. With that in my mind and my soul, I have all the evidence I need there is GOD.
At any rate, and sooner or later, each one of us will find out by him/herself. The trouble is that then it may be just a little to late for those we do not believe now
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | paraclete asked on 08/13/03 - Evicted? An extradinary overnight story has emerged of a Rabbi who has evicted a synagogue and rabbinical school from a building for which he had previously loaned them $11M. He optained a court order allowing him to repossess the building in Sydney Australia.
In this bizzarre case, the Rabbi of the synagogue was his brother in law.
I guess this provides us with a braod definition of usary as it appears the building has already been sold even as the former owners were moving out.
Do you think it may have only been a coincidence that this Rabbi was formally the President the Melbourne footbal club known as the demons? curious98 answered on 08/14/03:Hi Paraclete,
It is something that puzzles me how often and soon there are lots of people that seem to be looking forward to link and abnormal or unfair situation they witness or read about anywhere in the world to Religion.
If you allow me to say so this is called demagogy. That is, inducing people to believe something which is not true by wrongly using certain facts.
And I say so, because the situation you mention here has nothing to do neither with religion nor with usury.
The fact some of the most terrible terrorists right now profess the Moslem religion does not mean that religion favours terrorism nor anything like that.
The many jokes about Jews being stingy and mean do not imply Judaism preaches its followers to be so. Scots have the same reputation and they are Catholic.
I could also point out some International Banks belonging to Protestant clans which practice usury and that does not mean Protestants Christians are racketeers...
I think it would be beneficial for everybody if we all would learn to separate Religion from mankind. Men may be mean, evil if you wish, but that is just because their nature is like that NO MATTER the religion they belong too.
An Anglican bishop has openly accepted his homosexuality... Would we have to conclude that Anglicans are homosexuals by definition?
Catholic New England States were shaken not long ago by the many cases of pederasty discovered amongst their clergy. Should we determine offhand that Bostonians Catholics are pederasts in their majority?
The problems of our Society and our Times are Men's direct responsibility, not Religion's. Rather on the contrary. If we should all behave as our different religions teach us to, the World would be a better place to be in, believe me!
Incidentally, trying to legally recover a pending debt that is due is not usury either.
It's just exerting a right you have.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Ursulagertrudis asked on 08/13/03 - all scripture or only the bible? I saw a post on the Christianity board about holy scripture.
2 Timothy 3
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
Does the Bible contain messages that we could use to reasonably conclude that all 'other' scripture is phony? What about the scriptural writings of other religions who don't use the bible?
thank you curious98 answered on 08/13/03:Dear Ursula,
Since the very beginning of history of mankind scientific evidence has been always found of the need for man to believe in something, something or somebody to whom beg and pray for protection, for better crops, for rain, etc.
This need quickly evolved into a more elaborate set of principles what can be done and what cannot be done; what will satisfy the gods and what will upset them and how to placate their fury with sacrifices, etc. Certain persons, amongst each tribe, clan, group, country or culture, took upon them the chore of interpreting gods designs, orders and wishes by means of special powers they claimed to have been given by these very same gods. Most of these persons were just fakes, somewhat sharper than their fellow countrymen who, because of their superstition and inherent fear of the unknown, were willing to swallow almost anything.
Some others, though, were what we could define now as saints, who honestly tried to find out what we were doing down here, and who, intimately felt, we have been created by an incomprehensible power. Those persons spend most of their life in meditation and some of them left very valuable scriptures which we all can learn a lot from.
We Christians, and I assume you are one, are supposed to believe and follow our own Scriptures and Gospels if we are to please our own GOD, WHO by the way, IS THE SAME FOR EVERYBODY, CHRISTIAN OR WHATEVER
The Gospels, should be interpreted as the word of Jesus put in black and white by certain apostles, who may or may not have modified some of these wise words Jesus spoke to them. Yet, the Gospels should be easy to follow, if we really wanted to. What happens is that, as simple as they are, they seem more often than not impossible to assume.
As for the Sacred Books of the O.T., some believe they have been dictated literally by GOD and some do not. In any case, they represent an immense piece of work that have been compiled through centuries, by prophets, learned people, philosophers of sorts, etc.
But I do not of course, I do not recall by heart all the different books- think there is any explicit indication about not reading other scriptures.
I suppose there must appear somewhere some recommendations to avoid heathen texts, but this goes without saying. It is what I would call religious pornography.
But, scriptures like Al-Koran, or from Lao Tse, Confucius or Buda and many others are certainly literary pieces where one can learn a lot from. To start with, one can learn spirituality and humility which seem to be a somewhat forgotten subject amongst us.
In fact, as far as we Roman Catholics are concerned, since the 2nd Vatican Ecumenical Council, opened under Pope John XXIII, in 1962, all these silly preventions and prohibitions were abandoned for good.
The important thing, in my opinion, is that when you read some of these scriptures you try to distinguish the good from the irrelevant.
Incidentally, and with all due respect, and though somebody may be scandalized, I also believe that we have a lot of irrelevant matters in some of the books of the Old Testament.
Best regards
Curiosu98
| | Question/Answer | | ~Seraph~ asked on 08/12/03 - What do you think? The Religion Test
Multiple blockages of President Bush's judicial nominees constitute a ticking time bomb in the Senate, and religion is the detonator. The resolution by the Knights of Columbus signals that this is no mere Capitol Hill debate but derives from America's grass roots.
Once George W. Bush was elected, Democratic leaders vowed to prevent confirmation of all unacceptable nominations to the federal bench, preparing for the day that Supreme Court vacancies are filled. Filibusters blocking at least six nominees produced Republican frustration and now raise the question of a religious test.
On May 1 in a Senate Judiciary Committee session, Schumer raised religious questions in connection with the nomination of lawyer J. Leon Holmes as district judge from Arkansas. Holmes has the support of his state's two Democratic senators, but not Chuck Schumer. The New Yorker argued that the conservative religious views of Holmes, a devout Catholic, disqualified him because of disagreements interpreting the separation of church and state.
That was preparation for Schumer's opposition to Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor for the appellate bench. In the Judiciary Committee on June 11, Schumer said Pryor's beliefs ''are so well known, so deeply held that it's very hard to believe that they're not going to influence'' him on the bench. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, another Judiciary member, also has cited the ''deeply held beliefs'' standard.
Robert Novak
Chicago Sun-Times
8/11/03
Read the entire article at:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak11.html
curious98 answered on 08/13/03:
Not being an USA citizen I question my right to express my opinion about your domestic political problems. I normally do it only when your foreign policy affect or may affect the rest of the World, which unfortunately happens quite often.
However, I can express my opinion shared by learned persons in politics from many countries, even the USA that Religion should never interfere with Politics.
In a theoretically non-confessional country like the USA, politics may be religious or pretend to be so - because they know that may appeal to a great number of their eventual voters. They may even pray openly in public and look ecstatic while rolling their eyes and those who are listening will be ecstatic too and shed a few tears in admiration for the profound faith of the speaker.
Masses everywhere always behave the same way.
When Irans ayatollah Jomeini exhorted those mouth gaping youngsters to go and fight the Iraqi actually, their religious brothers for the glory of Allah, the swallowed it hook, line and sinker Funny thing is that, the other side of the border Iraqi ulemas following orders from Saddam Hussein- were saying exactly the same words, and those boys went to fight Iranis convinced Allah was on their side.
But that happened with theocratic governments in countries populated by very gullible people
The USA, though, is not a theocratic country that I know of (or it is?) and most of their population has gone to exclusive colleges, so they should know better than that.
When US Senators start having a blazing row on the subject of religion I wonder what is actually cooking in that wonderful country of yours. I wonder and worry so much that I start thinking this is no longer, no more, the country I used to love so much and live in
So, as I said, Politics should not mix with Religion.
Religion is Universal.
By that I mean that if we take only the 3 main monotheistic religions Christianism, Judaism and Islam- any member of any such Faiths shares his beliefs and principles with millions of others from different cultures, speaking different languages and belonging to different social status. Which gives him/her the feeling of belonging to a GOD WHO MOST CERTAINLY IS UNIVERSAL FOR HE GENEROUSLY DIED FOR US ALL.
Politics instead ARE UTTERLY SELFISH. In the best of cases, politicians care only or mostly about what is convenient for a given country and they decide their actions irrespective of whether they may harm third parties alien to that country.
It might happen that extremely and truly honest politicians might let religion lead their actions so they would profit as many terrestrial inhabitants as possible.
Yet, I wonder whether there have ever been people like that At any rate, certainly not now, not at politicians level, anyhow.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Yiddishkeit asked on 08/13/03 - Religion (and Politicians) Does a candidate's religious status have a determining factor in receiving your vote or is it based on each issue regardless of the candidate's convictions?
Bobby
curious98 answered on 08/13/03:
Hi, there,
No, it doesnt. As a matter of fact, I do not believe anymore in honest candidates as far as politics is concerned. Im strongly convinced that all those who have an interest in being elected to any political responsibility, whatsoever, have other reasons of their own which can go from the simple desire of getting drunk with power (some claim the thrill of power is stronger than any other ambition) down to the mere fact of becoming wealthier.
Consequently, if an applicant claims he/she is a confirmed old Christian that goes to church every day I will immediately believe he claims his religiosity out loud to impress his/her eventual voters. Which makes me feel very doubtful about his/her actual motives.
On the other hand, I would not mind voting for some candidate a was convinced of his/her honest desire to improve things to the best of his/her possibilities, irrespective of the fact he would be a Christian, a Jew, a Moslem or an atheist.
Why would I do so? Because if he/she would really be an honest person, his religious beliefs would not interfere with his(her sense of duty and of justice.
However, even if this jewel would exist which, as I said before, I dont think so-
there would still to be considered the people surrounding him/her and giving him/her professional advice.
And then finding a bunch of people, all of them 100% honest, right now, its an utopia in any government anywhere in the world.
Ill give you a couple of small instances.
It seems Mr. George Bush has already collected more than 200 million US$ for his 2004 campaign for re-election, and it has not even started! The names of 6 or 7 big corporations contributing with that colossal sum were also given
Why do you believe those corporations basically involved in heavy equipment and armament- are willing to risk their funds in such an investment? Because of Mr. Bushs blue eyes?
Next. Mr. Aznar, Spains Premier, joined forces with Blair and Bush against the advice of many Spaniards- in the Iraq conflict.
Do you think he did it out of sheer romanticism to help the World getting rid of a monster like Saddam Hussein? Certainly not. He did it for the sake of trying to get some personal prestige that would, eventually, help him become a firm candidate to the European Presidency, when he finishes his term of office. Unfortunately, I dont thing he is tall enough (actually, he is very short, literally) and all he is got so far is a contract Mr. Bush has very generously passed over to Spain to build submarines for Taiwan Which he (Mr. Aznar) cannot take advantage of for The Popular Republic of China has already warned him that if he goes on Spain may as well forget Spanish business relations with China, which are far more important than those we have with Taiwan.
So there, my friend, are the reasons why I dont give a damn for any politician, anywhere.
When I have to vote, I try very reluctantly to vote for the one that I believe will be less harmful for my country, although I be convinced that he/she will be once again just as rotten and brazen as the previous one.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | deborahls asked on 08/10/03 - Peace in Iraq Is it religion that is interfering with Iraq's attempts to have peace? curious98 answered on 08/11/03:
I havent read the answers youve received so that I could give you my unbiased answer to your question.
I do not think the USA have even started to grasp the core of the problem they are facing in Iraq, or if they have (which might also be possible) they are pretending they have not for some obscure (or not so obscure) reasons of their own.
I happen to know quite well that country as most of the Middle East countries- and have my own ideas about them, which are shared by learned people and Arabists all over the World, including the USA.
To start with, the ancient Semitic peoples of Iraq, the Babylonians and Assyrians, and the non-Semitic Sumerians were long ago assimilated by successive waves of immigrants. The Arab conquests of the 7th century brought about the Arabization of central and southern Iraq. A mixed population of Kurds and Arabs inhabit a transition zone between these and Iraqi Kurdistan. More than three-fourths of Iraq's people are Arabs, about a fifth are Kurds, and the remainder consists of small minority groups, such as small communities of Turks, Turkmens, and Assyrians, who survive in northern Iraq. The Lurs, a Persian-speaking group, live near the Iranian border. There is also a small number of Armenians. More than 80 percent of the people speak Arabic, the official language, and approximately 15 percent speak Kurdish. The remainder are bilingual or speak one of the minority languages such as Turkish, Turkmen, or Syriac.
After the Ba'th party came to power in July 1968, Iraq became in effect a one-party state. Nominally all governing institutions espouse the Ba'th ideology of Arab nationalism and socialism based on Islamic communal doctrines. In 1973 the Iraqi Communist Party (ICP) agreed to join a Ba'th-dominated National Progressive Front, and in 1974 a group of Kurdish political parties, including the Kurdish Democratic Party, joined. In 1979, after serious disagreements with the Ba'th leadership, the ICP left the Front, and it was subsequently proscribed by the government. In addition to the ICP, there were several other illegal opposition parties, which were kept illegal by the fierce and cruel Husseins dictatorship. On the other hand, Iraq was divided for administrative purposes into 18 muhafazat (governorates), 3 of which make up the Kurdish Autonomous Region. Each governorate has a governor, or muhafiz, appointed by the minister of the interior. The governorates are divided into 91 qadawat (districts), headed by district officers; each district is divided into nahiyat (tracts), headed by directors. Altogether there are 141 tracts in Iraq. The Kurdish Autonomous Region was formed by government decree in 1974. It contained the governorates of Dahuk, As-Sulaymaniyah, and Irbil and was governed by an elected 50-member legislative council. Towns and cities had their own municipal councils, each of which was directed by a mayor. Baghdad has special status and its own governor. Of course, on top of all them, and holding them tightly together, was Saddam Hussein.
The fundamental cultural milieu of Iraq is both Islamic and Arab and shares many of the customs and traditions of the Arab world as a whole. Within Iraq, however, there is rich cultural diversity. A variety of peoples were embraced by Iraq when it was carved out of the Ottoman Empire in 1920. These included the nomadic tribes of the arid south and west, related to the Bedouin of neighbouring states; the peasant farmers of central Iraq; the marsh dwellers of the south; the dry land cultivators of the northeast; and the mountain herders of Kurdistan. Adaptations to these contrasting environments have generated a mosaic of distinctive regional cultures manifested in folk customs, food, dress, and domestic architecture. Such regional differences are reinforced by the ethno religious contrasts between Kurds and Arabs and by the fundamental division within Islam between Shi'ites and Sunnites. During Saddams dictatorship as it so happens with dictators, like Stalin or Yugoslavias Tito- the country was strongly united by force, so these divisions though existing- were practically nonexistent but still evident in the human geography of Iraq. The Moslem majority in Iraq is Shiite, though Sunnites are also there and used to corner the Government along with the Baas Party.
Sunnite Muslims regard their sect as the mainstream and traditionalist branch of Islam, as distinguished from the minority sect, the Shi'ites. So that you understand it better, take Northern Ireland as an instance and watch how happily Catholics (Sunnites) and Protestants (Shiites) have been killing each other for decades, though hate between Sunnites and Shiites is much stronger.
All these ethnical and religious diversity as I said before was held together by Saddams cruel iron fist. Tens of thousands were simply killed because they just dared to speak out about their differences. To think as the USA Authorities so naively seem to think- that giving them the possibility to express their feelings freely was going to appease the Iraqis is just wishful thinking, as it was in Yugoslavia, which ended up in dividing the original country into several others by religions and ethnics or in the ex-Soviet Union, where happened much of the same. Iraq could also be divided in 3 major regions, i.e. Kurds, Sunnites and Shiites. But if Bush would decide to split the Kurds from northern Iraq and let them set up their own State the question is what would happen with Turkey, Iran and Syria, where there are also strong minorities of Kurds?
We have again the instance of Yugoslavia and more recently, that of Afghanistan.
The latter is more of less forgotten by international media (and by the USA) because there is no oil wells there, and the protocol to built the big oleoducts from the ex-soviet Republics, through Pakistan, into the Arab Gulf was already signed.
Iraq is another story. And remember, if you are young enough to live for another 30 years (Im not) you will see that no Arab nor Moslem countries adopt Democracy as we understand it in the Western World.
Religious fanaticism is too strong for that plus their mentality is entirely different.
When Morocco's King Mohammed VI's begun his kingdom he claimed he would make Morocco become a democratic country. He is as close to Democracy right now as Saudi Arabias King Fahd.
At least, this is my unbiased opinion, as I said before.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 08/04/03 - Definitions you have for: Cult, Religion, Mythology I am interested in what working definitions you use, or would propose, to define a CULT, a RELIGION, and a MYTHOLOGY.
many of today's religions were once thought to be cults. What is a cult? WHat distinguishes a cult from a religion? When is something no longer a religion, but a mythology?
I would like to pick your brains and try to come up with a stock "rule of thumb", and then see how well that holds up to our conceptions today.
curious98 answered on 08/10/03:
The word CULT, when applied correctly, means a formal religious veneration and/or worship, normally towards a Deity or God It can also be understood as a system of religious beliefs and rituals, also its body or adherents and, last but not least, as a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator. More commonly, though, is applied to a great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement or work.
Mythology. Is the ensemble of the myths dealing with the gods, demi-gods, and legendary heroes of a particular people, implying a popular belief or assumption that has grown up around someone or something.
As for Religion, it is applied to human beings' relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine. Religion is commonly regarded as consisting of a person's relation to God or to gods or spirits. Worship is probably the most basic element of religion, but moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are generally also constituent elements of the religious life as practiced by believers and worshipers and as commanded by religious sages and scriptures.
These are, of course, the scientific definitions for the three concepts you requested.
Other than that, you can apply them any way you wish and play with words semantically.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ETWolverine asked on 08/06/03 - I am VERY SURPRISED!!! I am quite surprised that nobody has brought up the subject of the Anglican Church's decision to create its first openly gay Bishop.
Does anyone have any opinions on this?
Does anyone have any opinions on the person who came up with the bogus 12th hour claims against him?
Any opinions at all?
Elliot curious98 answered on 08/10/03:
This is very touchy subject.
I am not in favour of homosexualism, not because of my roman catholic religion, but because I consider it anti-natural. However, I very much respect the right they have to express their sexuality, though I would very much prefer the in my opinion- unnecessary display of homosexuality some of them like to brag of in places like Amsterdam or San Francisco. Following the same trend, some heterosexuals also like to display their sexuality, and Im also against. I strongly believe that my liberty and rights stop when they may invade and/or offend my neighbours liberty and right. But this is another story.
Anyway, if Episcopalians in New Hampshire, (I think, so far are the only ones) have deemed it appropriate to accept an homosexual bishop, it is alright with me provided and as long as they do not intend to enforce the same way of thinking upon other denominations or even upon other Episcopalians of other States and/or countries.
I respect their right to act in any way the consider appropriate and consistent with their way of interpreting the Gospels, and whether they are right or wrong, eventually, will be judged by SOMEONE ELSE.
For those who are free of sin, should throw the first stone
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 08/06/03 - Approximate date/year of Christ's death Can anyone provide me with the approximate day (even Month) and year (in the Julian, ie normal) calendar system for Christ's crucifixion? Doesn't have to be exact, just within the month and year would be a great help. I have heard 32 AD, 33ad, 34 AD, etc. up to 40 ad, and I believe (but may be wrong) that March or April is the approximate time? curious98 answered on 08/10/03:Aaccording to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, quote:
"The Year of the Death of Christ
According to the Evangelists, Jesus suffered under the high priest Caiphas (A.U.C. 772-90, or A.D. 18-36), during the governorship of Pontius Pilate A.U.C. 780-90). But this leaves the time rather indefinite. Tradition, the patristic testimonies for which have been collected by Patrizi (De Evangeliis), places the death of Jesus in the fifteenth (or sixteenth) year of Tiberius, in the consulship of the Gemini, forty-two years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and twelve years before the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles. We have already seen that the fifteenth year of Tiberius is either 778 or 782, according to its computation from the beginning of Tiberius's associate or sole reign; the consulship of the Gemini (Fufius and Rubellius) fell in A.U.C. 782; the forty second year before the destruction of Jerusalem is A.D. 29, or A.U.C. 782, twelve years before the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles brings us to the same year, A.D. 29 or A.U.C. 782, since the conversion of Cornelius, which marks the opening of the Gentile missions, fell probably in A.D. 40 or 41.
D. The Day of the Death of Christ
Jesus died on Friday, the fifteenth day of Nisan. That He died on Friday is clearly stated by Mark (xv, 42), Luke (xxiii, 54), and John (xix, 31). The few writers who assign another day for Christ's death are practically lost in the multitude of authorities who place it on Friday. What is more, they do not even agree among themselves: Epiphanius, e.g., places the Crucifixion on Tuesday; Lactantius, on Saturday; Westcott, on Thursday; Cassiodorus and Gregory of Tours, not on Friday. The first three Evangelists are equally clear about the date of the Crucifixion. They place the Last Supper on the fourteenth day of Nisan, as may be seen from Matt., xxvi, 17, 20; Mark, xiv, 12 17; Luke, xxii, 7 14. Nor can there be any doubt about St. John's agreement with the Synoptic Evangelists on the question of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. The supper was held "before the festival day of the Pasch" (John, xiii, 1), i. e. on 14 Nisan, as may be seen from Matt., xxii, 7-14. Nor can there be any doubt about St. John's agreement with the Synoptic Evangelists on the question of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. The Supper was held "before the festival day of the pasch" (John, xiii, 1), i.e. on 14 Nisan, since the sacrificial day was computed according to the Roman method (Jovino, 123 sqq., 139 sqq.). Again, some disciples thought that Judas left the supper table because Jesus had said to him: "Buy those things which we have need of for the festival day: or that he should give something to the poor" (John, xiii, 29). If the Supper had been held on 13 Nisan this belief of the disciples can hardly be understood, since Judas might have made his purchases and distributed his alms on 14 Nisan; there would have been no need for his rushing into the city in the middle of the night. On the day of Christ's Crucifixion the Jews "went not into the hall, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the pasch" (John, xviii, 28). The pasch which the Jews wished to eat could not have been the paschal lamb, which was eaten on 14 Nisan, for the pollution contracted by entering the hall would have ceased at sundown, so that it would not have prevented them from sharing in the paschal supper. The pasch which the Jews had in view must have been the sacrificial offerings (Chagighah), which were called also pasch and were eaten on 15 Nisan. Hence this passage places the death of Jesus Christ on the fifteenth day of Nisan. Again, Jesus is said to have suffered and died on the "parasceve of the pasch", or simply on the "parasceve" (John, xix, 14, 31); as "parasceve" meant Friday, the expression "parasceve" denotes Friday on which the pasch happened to fall, not the before the pasch. Finally, the day following the parasceve on which Jesus died is called "a great sabbath day" (John, xix, 31), either to denote its occurrence in the paschal week or to distinguish it from the preceding pasch, or day of minor rest."
Unquote:
But it is very difficult to be precise as to Jesus Christ's death for there is very little historical evidence of Jesus' life, if we do not count the N.T., which, of course, is not accepted as a scientific document by non Christian scientists.
Best regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 08/07/03 - Why do Christian want prayer in school? Doesn't the Bible tell us to do the exact opposite?
"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret...." (Matt. 6:5-6 RSV).
Why expend all the energy to get prayer in a public place like a classroom? curious98 answered on 08/10/03:I do not believe very much in that kind of praying, but I understand that it does not hurt anybody.
Praying is an intimate exercise that you can do -and should do- whenever you feel like. And it does not have to follow, or so I believe, any given pattern.
Since praying is supposed to be trying to communicate with our Creator as we should with our very best friend - telling him not only our pains and sorrows but our happiness too, it has to be something spontaneous and natural, as it would be with that friend, and it can be done from you own home or from your car. Any place would do provided you are true and honest.
This is why I do not believe very much in mass praying. But I must admit that -as I said before- it does not hurt.
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 08/07/03 - why are so many Christians divorced? Given that the Bible tells us that only in cases of adultery can one get a divorce, how come so many Christians get divorced today? How can they flaunt their sins in the eyes of the Lord? curious98 answered on 08/10/03:You can be a Christian and wealthy provided you do not lose sight of the main virtues that should guide all men Christians or whatever i.e. love and charity. Of course, youll understand Im referring to love for mankind and the theologal virtue of charity.
We, Christians, however, are not supposed to follow the Gospels by the letter, but we ARE supposed to follow the important guidelines.
You can do a lot of good to others if you are wealthy. But that would be the exception, unfortunately. There is generally much more love and charity amongst those who have less than amongst those who have more
On the other hand, I would not place the question as you do. I would rather say why are there so many wealthy people who claim to be Christians? And the same could be said for divorcees
We like to say we are good Christians or good Moslems or good Jews. But the truth is very few can actually brag of being good and true followers of their respective religions. Ill just give you a couple of instances:
As a roman Catholic I strongly resent the amount of money wasted by the Opus Dei and the Vatican on account of the recent sanctification of the O.D.s founder Josemara Escriv de Balaguer. Had they decided to just follow a normal celebration they might have saved a few million dollars which might have more fairly shared with those who really need help. They probably thought it well but no doubt they were wrong.
Another instance is how a man like Mr. Bush dares publicly say he is in direct contact with GOD every morning because GOD is on the USAs side. He might even believe it in good faith, but he is all wet.
There is only ONE GOD and IT IS THE GOD for all mankind
Best regards
Curious98
PS.
If you have time, read this book:
"The Monk who sold his Ferrari", by Robin Sharma. I'm sure you'll understand what I'm driving at
| | Question/Answer | | graeylin asked on 08/07/03 - Why are so many Christians wealthy? Should't they be giving it up to Follow Christ? Doesn't Christ command Christians (His followers) to be frugal, even poor?
"...none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up everything he has" (Luke 14:33);
"If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor and you will have riches in heaven" (Matt. 19:21);
"Sell your possessions and give alms" (Luke 12:33);
"But give what is in your cups and plates to the poor, and everything will be clean for you" (Luke 11:41);
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt,.... But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.... for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matt. 6:19-21);
"How hardly shall they that have riches enter to the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:23);
"Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matt. 19:23-24);
A certain ruler told Jesus that he had obeyed all the commandments from his youth up. But, Jesus said, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me" (Luke 18:22, Mark 10:21)
"And having food and raiment let us be therewith content" (1 Tim. 6:8).
"who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do like-wise." (Luke 3:11)
"Give to him who asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away" (Matt. 5:42)
"and from him who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again" (Luke 6:29-30 RSV)
"And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him also have thy cloak." (Matt. 5:40)
"provide neither gold nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, not yet staves, for the workman is worthy of his meat" (Matt. 10:9-10)
curious98 answered on 08/10/03:
You can be a Christian and wealthy provided you do not lose sight of the main virtues that should guide all men Christians or whatever i.e. love and charity. Of course, youll understand Im referring to love for mankind and the theologal virtue of charity.
We, Christians, however, are not supposed to follow the Gospels by the letter, but we ARE supposed to follow the important guidelines.
You can do a lot of good to others if you are wealthy. But that would be the exception, unfortunately. There is generally much more love and charity amongst those who have less than amongst those who have more
On the other hand, I would not place the question as you do. I would rather say why are there so many wealthy people who claim to be Christians? And the same could be said for divorcees
We like to say we are good Christians or good Moslems or good Jews. But the truth is very few can actually brag of being good and true followers of their respective religions. Ill just give you a couple of instances:
As a roman Catholic I strongly resent the amount of money wasted by the Opus Dei and the Vatican on account of the recent sanctification of the O.D.s founder Josemara Escriv de Balaguer. Had they decided to just follow a normal celebration they might have saved a few million dollars which might have more fairly shared with those who really need help. They probably thought it well but no doubt they were wrong.
Another instance is how a man like Mr. Bush dares publicly say he is in direct contact with GOD every morning because GOD is on the USAs side. He might even believe it in good faith, but he is all wet.
There is only ONE GOD and IT IS THE GOD for all mankind
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | bigapplebill asked on 07/18/03 - Are you interested in true stories? Concerning my book:
WHAT KIND OF BOOK IS THIS?
Books are written in divers genres, there are novels, and documentaries, text books, and expositories, books that explain things, some to educate and some just to entertain. If I were to try to pin a label on this book, I would call it a Spiritual Book because it was written from the heart and not the mind. In it are many spiritual ingredients, poetry, art, and pathos, it is a book written to touch the soul, I hope it will play a tune on your heart strings as it has mine. This is a book dedicated to women, written for women, about women, not just any women but women who either have been, or are now engaged in the worlds oldest profession. These women, though wise beyond their years, were once children, as were we all. Down through history, there have always been such women. Why we may ask? This is the age old question this book proposes to answer. Where has society failed? Lost innocence and broken dreams can twist the path of life into a downward spiral until every last vestige of hope is dim. It is to such women that this book is tenderly dedicated. Not to condemn, but merely to comfort. Not to judge, but to plea for justice; hopefully to bring compassion and understanding to the unfortunate victims of society's wrongs, for we all must share in the failure of each succeeding generation.
DEDICATION
This book is lovingly dedicated to Pamela:
To Lesa, Angie, Mary, Francesca, Barbara, Bonnie, Tammy, Chris, Rebecca , Sabrina, Kim, and all the rest of the working girls who bravely bear society's cross; and is a tribute to the memory of Robert W. Service my favorite poet.
"She said, I will go after my lovers, who give me
my food and my water."
Hosea 2:5
I will not punish your daughters when they turn to prostitution or your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery, because the men themselves consort with harlots."
Hosea 4:14
I once heard a story about an evangelist who had a successful ministry among the prostitutes in New York City. After a year's work it was said that he had over one hundred of them born again, baptized in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. When they asked him how he did it, his reply was that, "He loved the Devil out of them!"
This book is the story of my efforts to, love the "Devil" out of the whores of Main Street.
Come on Aton,
Be open minded. Read my book. I think you will like it. It is not about what you imagine. No politics or religion just life.
Sincerly,
Bill
curious98 answered on 07/28/03:What kind of book is it and where can I buy it?
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | tomder55 asked on 07/18/03 - Australia the 51st State of the U.S. ? Hi there ! , Check this article out :
Australia primed to be yanked into US
By Tess Livingstone
16Jul03
AUSTRALIA has been urged to seriously consider becoming the 51st state of the US.
And American-born historian Dr David Mosler told a Brisbane audience yesterday there was a 20 per cent chance of Australia becoming an American state in the next 50 years.
The visiting research fellow at Adelaide University, who has lived in Australia since 1971, said the chances would increase significantly in the event of a major Al-Qaeda attack on Australia or if Indonesia became a fundamentalist Islamic republic.
Dr Mosler told the 2003 Fulbright Symposium at Griffith University yesterday that he decided Australia was "an unreformable society" after the loss of the 1999 republic referendum.
Australians, he said, had no flag of their own; a weak sense of nationhood; no prime minister in the Lodge, with John Howard living in Sydney; no national bushfire or water plans, even with the worst drought in history; and no "broad knowledge of nation in public discourse or popular culture". Australians had replaced "Empire with Yanks" after 1942, and the country retained a "quasi-colonial status".
He said Australian governments, attuned to the British, Americans, Japanese and global capital markets, had "sold off the farm" - electricity, water, ports, airports, resources - while Australians weren't offended by such "treasonous behaviour".
He said Australia's passage to American statehood would not be difficult under its Constitution.
He listed the advantages of American statehood for Australia as:
* Access to the world's best higher education system.
* Large savings on embassies.
* Being part of the world's most effective defence system.
* Merger with the world's strongest currency.
* Being part of the world's biggest economy.
* A constitution bringing a republic and a Bill of Rights.
* Fielding teams in the US national basketball, baseball and gridiron competitions.
This report appears on news.com.au.
curious98 answered on 07/28/03:
I am Spanish, but I have been a couple of times in Australia, where my brother in law have Spanish relatives who became Aussies since a long time ago.
I believe that what Mr. Mosler implies, with all due respect to him, is a bit of nonsense.
I'm sure a referendum on that subject would simply result in a categorical NO.
On the other hand, Mr. Mosler's statement also implies that 50 years from now, the US will still be the global power that it is right now. This is giving a bit too much for granted. It might or it might not. Some believe that China is the next coming force, which should not be so unbelievable, considering they are almost 6 times bigger in population than the USA.
In that case, the Aussies would have chosen a bad partner.
Last but not least, I would like to question that the USA has the world's best higher education system. They probably have the best educational structure. But their quality level is by and far lower than the one we have in Europe. Lots of students going to US Universities to get masters, come back saying that the average High School level is lower than it is here. One of my own nephews who was a medium student over here, got Cum Laude qualifications in UCLA last year!.
During the 1992 Olympic games in Barcelona, I had a chance to meet with lots of North Americans, who were surprised at what they could see of the city. Many didnt even know where it was or have never heard of it. A lot were surprised at not seeing bullfighters in the street!
Honestly, I think that Canadians are far better students than US alumnae.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | kindj asked on 07/18/03 - Concerning Anti-semetism Aton,
I certainly did not mean to imply that I believed anti-semetism to be limited to a few individuals. I am fully aware that a LOT of people have a distaste or even outright hatred of the Jewish people. That, unfortunately, includes a lot of mainstream people who call themselves "Christians." Look at the KKK, for instance, as distasteful as that might be. They hate everybody--blacks, Catholics, Jews, etc., yet still have the audacity to claim they're Christians.
My question is this: I know you've read the Bible, and are probably more an authority on what it says than half the experts on the board, so why would a Bible-believing Christian despise the Jews? First, the commandments of Jesus have the same theme: Love. Second, Paul made it perfectly clear that we are not to be "haughty" toward the Jews.
I guess I just don't see how a Christian can hate anyone, much less based simply upon heritage, and I sure don't understand why they choose to not see that Christianity is Judaism in it's fulfilled and perfected form, as Messiah has come.
DK curious98 answered on 07/28/03:
Most religions (including Islam, of course) proclaim the need to love each other as the main commandment to practice. Christianism, indeed, not only is not an exception but we have the supreme instance of love in Jesus dying in the cross to save mankind from its sins.
So, consequently, those who believe in Jesus Christ, and in HIS act of sheer love towards ALL OF US who have lived, live and will live in this planet, MUST necessarily abide by this commandment and hate NOBODY in consequence.
What simply happens is that there are very few true Christians (though they might read the GOSPELS and the BIBLE every day) as there are very few true Moslems or very few true followers of any other Religion.
Human beings are extraordinarily imperfect, selfish, egocentric, proud, arrogant and conceited.
So much so, that in the Old Testament, men felt the need to say that we were created by GOD in HIS OWN IMAGE.
As a Roman Catholic I should believe this; yet, I cannot drag myself to accept that as I consider GODS IMAGE as unconceivable and inaccessible to us.
But going back to the main subject of your worries. Unfortunately, there will always be anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Protestantism, anti-Islamism and anti-everything, for there are millions who believe they are different and better than the rest, not to speak of plain racism, where most whites consider themselves so much above the rest of colours that still look indifferently how blacks kill each other in Africa, of thousands die every year in Bangladesh because of the Monsoon floods, for instance.
By the way, Im Spanish and as white as can be.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Dathaeus asked on 07/17/03 - Personal Attacks Control Board From the time of this post, any public posting on any board or forum that attacks another user or expert personally will be sufficient for the perpetrator to receive a 1 month automatic suspension, no exceptions. The second similar transgression by the same user will be cause for permanent removal from Answerway.com. There will be no warning for either judgement and conviction, and we will not accept any pleas of innocence or circumstantial excuses.
You ARE allowed to question and debate another user's posts, but anything that goes beyond that is unacceptable, which I thought was already clear. This includes comments in public ratings. When in doubt, be safe. If any of you see this trangression in progress, report immediately using the Report Abuse link as usual.
Dathaeus curious98 answered on 07/28/03:I cannot but congratulate you for taking that decision.
I only hope that your judgement will be sound and fair.
It is about time that these forums get some kind of "cleaning". There is too much junk and lack of respect being spread over them, which is rather funny, to say the least, when apparently this happens only in the religious forums.
Which probably means we need to learn a lot about religion too.
Congratulations
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | Harmonyhill asked on 07/16/03 - More about NDE http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html
Circumstantial evidence for survival
of consciousness after death
Dr. Ken Ring published a paper in the Journal of Near-Death Studies (Summer, 1993) concerning near-death experiencers who, while out of their bodies, witness real events that occur far away from their dead body. The important aspect to this phenomenon is that these events seen far away are later verified to be true. Experiencers not only witness events from great distances, but they have been documented to hear conversations between people at the same events. Conversations such as these have also verified to be true. An even more fascinating phenomenon occurs when the experiencer actually appears in spirit to someone, usually a loved one, during their NDE and it is verified to be true by the experiencer and the loved one. It is evidence such as this, if scientifically controlled, that can provide absolute scientific proof that consciousness can exist outside of the body. A scientifically controlled NDE that can be repeated which provides such evidence would be the scientific discovery of all time. However, science does not yet have the exact tools to accomplish this. But, science is coming very, very close. This kind of evidence and others provide very strong circumstantial evidence for the survival of consciousness.
NDE Evidence for Survival Index
Visions and memories occur while brain dead
Real events are witnessed far away from their body
People born blind can see during an NDE
Children have similar NDEs as adults
People are dramatically changed by an NDE
NDEs have unusual common aspects
Scientific discoveries are brought back
People are absolutely convinced they left their body
A group of people can die and share an NDE
Some people were verifiably dead for days
Some people have successfully foreseen the future
NDEs have been occurring for thousands of years
Ancient religions support NDE concepts
Scientific studies support out-of-body aspects
Related phenomenon:
Deathbed visions Dreams Out-of-body research
After-death research Hypnosis Synchronicity
Quantum physics Reincarnation research
Psychics Remote viewing Consciousness research
"In the light of the near-death experience, death is nothing more than the illusion of separateness and finality, and those who can believe in this vision of death, like near-death experiencers themselves, lose all fear of it, for how can you fear that which does not exist?" - Dr. Ken Ring
Have any of you ever had a NDE, or do you know someone who has?
Thanks,
Hh curious98 answered on 07/16/03:No I have never had any NDE nor do I know anybody who have had it.
But I have read a lot of articles on the subject. This is not a recent discovery anyway.
I think that as far away as the Spanish Civil War (1936/1939) there was an article on a Spanish newspaper regarding a soldier who had been, apparently dead in combat, and when taken to the hospital he had sort of resuscitated.
And he claimed he had seen a tunnel at the end of which a bright and resplendent light was shining...!
And this phenomena have been happening with slight variations time and again along the years in different countries and different circumstances. So who knows what that can be?
Maybe just the waiting room of our new destination?
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Laura asked on 07/15/03 - What do you think about this? I read an article in the Readers Digest today about near death experiences. Research has shown that during times when some have reported that they saw certain things, like what doctors or nurses were doing during the period of time when they were trying to resusitate a patient, that patient couldn't have been hallucinating or having a reaction to drugs etc as by all intence and purposes, their brain was dead. The article compared a dead brain to a computer with its power source unglugged and its circuits detached..
The article focused on one woman who had brain surgery, and experienced a NDE. From what she told the doctors she saw, her experience coresponded to a point in the surgery according to surgical transcripts when there was NO brain activity.. She also described a tunnel like experience and seeing loved ones at the end of the light so to speak. The article is called "Afterlife, the scientific case for the human soul" if anyone is interested..
What do those of you who do not believe in life after life think about this subject? curious98 answered on 07/16/03:Hi Laura,
As I do believe in some sort of life (I am not able to determine whether the term is correct) after life, I'm also prone to believe in phenomena as described by you.
The hard fact is that we know nothing at all about what is waiting for us - if anything - once we pass away. This is exactly why, to a major or lesser degree, human beings have always felt the need to believe in something else beyond our temporary living down here.
Honestly, I do not know how atheists can stand the thought that once they die, that's it.
At least, in our religions there is always the hope of something better waiting for us. I prefer to believe in that, although I am not able to say whether we'll get there trhough a tunnel or what.
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | bioharmony asked on 07/16/03 - Pedophiles get away with it due to Supreme Court ruling The US Supreme Court has refused to extend the statute of limitations to allow pedophiles from many years ago to be prosecuted.
Here in South Australia the reverse has happened as a pedophile ring was running youth camps in the Anglican Church for more than forty years. The statute has been extended to before 1982.
Do you all think that the US Supreme Court is affectively protecting pedophiles from prosecution, bearing in mind that often kids cant get justice until they become adults? curious98 answered on 07/16/03:
I'm not entirely surprised bearing in mind some of the last decisions on moral problems taken by the S.C. of the USA.
However, it does surprise me that your present Government, whose President literally believes he has a red telephone connection with GOD Himself, has so little, if anything, to say in this respect.
It is very sad to me, that the United States I knew and loved shortly after WWII has been morally degrading itself to extreme limits as the country is being submerged by a wave of materialism.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | bal317 asked on 07/09/03 - Good or Evil?? I have had a very hard time with the recent death of the joined together twin ladies, from another country, that so wanted to be seperated by an operation, because they wanted to join in society like all the rest of us and live up to their own personality.
I would like to know. When we see inperfection of people, specially at birth. Does a Christian feel, it was intentional God's work, or is it due to some sort of evilness. And should these be handled by man/woman to seperate or remove if we believe God's will be done?
Is there recognition of deformed/handicapped people in the Bible, if so who, what and where.
I would like to send a prayer out for these two brave souls who tried and were defeated, but did get to have their dream.
Thank you, curious98 answered on 07/10/03:Hi,
Im a Roman Catholic and a strong believer in Jesus doctrine of love and compassion to others.
But being close to my 77 anniversary I realize I have become very rational and, much to my regret, there are things I do not buy anymore.
For instance, Im convinced that human malformations or imperfections, whether by birth or otherwise, have nothing to do with the GOD I believe in.
My GOD is just a GOD of LOVE and as such it would make no sense punishing these two innocent creatures in such a tremendous way. It would not show any LOVE for them, when Jesus, His Son, claims His Father loves all of us equally.
In my humble opinion and I know Im nobody to dare judging GODs acts the response if much simpler.
The scientific explanation of our procreation is so abundantly studied by eminent scientists that there are few things they ignore about life and death. Genetic engineering is not only cloning animal species but already attempting to create living matter out of nothing. Whether they will succeed or not it remains to be seen, though!
So what happened to these Siamese twins and to some many thousands other persons who were born with malformations of some kind, is just a physiological problem due to one reason or other which, not being a medical doctor, I am unable to report here.
In the animal world, to which we belong to though we forget it most of the time, this type of exceptional malformations are not so rare. I remember that many years ago, in a small town in Spain, a cow calved a 2 headed calf or a saw who farrowed a pig with 5 legs, the 5th on top of its head
It would be somewhat presumptuous to claim these animals had been punished for their sins wouldnt it?
I am of the opinion my GOD in HIS wonderful Magnificence and Almighty Power created the Universe and everything inside (what we know and what we do not even suspect) and with HIS incomprehensible Wisdom he also created all the laws, norms and regulations that control out Universe from the moment of its conception and on, and then, HE SET THEM FREE to act following certain patterns that we are discovering little by little, with great excitement of our part.
I think it is just a matter of tremendous self conceit on our side that most religions induce their followers (and Christianism, of course, is no exception) to believe GOD is permanently looking at us GOD probably created us (actually created life) in an act of Love but then HE also set us free to choose our destiny.
HE them created everything according to a DIVINE PLAN (of which we know nothing about, no matter what some may say) which works perfectly. However, as men is free to choose his destiny, he is also free to manipulate this perfection, and so he does without bearing in mind the consequences.
When the first atom bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki men unchained a series of natural disasters which are just the consequence of that irrational behaviour. When men destroy thousands of acres of rain forest in Brazil or in Malaysia men is simply following his meanest and callous instincts which our great grand children will certainly have to pay for. When the overwhelming fish abundance in our seas in years past is about to disappear due to the indiscriminate modern fishing procedures, and with all the other mentioned situations GOD has nothing to do, It is just a matter of man misbehaviour which we all shall pay eventually for.
GOD gave me the gift of intelligence and common sense. HE also provided us with feelings. However, we use very seldom our intelligence and quite often our feelings of hate and greediness.
But, then, we should not have to look for answers looking at GOD; we should simply look at ourselves and we shall find the answers right within us.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | kindj asked on 07/09/03 - Political system In reference to the question concerning the homosexual gentleman who opted to refuse the post:
Perhaps not all denominational systems are like this, but all that I have seen will profess to be free of politics, but behind closed doors, each of them has played the game as nastily as the DNC or GOP could ever dream of doing. Now, I know that it's not a political system as far as being a valid national political party, but the internal games and maneuvering are still there. I simply use the term "politics" to describe any processes in which the real goal has long since been forgotten, and personal and private agendas are the order of the day.
As far as the issue of homosexuality goes, hopefully you remember my stance on that. Namely, that I harbor them absolutely no ill will whatsoever; however, I do feel that the Scriptures that I adhere to prohibit that behavior. I also realize that they prohibit a lot of other behavior, much of which I still do. So please don't think me some holier-than-thou, self-righteous hypocrite, for I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that "ALL have sinned and fallen short..." It is my opinion that homosexuality is simply one of many sins, and one that is just as open to God's forgiveness upon repentance. Beyond that, the issue, like all others, is ultimately between the individual and God.
Good to see you here, my friend.
DK curious98 answered on 07/10/03:Hi,
Homosexuality is as Pete rightly says a modern term which was recently coined. Yet, whether a deviation of our natural instincts from disease, malformations or otherwise, or simply vice, this phenomenon (allow me to use this word meaning something which goes beyond what we consider normal) is as old of mankind, and references to one type or other of homosexuality can be found in old texts (Plato mentions his and Socrates interest in those handsome young boys they called ἔφηβος, and. ephēbus, in Latin (I dont know the equivalence in English).
Considering myself a pretty normal (by our standards) subject I tend to accept homosexuality whenever is the end result of a disease or of some uncontrollable instinct. I have met many like that before I retired and I have made friends with a few. I found all of them to be wonderful company and they posed no problems at all. A different thing altogether, of course, is what we have come to call the gay family mostly composed of flashers and exhibitionists. Those, frankly and honestly, I feel very sorry for them.
This said Genesis 19 is one of the most commonly cited anti-homosexual passages in the Bible. It is so frequently used that the term "Sodomite" that once referred to an inhabitant of Sodom, even became a legal term for criminal sexual acts, and now has become a derogatory synonym for a homosexual.
This story is generally thought of in terms of the fate of a single town: Sodom. But according to Deuteronomy 29:22-29, God's anger caused a number of cities to be destroyed. It involved: "...the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath."
Unfortunately, the real names of Sodom and Gomorrah were not preserved. Sodom was derived from the Hebrew word "S'dom," which means "burnt." Gomorrah is derived from the Hebrew word "'Amorah," which means "a ruined heap." These appear to be place names which were assigned after the disaster.
As you know, Genesis 19 describes how two angels visited the Canaanite city of Sodom. The city had just experienced warfare (Genesis 14:1-2) and was probably on high alert to forestall more conflict. Lot welcomed the angels into his house. They had been sent to warn him that God was displeased with the wickedness of the city's residents. God had decided to destroy a large geographical area, including the city of Sodom. All of the people from the city gathered around the house and demanded that Lot send the strangers to the mob so that they might "know" the angels. Sensing evil intent by the citizens of Sodom, Lot refused. As an alternative, he offered his two virgin daughters to be raped by the mob, if that would appease them. The offer was declined. The angels blinded some of the mob. Later, the angels urged Lot and his family to flee and to not look back. Unfortunately, Lot's wife seems to have had an inquisitive mind. She looked the wrong way, so God killed her on the spot and turned her into a pillar of salt.
(some non-Biblical versions of this episode may go as far as a nuclear destruction by enraged aliens some Russians scientists claiming there exists a considerable amount of radioactivity in the site)
The meaning of this chapter in Genesis is obvious, and does not require any detailed analysis. "Knowing" the angels means that the intent of the mob was to engage in an orgy of anal intercourse with the angels. This is why God was displeased with the inhabitants of the city and decided to destroy both the city and its inhabitants.
Some comments on this passage by Evangelical authorities:
A Mohler: "The Genesis passage is very clear, that the sin of Sodom that brought on the destruction of the city was indeed linked to homosexuality."
T. Crater: "It's a sexual gratification offer. Lot obviously understood it that way, and he offers his daughters in place of his male visitors. It's clear the mob intended to have sex with them."
Others feel that Genesis 19 is unrelated to consensual same-sex behavior. It may be related to homosexual rape which is as abhorrent as heterosexual rape.
Some comments on this passage by more liberal Christian pastors and academics:
K. Stendahl: "It's a folk story. It even has a little black humor, in the fact that he [Lot] is so anxious to protect his guests that he's willing to sacrifice his daughters. To make a biblical ethics story out of it is not very wise."
D. Bartlett: "Many of the Bible's stories don't mean what they seem on their face. Many mainstream scholars say it [the Genesis passage] is about hospitality and how to deal with the messengers of God. If it does refer to homosexual behavior, it's homosexual rape. They don't just want to lie down with them voluntarily; they want to rape the angels."
R Kimelman: "In the Mideast then, once a man has entered into your home, your responsibility to his protection is your primary moral obligation (this is still so, among many tribes in Saudi Arabia) even if it's at the expense of your own daughters. The Bible is recording a story; it is not mandating behavior."
J.K. Nelson: "If you read it literally, in its English translation, without considering its context, one could say the Bible condemns homosexual activities. When we look at the Bible and try to draw moral rules for living, but we take it out of the context of the time when they were written, we do them a great injustice."
According to the King James Version of the Bible, Genesis 19:4 says: "...the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter." (KJV)
The New International Version translates the same verse: "...All the men from every part of the city of Sodom -- both young and old -- surrounded the house." (NIV)
The KJV translation is ambiguous. The first part of the verse talks about "the men of Sodom," -- that is, a male group. The second part talks about "all the people," -- presumably men, women, and children. The NIV implies that Lot was faced by an all-male mob consisting of every man and boy in Sodom; no females of any age were in view.
The ambiguity appears to be due the phrase in the original Hebrew that is transliterated as "anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom." It can have two meanings. It can mean "men of the city, even the men of Sodom." But it can also mean "the people of the city, the people of Sodom." It appears that the KJV and NIV translators, perhaps influenced by their homophobia, chose a translation that would make the mob all male. The original Hebrew text may well have said that everyone in Sodom -- men, women and children -- were there. (Im strongly convinced that, throught the centuries, all the thousands of translations from previous translations until getting to the very original and disappeared versions of the Books, have been strongly influenced and, perhaps, conveniently modified, by the personal feelings or beliefs, or even by passing fads, of the interpreters or of those ordering the translations).
The National Gay Pentecostal Alliance comments: "This alone tells us that the traditionalists were wrong about the intent of this mob: If you are planning a homosexual orgy, you don't invite the wife and kids!"
Genesis 19:5 -- What does "ya,da" mean?
"Yada, Yada, Yada" is a phrase popularized on the Jerry Seinfeld show to imply sexual activity among unmarried persons. It may be related to the "ya,da' which appears in Genesis 19:5.
According to the King James Version of the Bible, Genesis 19:5 says: "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them." (KJV)
The New International Version translates the same verse: "They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.' "
Ya,da is a Hebrew verb which is commonly translated as "know." Its meaning is ambiguous. It appears 943 times elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). Usually it means "to know a fact." In only about a dozen of these cases does it refers to sexual activity; in these instances, the sexual meaning is always obvious. The text generally talks about a man "knowing" a woman and of her conceiving a child as a result of the "knowing." All such references involve heterosexual relationships.
It is not clear whether the mob wanted to:
Gang rape the angels. This was a common technique by which men, particularly enemies, were humiliated in that society.
Engage in consensual homosexual sex with the angels: This is the interpretation of the NIV translators. They wrote very clearly that the intent was to "have sex with them."
Interrogate them. They may have been concerned that the strangers were spies who were sent to the city to determine its defensive fortifications. "Sodom was a tiny fortress in the barren wasteland south of the Dead Sea. The only strangers that the people of Sodom ever saw were enemy tribes who wanted to destroy and take over their valuable fortress and the trade routes that it protected." As noted above, the city had just recently survived just such an attack, and may have been on high alert.
Attack them physically.
From the biblical context, it is obvious that the mood of the mob was not friendly. Lot may have assessed that they had sex on their minds, because he offered his virgin daughters as an attempt to placate the mob. Some Christian interpreters maintain that all of the men in the city were present in the mob, and that all were homosexual. Lot would certainly have know of this, for he was a resident of the city. If they were indeed all gay, then he would hardly have made a gift of his daughters to be raped (as Pete also points out); the mob would have had no sexual interest in women. Instead, he would have given the mob a gift of his two future son-in-laws. His daughters were both engaged to men from Sodom. In their culture, engagement was a binding arrangement, with many of the properties of marriage. It gave Lot authority over his future son-in-laws, much as he had control of his daughters. So he would have been able to sacrifice his daughters fiances. But he didn't. Thus, we can conclude that most or all of the men of Sodom were not gay.
Another indication that the all the men of Sodom were not gay is seen in a number of biblical references which emphasize that one of the serious sins of Sodom was their neglect of orphans and widows. If all male "Sodomites" were gay then there would be few or no marriages and thus few or no widows and orphans.
A final indication is that Lot's future sons-in-law were from Sodom and were engaged to be married to his daughters. It is apparent that they were not homosexuals.
God was apparently not critical of Lot for offering his two daughters to be raped. If he were, he might have decided to not save Lot and his family (The Biblical Yahveh of the O.T. is indeed a totally different God than JesusChrist. The former seems to be most of the time full of ire against His people. The latter, instead, is ALWAYS full of love)
The text of Genesis 19, thus, implies that God approved of Lot's behavior, even though he made an offer of his virgin daughters to be raped. This approval would have been extended to Lot's family as well. But God had a fierce anger directed at the other inhabitants of the town. He destroyed Sodom with fire and brimstone (sulfur) dumped from above. He presumably killed all of the men and Women of Sodom, as well as all the innocent children, infants, newborns, etc. who lived in the city.
It is unclear from this brief passage in Genesis whether God demolished the city because the citizens habitually:
1. Engaged in consensual homosexual acts -- a same-sex orgy in this case. This is the belief of most conservative Christians.
2. Were uncharitable and abusive to strangers, the poor, sick, and disadvantaged. In that society, a person had a very strong obligation to protect any guests in their home. Many liberal Christians believe that this is the meaning behind the story of the destruction of Sodom (I cant help but thinking, though, the punishment kind of severe, if this was the case).
3. Humiliated their visitors by engaging in "an act of sexual degradation and male rape...These are acts of violence that are committed by parties seeking to show their hatred for those they are degrading. It is not an act of love or of caring" Perhaps the sin of Sodom was the threat of mass rape.
Wanted to engage in bestiality -- having sex with a member of another species. The mob may have wanted to rape the angels; angels are not human beings; they are of a different species. This would be consistent with the quotation in Jude about the men of Sodom going after "other flesh."
A common procedure in biblical apologetics is to let the Bible interpret the Bible. Looking elsewhere in the Bible for references to Sodom may help us determine which of the four above interpretations is correct.
The interpretation of Genesis 19 as referring to a homosexual sin appears to have been created in the 11th century by the Italian ascetic St. Peter Damian. Christian theologians generally accepted this explanation until recently. In fact, the English word sodomy (sodoma in Spanish), which popularly means either homosexual or heterosexual anal intercourse, was derived from the name of the city. The term "sodomy" is also used in some ancient laws to refer to a variety of sexual behaviors in addition to heterosexual intercourse. Some of these laws are still on the books although the U.S. Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional in 2003-JUN. Opinion among most liberal and mainline Christian and Jewish theologians has now reverted to the original Christian belief that Genesis 19 refers to a lack of charity and to ill treatment of strangers. Consider:
In ancient Jewish literature, such as the Ethics of the Fathers and the Talmud, there are many references to Sodom. The phrase "middat Sdom" was used. It may be translated as "the way the people of Sodom thought". It meant a lack of charity and hospitality towards others; ignoring the needs of the poor, etc. In the Middle East, a person's survival could depend upon the charity of strangers. To help strangers was a solemn religious duty of paramount importance. See Leviticus 19:33-34 and Matthew 25:35, 38 and 43.
Isaiah 1; The entire first chapter is an utter condemnation of Judah. They are repeatedly compared with Sodom and Gomorra in their evildoing and depravity. Throughout the chapter, the Prophet lists many sins of the people: rebelling against God, lacking in knowledge, deserting the Lord, idolatry, engaging in meaningless religious ritual, being unjust and oppressive to others, being insensitive to the needs of widows and orphans, committing murder, accepting bribes, etc. There is no reference to homosexuality or to any other sexual activities at all.
Jeremiah 23:14:"...among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah." Jeremiah compares the actions of the prophets with the adultery, lying and evil of the people of Sodom. Homosexual activity is not mentioned.
Ezekeiel 16:49-50:"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." God states clearly that he destroyed Sodom's sins because of their pride, their excess of food while the poor and needy suffered; sexual activity is not even mentioned.
Matthew 10:14-15: Jesus implied that the sin of the people of Sodom was to be inhospitable to strangers.
Luke 10:7-16: This is parallel passage to the verses from Matthew.
2 Peter 6-8: Peter mentions that God destroyed the adults and children of Sodom because the former were ungodly, unprincipled and lawless.
Jude, Verse 7: Jude disagreed with Jesus and Ezekeiel; he wrote that Sodom's sins were sexual in nature. Various biblical translations of this passage in Jude describe the sin as: fornication, going after strange flesh, sexual immorality, perverted sensuality, homosexuality, lust of every kind, immoral acts and unnatural lust. It looks as if the translators were unclear of the meaning of the verse in its original Greek, and simply selected their favorite sin to attack. The original Greek is transliterated as: "sarkos heteras." This can be translated as "other flesh". Ironically, our English word "heterosexual" comes from "heteras." A likely interpretation is that the author of Jude 8 criticized the men of Sodom for wanting to engage in sexual activities with angels. Angels are considered to be a species of created beings who were different from homo sapiens. The sin of the people of Sodom would be that of bestiality. Another possibility is that the "other flesh" refers to cannibalism, which was a practice associated with early Canaanite culture.
On the other hand there are some passages which might imply that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality:
Jeremiah 49:18: Some conservative theologians have interpreted this verse as criticizing the inhabitants of Jerusalem for their sexual sins, and implying that they were like the men of Sodom.
Ezekeiel 16:50: Although the preceding verse describes Sodom's sins as pride, laziness, insensitivity to the needs of the poor, and haughtiness, verse 50 refers to the citizens of Sodom as having "committed abomination." The Hebrew word "to'ebah," translated here as "abomination," was used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) to refer to various condemned behaviors, such as Hebrews and Egyptians eating together, Hebrews eating lobster, shrimp, or snakes, sacrificing an animal in the temple which had a blemish, women wearing men's clothing (e.g. pants), a man remarrying his former wife, etc. It was also used in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to condemn same-sex activity between two males. It is not known which "abomination(s)" occurred in Sodom, but it could have been gay sex.
In Conclusion:
Various Christian groups interpret Bible passages in totally different ways, and reach mutually exclusive conclusions:
Conservative Christians: Many believe that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, like passages elsewhere in the Bible, refers to homosexuality as a forbidden, detestable practice deserving of the most serious punishment -- death. God created the institution of heterosexual marriage as the only valid relationship for humans within which sexual activity can be performed without sin.
Liberal Christians: Many believe that texts in Genesis and the rest of the Bible make it clear that Sodom was punished because of the violent, abusive, inhospitable, greedy, and unsympathetic behavior of its citizens towards visitors, widows, the poor and other disadvantaged persons. Genesis 19 may condemn homosexual rape simply because it is rape. It would then be consistent with Deuteronomy 22:25-29 which condemns heterosexual rape. The passage does not impact on consensual homosexual activities between consenting adults, and is totally unrelated to loving, committed, same-sex relationships, civil unions and marriages.
Most religious liberals are faced with the inescapable and rather surprising conclusion that the condemned activities in Sodom probably had nothing to do with sodomy. As one Christian editor wrote: "To suggest that Sodom and Gomorra is about homosexual sex is an analysis of about as much worth as suggesting that the story of Jonah and the whale is a treatise on fishing."
There is ironic aspect to this passage that is rarely discussed: God seems to condemn the citizens for insensitive treatment and harassment of others. But, this is the very passage that many conservative and some mainline Christian faith groups use to attack gays and lesbians.
The real story of Sodom may well have involved a mob driven by fear and hatred, attempting to humiliate, by rape, people that they do not know. Ironically, the Sodom situation has many parallels to gay-bashing today, with members of the public trying to assault gay and lesbian strangers who seek shelter from the mob.
In any case, I think that now that we have reached such a degree of civilization (have we?) we should be tolerant and understanding with those that do not believe as we do, as otherwise, we fail to accomplish the very commandment of Loving each other
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | kindj asked on 07/09/03 - Calling all agnostics and atheists! I did this a year or more ago on another board, so to some of you, this may look familiar.
I am a Christian, and am searching for a few things. I wish to be part of establishing a better relationship between Christians and non-believers, and helping other Christians do the same. All the bitterness, hatred, and animosity have accomplished nothing for either side, and have actually damaged the Christian mission. Notice that I am addressing non-believers. I am not seeking at this time (although may later, even though I'm sure good work has already been done) to gather opinions from those who practice other faiths; rather, simply those who claim no particular faith.
With the preliminaries out of the way, what I am wondering still is this:
What are the main gripes (for lack of a better word) that you have, if any, against Christians? NOT the faith itself, but against the people you've met that practice it? If none, great. But if you have some, I'd really like to hear them. I had some excellent input the first time I did this, but am still looking for more.
I must also tell you that I am NOT trying to start a conflict here. If one starts, I promise it will not be participated in by me. I am simply looking for information to use in educating and training fellow Christians. Call it PR if you like. That's not to say that if you would like to discuss the Christian faith that I wouldn't do so. I'd love the chance, even though most of you could probably argue me into the ground.
Anyway, there it is. Any takers?
DK curious98 answered on 07/09/03:
Hi Kindj
I applaud your intention towards creating a sort of ecumenism forum. In fact, a few days ago, in this site, I proposed the very same thing to someone who claimed to be a Moslem.
The problem, though, is that unfortunately, lack of understanding, and actual hate against Christianism emanates from inside some of the different Christian confessions, who are all but very willing to condemn to eternal doom those other Christians that DO NOT TOTALLY SHARE their own beliefs. One instance, the JWs. Not too many days ago, I was stopped in the street by a couple of them who, very nicely, tried to convince me of joining their church. I told them I was a Christian Roman Catholic and that I believed in the same GOD as they supposedly did and, though I could spot many defects and problems in my own Church I saw no reason at all to change from one club to the other being the Big Boss was the same one for both confessions. It was then when, very seriously, one of them told me that Roman Catholics particularly were ALL most certainly doomed, and that the only way to salvation was to join the Jehovah Witnesses before it was too late.
This is the type of fundamentalism and bigotry that is doing a tremendous harm to our Religion, much more than what other Religions or atheists may have to say. And you can find it all over the place from Roman Catholics all the way to Evangelists. The only Christians that seem to be uninterested in all this schism are probably the Oriental or Eastern Orthodox Churches, possibly because they consider themselves the more authentic ones.
So, in my opinion, before trying to debate Christianism with non-Christians we should try to clean a little the extremely polluted air we Christians breathe.
Dont you think so?
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Harmonyhill asked on 07/07/03 - Religion/Ethics Hello,
If you have religion, do you need ethics too? Or would your religious beliefs cover your ethics?
Thanks,
Harmonyhill curious98 answered on 07/07/03:Dear Harmony Bill,
I think you know the answer to your question as well as I think do. As Christians our religion sets up the basics of our ethical behaviour, which is, therefore conditioned to our beliefs.
But not all religious systems are alike nor ethics are alike all over the world. Again, as Christians those who believe in ethics we do not share are, in our opinion, all wrong, which does not preclude the fact they may rightly think it is us who are wrong
Sometimes, I believe our Christian ethics are based on a double standard attitude.
For instance, our respective Governments USA, G.B. and Spain determined the Iraq War was legitimate and they supported their decision with the threat of massive destruction weapons hidden somewhere in Iraq, which had to be found before they could destroy all of us By the way, right now there are serious suspicions that was just an invented tale, to justify the war. However, the fact remains that the 3 governments considered they were acting in an ethical way. But the millions of people that manifested themselves against that war thought it was immoral. Who was right, the majority or the minority.
Anyway, there is a lot to debate on the subject and this is why I am copying an excellent paper on this debatable theme by Michael Shermer, director of the Skeptic Magazine.
"Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience, but nothing is a greater cause of suffering. And behold, instead of giving a firm foundation for setting the conscience of man at rest for ever, Thou didst choose all that is exceptional, vague and enigmatic....Instead of taking possession of man's freedom, Thou didst increase it, and burdened the spiritual kingdom of mankind with its sufferings for ever." -- Fyodor Dostoevsky, "The Grand Inquisitor," Brothers Karamozov, Book V, Chapter 5.
On Friday, May 24, 1996, the 103rd Archbishop of Canterbury (starting with St. Augustine in 597), spiritual leader of over 70 million Anglicans, told 425 civic, business, and religious leaders at the Los Angeles Biltmore Hotel that "secularism" is the cause of much of the West's moral woes. Paradoxically, this was followed by a litany of "unspeakable atrocities against innocent people" committed in the name of religion, as in Bosnia and against the Christian minority in Islamic Sudan. The Archbishop-the Most Reverend George L. Carey-told his audience that only faith can stop these atrocities (Stammer, p. 1):
How else can momentum be found for combating the worst excesses of poverty and inequality around the world? How else can we find the self-restraint in the interest of future generations in order to save our environment? How else can we combat the malignant power of exclusive nationalism and racism? All this requires the dynamic power of commitment, faith and love. The privatized morality of "what works for me" will not do.
Agreed, what-works-for-me morality will not do. But is this all there is to secular morality? And are these our only choices? Is it true, as Dostoevky mused in Brothers Karamozov, that if God doesn't exist, anything goes? Can we lead moral lives without recourse to the hereafter and a spiritual being who may or may not exist? Can we construct an ethical system without religion?
The Sphinx was a mythical creature who delighted in posing seemingly insoluble riddles. I use the term "Secular Sphinx" to describe three longstanding ethical riddles that must be solved if we are to consider a secular alternative to religion-based ethics:
1. The Riddle of Ethical Decisions-How Are We To Act?
2. The Riddle of Ethical Nature-Are We Moral, Immoral, or Amoral?
3. The Riddle of Ethical Freedom-How Can We Make Moral Choices in a Determined Universe?
1. THE RIDDLE OF ETHICAL DECISIONS-HOW ARE WE TO ACT?
As soon as one makes an ethical decision, that is, an action that is deemed right or wrong, it implies that there is a standard of right versus wrong that can be applied in other situations. But if so, why isn't that same standard obvious and in effect all around the world? Instead, observation reveals many such systems, most of which claim to be "the truth." But if there is no absolute ethical standard and instead only relative standards, can we speak of right and wrong? An action may be wise or unwise, prudent or imprudent, profitable or unprofitable. But is that the same as right or wrong? One solution to the riddle may be found in a middle way between Absolute Ethics and Relative Ethics-Provisional Ethics.
Absolute Ethics
When I was 17 I became a born-again Christian, not for any rational or noble reason, but because most of my buddies were doing it, in particular my best friend George Oakley, whose sister I liked. Still, shallow, trivial reasons can become entrenched serious ones, and I really got into the spirit of the movement, going to Bible-study classes, "witnessing" to non-Christians (trying to convert them), and even enrolling at Pepperdine University to major in theology (later changed to psychology for practical reasons like getting a job).
My first inkling of a problem with absolute ethical systems came soon after my conversion. My friend Frank was really religious so I figured he would be delighted at my new-found faith. He wasn't. In fact, he scolded me for choosing the wrong Christian faith and told me I was still doomed if I didn't switch to his church: Jehovah's Witnesses. The more churches and faiths I examined, the more aware I became of the fact that they all think they alone are right and everyone else is wrong.
Most ethical systems are absolute and most absolute systems are derived from religious sources. In the last 2,000 years, for example, there have been approximately 28,000 different Christian denominations. Today alone there are approximately 1,500 different Christian sects, all of which claim sole possession of the absolute truth. They cannot all be right.
Most absolute ethical systems are based on a simplistic reward and punishment, heaven and hell duality, a very childlike morality, as Isaac Asimov observed (1989, p. 6):
They assume that human beings have no feeling about what is right and wrong. Is the only reason you are virtuous because that's your ticket to heaven? Is the only reason you don't beat your children to death because you don't want to go to hell? It seems to me that it's insulting to human beings to imply that only a system of rewards and punishments can keep you a decent human being. Isn't it conceivable that a person wants to be a decent human being because that way he feels better? Because that way the world is better?
Obviously the reward-punishment system doesn't work anyway, as the Archbishop of Canterbury observed, since even the most religious of societies have an abundance of crime, violence, and sin of all sorts. As Laura Schlessinger notes in her book about the abdication of morality, in response to a Christian having an adulterous affair but unable to articulate why this was bad (other than to say it was "a sin"): "no one these days is worried about bolts of lightning and everlasting fire and brimstone, so calling a behavior a sin, in and of itself, just doesn't seem to impress" (1996, p. 33). We need more precise definitions.
Absolute Ethics, then, may be defined as an inflexible set of rules for right and wrong human behavior derived from God, the Bible, the Koran, the State, Nature, or some canon of ethics or philosophy. The problem with all systems of absolute moralities is that they set themselves up to be the final arbiters of truth, creating two types of people: Good and Bad, Right and Wrong, True Believers and Heretics.
This was expressed by that sage philosopher, Maxwell Smart, who observed: "Don't be silly, 99. We have to shoot, kill, and destroy. We represent everything that's wholesome and good in the world." Sadly, such rhetoric is not restricted to silly television shows. Richard Nixon used this rhetoric for political gain (in Askenasy, 1978): "It may seem melodramatic to say that the U.S. and Russia represent Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, God and the Devil. But if we think of it that way it helps to clarify our perspective of the world struggle." In a similar vein anti-abortionist Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, clearly summarized the absolute problem with absolute ethics: "Let a wave of intolerance wash over you.Yes, hate is good.Our goal is a Christian nation.We are called by God to conquer this country.We don't want pluralism" (in Sagan, 1995, p. 430).
One might argue that a few bad apples don't spoil the bunch. Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative, for example, is a reasonable (but flawed) attempt at a rational absolute ethics. For Kant, if you want to judge the rightness or wrongness of an action: "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" (1785, p. 268). Would we ever want to universalize lying, stealing, or adultery? Of course not. That would put an end to contracts, property, and marriage. But we do lie and often there are perfectly rational reasons to do so.
The problem with absolute ethics is that since virtually everyone claims he knows what constitutes right versus wrong action, and since virtually all moral systems differ from all others to a greater or lesser extent, then there is no such thing as a rationally demonstrable absolute ethics.
Relative Ethics
After graduating from Pepperdine University and studying evolution and ethology at California State University, Fullerton (as part of a graduate psychology program), I realized the limitations of Christianity and other faiths, and turned to science and philosophy for answers. In the process I tried out a number of what might be considered relative ethical systems. Existentialism was appealing to me because of its emphasis on freedom and individual responsibility. In fact, I found it to be one of the most optimistic ethical philosophies I had encountered but discovered I was in a rather small minority in that regard. Most existentialists seemed to agree with one of the philosophy's founders, Albert Camus, when he wrote: "There is but one serious philosophical problem. That is suicide. Why stay alive in a meaningless universe?" Suicide may be painless, as the M*A*S*H theme song goes, but it brings on one major change I find unappealing.
After existentialism I tried Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism-the principle of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Specifically I found his quantitative utilitarianism attractive since it attempted a type of hedonic calculus where one can quantify ethical decisions. But by "hedonism" Bentham did not mean a simple pleasure principle where, in the vernacular, "if it feels good do it." He specified "seven circumstances" by which "the value of a pleasure or a pain is considered," including (1789, p. 30):
1. Purity - "The chance it has of not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind."
2. Intensity - How intense is the pleasure?
3. Propinquity - How near in place or time is the pleasure?
4. Certainty - How certain is the pleasure?
5. Fecundity - "The chance it has of being followed by sensations of the same kind."
6. Extent - "The number of persons to whom it extends; or (in other words) who are affected by it."
7. Duration - How long will the pleasure last?
For fun I used to use the above table in my psychology course to draw the students into the problems of assigning actual numbers to these seven values (the boxes were blank), in making a rather simple choice between spending money on a good meal, a good date (with the possibility but not certainty of sex), or a good book. The values above are my own (I was single at the time).
According to Bentham, once the figures are assigned, "Sum up all the values of all the pleasures on the one side, and those of all the pains on the other. The balance, if it be on the side of pleasure, will give the good tendency of the act upon the whole, with respect to the interests of that individual person; if on the side of pain, the bad tendency of it upon the whole." So the book wins out over the meal or date. But this is just my opinion. To apply the principle to society as a whole, Bentham says (p. 31):
Take an account of the number of persons whose interests appear to be concerned; and repeat the above process with respect to each. Sum up the numbers expressive of the degrees of good tendency, which the act has, with respect to each individual, in regard to whom the tendency of it is good upon the whole: do this again with respect to each individual, in regard to whom the tendency of it is good upon the whole: do this again with respect to each individual, in regard to whom the tendency of it is bad upon the whole. Take the balance; which, if on the side of pleasure, will give the general good tendency of the act, with respect to the total number or community of individuals concerned; if on the side of pain, the general evil tendency, with respect to the same community.
Dismissing the obvious impossibility of doing this on a daily basis and being able to even leave the house, it is obvious that you can "cook" the numbers to make it come out almost any way you like. Doing this on a societal level is simply impossible.
These are just two of the many interesting attempts to construct a relative ethical system, defined as a flexible set of rules for right and wrong human action derived from how the situation is defined individually or socially. The problem with relative ethics is that one can justify almost any behavior, implying that all moral actions-from self-sacrifice to human sacrifice-are equal. On a practical level no one believes this.
Provisional Ethics
In thinking about which ethical system to choose I asked myself this question: how do we know something is true or right? In science we accumulate evidence and assign a probability of truth to a claim. Claims are not true or false, right or wrong in an absolute sense. They are probably true or probably false, probably right or probably wrong. Yet probabilities can be so high or so low that we can act as if they are true or false. Stephen Jay Gould said it best (1983, p. 25): "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'" That is, scientific facts are conclusions confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer our provisional agreement, as with heliocentrism and evolution. Moral choices in a provisional ethical system might be considered analogous to scientific "facts" in being provisionally true or false, right or wrong, moral or immoral:
In Provisional Ethics, "moral" or "immoral" means confirmed and justified to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer provisional assent.
That is, in Provisional Ethics it would be reasonable for us to offer our provisional agreement that an action is moral or immoral if the evidence for and the justification of the action is overwhelming. It remains provisional because, as in science, the evidence and justification might change. And, obviously, some moral principles have less evidence and justification for them than others, and therefore they are more provisional and more personal.
What I'm getting at here is that there are moral principles by which we can construct a secular ethical system. These principles are not absolute (no exceptions), nor are they relative (anything goes). They are provisional-true for most people in most circumstances most of the time. Whenever possible moral questions should be subjected to scientific and rational scrutiny, much as nature's questions are subjected to scientific and rational scrutiny. But can morality become a science?
To reverse the question, is there morality in science? Of course. If you cheat, lie, steal and get caught, the consequences are devastating, but scientific murder is unheard of. I know of no instance when one scientist was murdered by another scientist. Scientists have been murdered in the past, but not by fellow scientists. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by the church for his heretical beliefs in the Copernican system, the plurality of worlds and life, and the infinity of the cosmos. The mathematician Evariste Galois was killed at the age of 20 in a duel over "an infamous coquette"-love and jealousy, not science, did him in.
Rarely does anyone go to jail over scientific fraud, but when someone commits a significant breach of conduct he or she is usually ostracized. Offenders may lose their their job, and therefore their livelihood. There is even a government Office of Research Integrity that has become the moral watchdog of science (see Kevles, 1996). The process known as shunning works quite well as a moral guide or deterrent.
The test of an ethical system, however, is not in theory but in practice. Let's see how Provisional Ethics might work for two ethical questions: abortion and adultery.
1. Abortion. The pro-choice-pro-life debate, leaving aside religious and political foundations, should be able to be resolved through reason and science. First of all, we have to leave God and religion out of the equation since this is secular ethics. Second, we have to leave "rights" out of the equation because getting into a debate about the rights of the mother versus the rights of the fetus cannot be resolved. A right is a type of political contract between individuals and the group in which they live. Rights are conferred on individuals by political bodies. They are not discovered in nature. As Jeremy Bentham said (1843):
[Natural rights is] confusion, nonsense, and the nonsense, as usual, dangerous nonsense. The word can scarcely be said to have a meaning. Natural rights is simple nonsense. Natural and imprescriptible rights rhetorical nonsense. Nonsense upon stilts.
That leaves us with this basic question about abortion: Is it murder? If not, then abortion is moral. If so, then abortion is immoral. This is a relatively simple question that science may help us answer by answering this question: When does life begin? Now we're getting somewheresort of.
In the October 16, 1995 issue of The New Republic, feminist author Naomi Wolf shocked the pro-choice movement by claiming that the fetus at all stages is a human individual and therefore abortion is immoral (though she still supports free choice). The Los Angeles Times (Rivenburg, 1996) called this the most important article on abortion in years. In the 6,700 word essay, however, there is not a single scientific fact presented by Wolf in support of her claim for fetal human individuality. Instead we get references to "lapel pins with the little feet," "detailed drawings of the fetus" in What to Expect When You're Expecting, and "Mozart for your belly; framed sonogram photos; home fetal-heartbeat stethoscopes." With similar shortcomings, in a 1995 PBS Firing Line debate, Arianna Huffington claimed that scientists have proved that life begins at conception. Baloney.
The problem with such questions as "origins" is that with life, as with historical events, there is no single-point origin. Life is a continuum from sperm and egg, to zygote, to multicellular entity, to embryo, to fetus, to newborn infant. At no time did life "begin" because it never ended, and surely no one would call menstruation or male masturbation murder. (See Amici Curiae Brief, 1988.)
We might pose the question this way: when does a fetus become a human individual? Obviously neither egg nor sperm is a human individual, nor is the zygote, since it might split to become twins, or develop into less than one individual and naturally abort. Not after two weeks, since twinning can still occur. Nor by eight weeks-while there are recognizable human features such as the face, hands, and feet, neuronal synaptic connections are still being made. Only after eight weeks do embryos begin to show primitive response movements. Between eight and 24 weeks, however, the organism could not exist on its own (Pleasure, et al., 1984; Milner and Beard, 1984; Koops, et al., 1982).
There is provisional assent amongst most physicians and scientists-i.e., it is a "fact"-that fetus viability is 24 weeks of gestation. That is six months. It appears that it cannot be earlier because critical organs-lungs and kidneys-do not mature before that time. For example, air sac development sufficient for gas exchange does not occur until at least 23 weeks after gestation, and often later (Beddis, et al., 1979).
Additionally, not until after 28 weeks of gestation does the fetus develop sufficient neocortical complexity to exhibit some of the cognitive capacities typically found in full-term newborns. Fetus EEG recordings with the characteristics of an adult EEG appear at approximately 30 weeks. In other words, the capacity for human thought cannot exist until 28 to 30 weeks of gestation (Flower, 1989; Purpura, 1975; Molliver, et al., 1973). Of all the characteristics used to define what it means to be "human," the capacity to think is provisionally agreed upon by most scientists to be the most important (see Sagan and Druyan, 1992, for a good discussion of the terms of this debate).
Since virtually no abortions are performed after the 2nd trimester, and before the end of the 2nd trimester there is no scientific evidence that the fetus is a thinking human individual, by this definition abortion is not murder. If it is not murder, then it is not immoral, from a social point of view. That is, the state should not prevent women from choosing abortion. If a woman says she believes for personal reasons that abortion would be an immoral act for her, even though we might not agree on a scientific basis, we should have no qualms with her decision.
From a Provisional Ethics perspective it would be reasonable for us to offer our provisional agreement that abortions within the first two trimesters are not immoral because the evidence confirms that during this time the fetus is not a human individual and thus the action of aborting the fetus is justified if so desired by the mother.
2. Adultery. Let me introduce this subject by making a public confession of what some might consider to be a rather serious breach of ethics. Last month I committed adulteryin my mind.
Was this an immoral act? How significant is the difference between committing adultery in the mind versus in a hotel room? Can such mental musings lead to actual physical acts? Like marijuana leading to heroin, might lusting in your mind lead to lusting in your body (and thus be considered immoral)? Why did I commit adultery in my mind? Is it from my evolutionary past where my ancestors for millions of years lusted in their minds? Or is it from watching too many steamy Sharon Stone movies? (It wasn't Sharon Stone, by the way.) I've never committed physical adultery, but why not if I fantasize about it? Is it because I'm afraid of incurring the wrath of God in the next life, or the wrath of my wife in this one? Let's see how Provisional Ethics might handle both mental and physical adultery.
First of all, mental adultery is certainly not immoral since studies show that "autoeroticism" (as Havelock Ellis called it) is one of the most ubiquitous of all sexual activities. As an example of the difference between evolutionary ethics and theological ethics, a medieval penitential assigned the following penances for erotic fantasies: 25 days for a deacon, 30 days for a monk, 40 days for a priest, and 50 days for a bishop. (I guess the Pope is not only infallible, but also unimaginative.)
How can something so harmless to others and yet so fulfilling and fun to the individual be immoral? Science sees it rather differently. Erotic fantasies may serve a variety of personal functions, including the fact that sometimes it's a lot easier to just fantasize about a sexual encounter than it is to actually invest the time, energy, money, and risk of rejection, failure, disease, or an unsatisfactory experience.
I don't know if sexual fantasy itself evolved, providing some selective advantage to individuals who had them versus those who did not. But certainly the ability to fantasize did evolve as a wonderful by-product of a large cerebral cortex, and no doubt this ability did provide a selective advantage (imagining the positive outcome of a hunt, or the negative consequences of a fight). Sexual fantasies are probably a contingent free-ride that goes with having a large brain.
From a Provisional Ethics perspective, it would be reasonable for us to offer our provisional agreement that sexual fantasies are not immoral because the evidence confirms that almost everyone has them, they provide numerous benefits, they harm no one else, and thus they are justified if so desired by the individual.
Actual physical adultery, on the other hand, is another matter. Its evolutionary benefits are obvious. For the male, depositing one's genes in more places increases the probability of this form of genetic immortality. For the female, it is a chance to trade up for better genes and higher social status.
Its evolutionary hazards are equally obvious. For the male, getting caught by the adulterous woman's husband can be extremely dangerous. And while getting caught by one's own wife is not likely to result in death, it can result in loss of contact with children, loss of family and security, and risk of sexual retaliation, thus decreasing the odds of one's mate bearing one's own offspring. For the female, getting caught by the adulterous man's wife involves little physical risk, but getting caught by one's own husband can and often does lead to extreme physical abuse and sometimes death.
Beyond the evolutionary implications, there are the social-cultural problems, such as the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, extended family rejection, social ostracization, and the like. It would be difficult to justify adultery as a moral act from either an evolutionary perspective or a cultural one. (Extreme exceptions come to mind, of course, such as a woman whose husband is in a long-term coma and she finds solace and sex with another man.)
From a Provisional Ethics perspective, most moral actors-especially those who are involved such as one's mate, the mate of the adulterous partner, the families of both adulterous parties, the community, and the society-would likely offer their provisional agreement that adultery is an immoral act for most people in most circumstances most of the time because the evidence confirms that adultery causes considerably more harm than good and so cannot be justified.
A very simple experiment to test this claim is to ask the potentially affected party. I once asked my wife, Kim, how she would feel if I had sex with another woman. She responded: "How would you like it if I had sex with another man?" That ended the discussion. Provisional Ethics can be as simple as asking the other moral agent, another variation on the golden rule of do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
2. THE RIDDLE OF ETHICAL NATURE --
ARE WE MORAL, IMMORAL, OR AMORAL?
In the late 1830s, in his musings about the implications for his budding evolutionary hypothesis, Darwin penned this in his M Notebook: "He who understands baboon would do more towards metaphysics than Locke." And: "Our descent, then is the origin of our evil passions!! -- The Devil under form of Baboon is our grandfather!" (in Barrett, 1974, pp. 57, 63).
Darwin was the first evolutionary psychologist and ethicist. Herbert Spencer soon followed with his 1879 The Data of Ethics, in which he enthusiastically applied Darwinian selection to moral choices. Thomas Huxley (1899) and Alfred Russel Wallace (1870), however, were skeptical about how far evolutionary theory can extend into the realm of ethics, questioning what selective advantage a system of ethics would have conferred on an individual or species.
By World War I the study of evolutionary ethics was in serious decline, along with Darwinism itself. Between the wars it was revised by Julian Huxley & C. H. Waddington in conjunction with the modern synthesis, but it died again after World War II, in part as a result of the extreme anti-hereditarian view in psychology and the social sciences (an understandable response to Nazi eugenics and the Holocaust).
There it lay dormant for 30 years until, in 1975, Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson published his 700-page magnum opus, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Ironically, only the final chapter deals with humans ("Man: From Sociobiology to Sociology"), and only in one short section, barely two pages, does the reader encounter ethics. But what is said, when it is said, and who is doing the saying matters in science, and here is what Wilson said: "Scientists and humanists should consider together the possibility that the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized."
Like Darwin's single line at the end of The Origin of Species-"light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history"-Wilson's one-liner fired a shot heard 'round the intellectual world. Considerable praise, but considerably more pain was heaped upon Wilson, including a pitcher of water dumped on his head at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting in the Sheraton Park Hotel in Washington, D.C. in 1978. Stephen Jay Gould remonstrated the demonstrators, telling them their actions were what Lenin had dismissively called "Infantile Leftism," while anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon tried to eject them from the speaker's dais. Wilson let his pen do the talking, responding later that year with On Human Nature (winning a Pulitzer Prize in the process), in which he succinctly threw down the gauntlet (p. 7):
Above all, for our own physical well-being if nothing else, ethical philosophy must not be left in the hands of the merely wise. Although human progress can be achieved by intuition and force of will, only hard-won empirical knowledge of our biological nature will allow us to make optimum choices among the competing criteria of progress.
The gauntlet was taken up by Donald Symons (1979), Robert Axelrod (1984), Robert Trivers (1985), Michael Ruse (1986), Robert Richards (1987), Richard Alexander (1987), John Maynard Smith (1992), James Q. Wilson (1993), W. D. Hamilton (1996), Frans De Waal (1996), and many others. (See Robert Wright's 1994 The Moral Animal for an engaging history of evolutionary ethics; Paul Farber's 1994 The Temptations of Evolutionary Ethics for a scholarly history and critique; Philip Kitcher's 1995 Vaulting Ambition for a strong critique; and Paul Thompson's 1995 Issues in Evolutionary Ethics for a collection of the most important works in the field, pro and con).
Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene (1976) was especially influential in getting people to think about applying science and evolution to human behavior, including moral behavior. To the concept of genes as carriers of information, Dawkins added "memes," cultural carriers of information that go beyond biology yet act much like genes in terms of propagation, selection, and mutation. He even treated religious ideas as virus memes that, like computer viruses, invade our mental software, destroying our programs for rational thought and behavior.
A Bio-Cultural Evolutionary Model of Ethics
It is important to note that Dawkins' memes are not biological. In fact, in many places, especially with regard to religion, Dawkins is arguing that memes contradict genes. Clearly there is a distinction between genes and memes, biology and society, evolutionary history and cultural history. When did that shift come about?
Just as life does not "begin" at a single point, neither does society, culture, or morality. They evolved over eons in the paleolithic environment where hunting and gathering was the way of life for small bands of hominids eking out a living and struggling to survive in a hostile environment filled with predators, parasites, diseases, accidents, and nature's quirks. Morality evolved in these small groups as individuals cooperated with one another to meet their needs (see Irons, this issue). Individuals belonged to families, families to extended families, extended families to communities, and, more recently, communities to societies. This natural progression, which is now in its latest evolutionary stages of perceiving societies as part of the species, and the species as part of the biosphere, is illustrated in the Bio-Cultural Evolutionary (BCE) Pyramid opposite.
I designed the BCE Pyramid out of a hybrid of Maslow's famous hierarchy of needs and Singer's expanding circle of ethical sentiment. It depicts the 1.5 million years over which our ethical behavior evolved in our ancestral environment under primarily biogenetic control, and the transition about 35,000 years ago when sociocultural factors increasingly assumed control in shaping our ethical behavior. Keep in mind that this is a continuous process. There was no point at which an Upper Paleolithic Moses descended from a glacier-covered mountain and proclaimed to his fellow Cro-Magnons, "I've just invented culture. We no longer have to obey our genes like those stupid Neanderthals. From now on we obey THE LAW!"
The semi-permeable "evolutionary transitional boundary" divides time and dominant source of influence, where the individual, family, extended family, and paleolithic communities were primarily molded by natural selection; whereas neolithic communities and modern societies were and are primarily shaped by cultural selection. Starting at the bottom of the BCE Pyramid, the individual's need for survival and genetic propagation (through food, drink, safety, and sex) is met through the family, extended family, and the community. The nuclear family, however, is the foundation. Despite assaults on it in the second half of the 20th century, the family remains the most common social unit around the world. Even within extremes of cultural deprivation-slavery, prisons, communes-the two-parents-with-children structure emerges: (1) African slave families broken up retained their attachment and structure for generations through the oral tradition; (2) in women's prisons in particular, pseudofamiles self-organize, with a sexually-active couple acting as "husband" and "wife" and others playing "brothers" and "sisters" (3) even when communal collective parenting is the norm (e.g., Kibbutzim), many mothers switch to the two-parent arrangement and the raising of their own offspring (Wilson, 1978). For this foundational social structure our evolutionary history is too strong to overcome. Conservatives need not bemoan the decline of families. They will be around as long as the species continues.
Moving up the BCE Pyramid, basic psychological and social needs such as security, bonding, socialization, affiliation, acceptance, and affection evolved as mental programs to aid and reinforce cooperation and altruism, all of which facilitates genetic propagation through children. Kin Altruism works indirectly-siblings and half-siblings, grand- and great-grandchildren, cousins and half-cousins, nieces and nephews, all carry portions of our genes (Alexander, 1979; Miele, 1996). In larger communities and societies, Reciprocal Altruism (you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours) and Indirect/Blind Altruism (you scratch my back now and I'll scratch yours later) supplements Kin Altruism. The natural progression will be the adoption of Species Altruism and Bioaltruism (we'll prevent extinction and destruction now for a long term payoff), which E. O. Wilson argues in Biophilia (1984) may have a genetic basis. But, Wilson confesses, this should probably be grounded in self-interest arguments-my children will be better off in a future with abundant diversity and a healthy biosphere.
The width of the BCE Pyramid at any point indicates the strength of ethical sentiment, and the degree to which it is under evolutionary control. The height of the BCE Pyramid at any point indicates the degree to which that ethical sentiment extends beyond our own genome (ourselves). But the pyramid also shows that these two sets of sentiments are inversely related. The further a sentiment reaches beyond ourselves, the further it goes in the direction of helping someone genetically less related, and the less support it receives from underlying evolutionary mechanisms.
To what extent, then, can we derive ethical principles from our evolutionary history? Philosophers David Hume (1739) and G. E. Moore (1903) described the problems inherent in the naturalistic fallacy -- trying to go from the biological is to the ethical ought. The inverse relationship depicted in the BCE Pyramid helps to explain this problem in biocultural terms. Consider three ethical issues:
1. Abortion. From an evolutionary perspective one could argue pro or con: abortion is bad for the species in a sparsely populated paleolithic environment, and bad for individuals who depend on having lots of offspring in order to increase the probability of their genes being passed on, to help in the hunting and gathering of food (or with farming in later neolithic communities), and aid in child rearing (older sibs become surrogate parents). But in an environment already in excess of its carrying capacity, continuously damaged by an ever-increasing population growth, abortion is good for the community, the family, and the individual.
Above the bio-cultural transitional boundary one could make a similar argument that abortion is good for the species in an overcrowded modern environment, and good for individuals living in a complex society in which there is virtually no advantage and lots of disadvantages incurred by having lots of children. My friend and colleague Carol Tavris makes an argument that I think fits the BCE Pyramid (personal communication):
The main reason that legal abortion is "moral" is that the consequence of making abortion illegal is the death of millions of women. Whenever abortion and birth control are forbidden, adult women die-in illegal abortions, unhealthy deliveries, etc. (In the U.S., hospitals used to have entire wards of women with perforated uteri caused by attempts to abort.)
Tavris cites Kristin Luker's 1984 review of such evidence-one early study found that over a period of 10 years in Philadelphia, when they were illegal, abortions accounted for 20% of all maternal mortality. And still today, worldwide, one woman dies every three minutes from a bungled abortion. What are the long term consequences for women and the species?
As illustrated in the BCE Pyramid, the bio-cultural trend over the past 35,000 years has been to move toward more control over our biology, more inclusiveness for all members of the species, and more self-determination of personal freedoms for all members of the species. For this trend to continue to the top of the pyramid it is absolutely essential that women be given the same control, self-determination, and freedom as men. Roe v. Wade was a giant step toward the top. To overturn it would be to take a giant step backward in our bio-cultural evolution.
2. Welfare. Below the bio-cultural transitional boundary one could argue that welfare is a form of kin, reciprocal, or blind altruism, if we just expand the circle (in Peter Singer's apt phrase) to include those outside our immediate family, or if we consider the society to be our family. Above the transitional boundary, however, one could just as easily argue that welfare is bad because of cheating and the fact that the group is too large to see any consequences of our actions, or reap any reciprocal benefits, direct or indirect.
3. Adultery. In an ancestral environment where the goal is to pass along one's genes in as many places as possible, one could argue for the moral benefits of adultery. But in a modern environment where there are extreme personal and social consequences to marital cheating, the argument could go from the is to the ought-not.
Our nature is determined by an interaction of genes and environment, our evolutionary history and our cultural history. Ethical theories and moral choices are a function of both evolutionary drives and personal and social consequences. Here evolutionary ethics helps us enormously to understand why we have these feelings, and through understanding comes the possibility of moral control. Where do we begin? How about with the motto of tolerance adopted by the Skeptics Society from Baruch Spinoza?: "I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them."
Oskar Schindler or Amon Goeth?
One morning in 1995, when he was visiting Occidental College, I had breakfast with Thomas Keneally, author of Schindler's List. Out of curiosity I asked him what he thought was the difference between Oskar Schindler, rescuer of Jews and hero of the story, and Amon Goeth, evil incarnate as commandant of the Plaszow camp. His answer was revealing. Not much, he said. Had there been no war Schindler and Goeth might have been business partners and drinking buddies, morally questionable at times perhaps, but relatively harmless and ineffectual as historical personages. What a difference a war makes!
Humans have the capacity to be both moral and immoral, as Stanley Milgram showed in his famous shock experiments in which subjects believed they were delivering electric shocks to other subjects for "wrong" answers on a test. Ranging from Slight Shock to Moderate Shock to Strong Shock to Very Strong Shock to Intense Shock to Extreme Intensity Shock to Danger: Severe Shock to XXX, the results were, well, shocking: 65% administered the maximum shock possible and 100% administered a "Strong Shock" of 135 volts. Milgram expressed his own and others' amazement at what these experiments revealed about human nature (1974):
What is surprising is how far ordinary individuals will go in complying with the experimenter's instructions. Despite the fact that many subjects experience stress, despite the fact that many protest to the experimenter, a substantial proportion continue to the last shock on the generator. I am forever astonished when lecturing on the obedience experiments in colleges across the country. I faced young men who were aghast at the behavior of experimental subjects and proclaimed they would never behave in such a way, but who in a matter of months, were brought into the military and performed without compunction actions that made shocking the victim seem pallid. In this respect, they are no better and no worse than human beings of any other era who lend themselves to the purposes of authority and become instruments in its destructive processes.
Depending on circumstances perhaps any of us could become Nazis. Who's to say? Raised in a free, democratic society like America, how do any of us know how we might react in a totalitarian regime like Nazi Germany? Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer made this observation about Himmler and human nature:
The brutal murder of whole populations, including children, has been with us since the beginning of recorded history and most probably before that. Sadism and brutality scream at us from every page of human history, and they are in no way less horrific than the Nazi variety. If we cannot "understand" Himmler, most of human history is beyond our capacity of understanding. We can put ourselves in the shoes of the perpetrators, as well as the shoes of the victims, because we all have in ourselves the potential for extreme good and extreme evil-at least, what we call good and evil. Himmler's ideas and motives are latent in everyone's subconscious. The real horror of Himmler is not that he was unusual or unique but that he was in many ways quite ordinary, and that he could have lived out his life as a chicken farmer, a good neighbor with perhaps somewhat antiquated ideas about people.
This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective since individuals in the ancestral environment would have needed to be both aggressive and cooperative, depending on context and desired outcomes. Tavris and Wade (1995), in fact, show that an individual's history, culture, generation, and immediate situation are crucial in understanding moral behavior. Without context the search for moral universals is misleading.
The Problem of Evil
A philosophical conundrum that has plagued theologians throughout the ages is the "problem of evil." The following three conditions of the universe are incompatible:
God is Omnipotent
God is Omnibenevolent
Evil Exists
If God is all powerful, couldn't he prevent evil from existing? If God is all good, shouldn't he prevent evil from existing? If evil exists, then either God is not all powerful or not all good.
Since we are leaving God out of the analysis that leaves us with the final question: does evil exist? If it does, and certainly we are neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent, then we will always be plagued with war, genocide, crime, rape, etc. One solution to the problem of evil was suggested to me by UCLA English professor Henry Ansgar Kelly: replace the word evil with bad. Can we have a problem of bad? No. Bad does not exist. Bad things happen, but there is no inherent good or evil, as William James noted (1897):
Calling a thing bad means, if it means anything at all, that the thing ought not to be -- that something else ought to be in its stead. Determinism, in denying that anything else can be in its stead, virtually defines the universe as a place in which what ought to be is impossible.
For James, to be a determinist is to say something terrible about the universe-that bad things cannot become any better. But we hold people responsible for murder. If we didn't, we would have to blame the universe for the act, in which case we all are accomplices and responsible since we are all part of the universe. No one would be found guilty of anything. We'd only each be assigned our share of the liability. Surely few would accept this.
There is only human action, some of which we like and some of which we don't like, as it is provisionally defined. As the Preacher Casey tells Tom Joad in Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, after he explains that he has given up revivals because of the obvious conflict between the content of his preaching and context of his own sex life:
I says, 'Maybe it ain't a sin. Maybe it's just the way folks is.' Well, I was layin' under a tree when I figured that out, and I went to sleep. And it come night, an' it was dark when I come to. They was a coyote squawkin' near by. Before I knowed it, I was sayin' out loud'There ain't no sin and there ain't no virtue. There's just stuff people do.And some of the things folks do is nice, and some ain't nice, but that's as far as any man got a right to say.'
So why do some people turn out to be Oscar Schindlers and others Amon Goeths? Sure, there may be a handful of sick, twisted minds gone haywire through chemical imbalance or neuronal miswiring. But for most, the contingencies of history and the circumstances of life lead us down different paths, as we shall see in solving the final riddle.
3. THE RIDDLE OF ETHICAL FREEDOM
HOW CAN WE MAKE MORAL CHOICES IN A DETERMINED UNIVERSE?
In 1985, while racing a bicycle along a lonely rural highway in Arkansas in the transcontinental Race Across America, ABC's Diana Nyad asked me how it felt to be too far behind the leader of the race to win. I told her that while I would prefer winning I had done everything I could in training, nutrition, equipment, etc., and that the only thing I could have done was to pick better parents. When that comment aired months later on Wide World of Sports, I called my parents to assure them I only meant that genetics plays a powerful role in athletic performance. I got the comment from renowned sports physiologist, Perolof Astrand, who told an exercise symposium: "I am convinced that anyone interested in winning Olympic gold medals must select his or her parents very carefully."
From an evolutionary perspective our parents have been very carefully selected for us -- by natural selection. But we are also the products our parents' upbringing, family dynamics, community values, education, and so forth. Michael Ruse, in a paper on "Darwinism and Determinism," put it well:
[W]e are what we are because of our biology in conjunction with the environment. Dogs are friendly; if you beat and starve them, they are vicious. Scotsmen are as tall as Englishmen; if you feed them simply on oats they are runts. As well-known, long-term study has shownthanks to improved nutrition, the height and physique of the Scots has improved dramatically.
Out of the interaction of genes and environment comes the possibility of freedom. The philosopher Karl Schmitz-Moormann, in a paper "On the Evolution of Human Freedom," explains that even the most complete knowledge of a person will not allow us to perfectly predict the future of this individual because statistical probabilities are built around populations, not individuals. Schmitz-Moormann replaces "determined" with "conditioned":
At all levels of the evolving universe statistics might be understood as the description of freely evolving elements within more or less narrowly defined ranges of possibilities created by past evolution. Instead of being determined, the universe appears only to be conditioned on all levels.
To put this in human terms, inheritability of talent does not mean inevitability of success, and vice versa.
We are free to select the optimal environmental conditions that will allow us to rise to the height of our biological potentials. In this sense, athletic success, like any other type of success, may be measured not just against others' performances, but against the upper ceiling of our own ability. To succeed is to have done one's absolute best. To win is not just to have crossed the finish line first, but to cross the finish line in the fastest time possible within one's own limits. The closer one comes to reaching the personal upper limit of potential, the greater the achievement, as depicted in the Genetic Range of Potential model above. This does not prove we are free, it just shows that the environment can make a significant difference. There's not much we can do about selecting our parents. Can we select our environmental conditions to push us to the top of our range of potential, and, as a consequence, be held accountable for our actions?
Master of My Fate
Chaos and complexity theory have provided two important concepts that help us understand free will and therefore how we can make free moral choices:
1. The Butterfly Effect -- the sensitive dependence on initial conditions (see Lorenz's 1979 paper "Does the Flap of a Butterfly's Wings in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas?").
2. Bifurcations -- points where an evolving system makes a significant change in direction. Ilya Prigogine describes the conditions under which bifurcations occur (1984, pp. 169-170):
The 'historical' path along which the system evolves as the control parameter grows is characterized by a succession of stable regions, where deterministic laws dominate, and of instable ones, near the bifurcation points, where the system can 'choose' between or among more than one possible future.
All historical events-from the life history of a species to the life history of an individual-are the product of deterministic laws in stable regions and unpredictable events in unstable regions, or what I call necessities and contingencies (1993, 1995, 1996). Our lives are pushed, pulled, guided, and influenced by gravity, the weather, supply and demand, demographic changes, political events, wars and revolutions, etc. But the sensitive dependence on our personal initial conditions, and the countless unstable regions in which we may choose alternate futures, means we can act as if we are conditioned, instead of determined. Prigogine explains how this leads to meaning and hope for humanity (p. 313):
We know now that societies are immensely complex systems involving a potentially enormous number of bifurcations exemplified by the variety of cultures that have evolved in the relatively short span of human history. We know that such systems are highly sensitive to fluctuations. This leads both to hope and threat: hope, since even small fluctuations may grow and change the overall structure. As the result, individual activity is not doomed to insignificance. On the other hand, this is also a threat, since in our universe the security of stable, permanent rule seems gone forever.
Human behavior is no less caused than other physical or biological phenomena, just more difficult to understand and predict because of the butterfly effect, unstable bifurcations, and the number of causes and the complexity of their interactions. Since no cause or set of causes we select to examine as the determiners of human action can be complete, they may be pragmatically considered as conditioning causes, not determining ones. That is, we may act as if we are free.
A splendid example of the role of the individual within historical systems-used by Gould (1989) as his title theme but considered slightly differently here-is Frank Capra's 1946 holiday film classic It's a Wonderful Life. Jimmy Stewart plays George Bailey, a small-town building and loan proprietor who, after decades of hard, honest work feels his life has been a failure because he sees nothing of the results of his efforts. His youthful dreams of seeing and changing the world seemingly have been lost to age and responsibility. Further, some of his friends have managed to break away from the small town to make more money. Others have ventured out to see the world about which George has only fantasized. His own brother is a decorated war hero who saved the lives of many men in battle. George perceives that he has done little. His life appears stalled and stagnant. When financial and familial pressures finally build beyond control on Christmas Eve, George decides to take his life by leaping into the rapids of a nearly frozen river. Fortunately he is interrupted by his guardian angel-Clarence Oddbody-who, knowing George's humanitarian disposition, jumps in the river before him, triggering George to save his life. In recovery, George unloads his problems on Clarence, and then exclaims he wishes he were never born. Clarence grants him his wish, taking George out of the historical picture and reconstructing the story of what his little town of Bedford Falls would have been like without him.
Suddenly things are not what they used to be, and the changes are mostly negative. The people George helped financially are now poor and wretched; the buildings he constructed are nonexistent; his wife is a lonely unmarried librarian; his children unborn; and the town is renamed "Pottersville," after the treacherous banker whose miserly ways prevented those George had helped from ever owning their own homes. His brother, whom George saved in childhood, is now not in the World War II battle, with the contingent consequences that the lives the brother saved are now also gone. As Clarence guides George through these unfamiliar surroundings, he is dismayed and shocked. The history of his town is quite different without the influence of George Bailey. He never realized just how many people were dependent upon his seemingly routine existence. "Strange, isn't it?," queries Clarence to George at the appropriate moment of enlightenment. "Each man's life touches so many other lives, and when he isn't around he leaves an awful hole, doesn't he?"
In the end Clarence restores the historical sequence to its original condition-with George's contingent influence intact-and reassures him: "You see George, you really had a wonderful life." In this sense, then, we are all individuals of power and importance. Whether we like it or not, whether we know it or not, every encounter, every thought, every action, can and does make some degree of difference, ranging from virtually negligent to powerfully diverting. A seemingly innocuous decision, carefully placed in time and circumstance, may affect uncounted others in multitudinous ways.
But there is some wishful thinking in this tale. Don't we all like to think that we do make a difference? Such a position is certainly existentially more satisfying. It is nice to think that the history of Bedford Falls was contingent upon George Bailey's actions, and therefore George Bailey matters.
Well, you and I and George do matter, as long as it is early in the sequence when there is sensitive dependence on our actions, or when the sequence is hanging in the balance and our actions may trigger a bifurcation. But systems are not always so delicately poised, hinged to fall one way or the other. History is not all contiguous bifurcation points, awaiting the next flap of the butterfly's wings. As often as not (and probably more than we would like to believe), necessity guides the paths down which we proceed, oblivious to the majority of our contingent actions. It is hard to imagine how Old Man Potter could have remained in business had he foreclosed on all those homes; or that the difference between the town being Goodtown or Badtown USA was completely contingent upon the actions of one small building and loan proprietor. There is no question that one individual can make a difference, but the question of how much will depend on when in the sequence the individual action is applied. Some of what George Bailey did-such as saving his brother's life-made a sizable difference to a great many people. More likely than not most of what he did made little difference in the overall outcome of the historical development of Bedford Falls, wishful thinking notwithstanding.
This disclaimer aside, because of contingencies, and the fact that at any point in the sequence it could be early as well as late (since we do not know when our personal sequence will end), one never knows which actions will or will not make a difference. It is this lack of foresight and prognostication that makes the potential for the power of individual moral action so potent. Since we do not know for certain which actions will matter and which will not, why not act as if they all do? It may be nothing but wishful thinking to desire one's place in history to be contingently significant, but since we do not know, why not act as if it is? From this belief comes freedom and free moral choice.
I close with William Ernest Henley's famous poem Invictus, especially fitting since he wrote it when he was terminally ill and in the context of the 19th-century push for scientific determinism, as if to say it ain't so:
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul. "
Hope you enjoy it and let me know, if you wish, what you think.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | AhmadBalkhi asked on 06/18/03 - culture and religion
culture and religionI like to know in what ways religions in U.S are influence by the American (U.S) culture?
Can you give some example?
curious98 answered on 07/04/03:Hi Alhmad,
I personally think Religion have always determined and influenced the different peoples culture.
Going back to what probably is the cradle of mankind, 6000 years ago, in old Summer, you can see that their culture spun around their religion. Same thing happened with all the subsequent cultures. Acadians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greek, Roman, Judaism, the European Middle Age, Islam, etc.
The United States are no exception. The first 2 centuries of their History and culture have been extremely influenced by Protestantism (from the most radical confessions like the Amish to Anglicans and Evangelistics). These religious cultures shaped the American way of life although since the 2nd half of the 20th century I think it is being threatened by a tremendous surge of materialism which is unleashing a wave of violence which somehow is innate of human beings.
At last this is my candid opinion
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | pete4187 asked on 06/24/03 - seeking non-dogmatic religious/spiritual group I am an atheist, my wife is vaguely Christian, and our daughter has minimal religious background, to say the least. We're looking for something that provides something comparable, "community" without being strongly dogmatic. We dropped by the local Unitarian-Universalists, but that was kind of antiseptic for my wife. I'm allergic to any hell and damnation stuff. Any suggestions? No preaching please, I'm not interested in converting to anything. curious98 answered on 07/04/03:Hi there,
Be welcome! It takes all kind of people to make our World, and everyone should be entitled to their own opinions as long as they are not offending others. My rights and obligations end where yours start, and that should be a clear cut democratic principle all over.
I would not advise you to join any religious group as you are always bound to find someone who will try to induce you to believe his/her confession is the best one
Which is a pity because religion is not a soft drink where you may doubt between Coke or Pepsi
As a good faith atheist just try to live your life without doing any harm to others and helping those who need help as much as you can. For the rest, just try to spend some time watching our Mother Nature in its splendour (now that we enjoy Summer), the miracle of life all over and, at nights, if you can, watch every now and then the star lit sky and ponder over how small we men are when compared to the infinite magnitude of the Universe.
Good luck and enjoy yourself
Curous98
| | Question/Answer | | Laura asked on 06/24/03 - Just a thought!! Why is it that even the simplest little comment about Jesus offends some to the point where they cannot continue a dialect?? Is the name THAT offensive??
I realize that some say: Don't preach to me. Don't they understand that the edict given to us by who we believe to be the creator of the universe and the Savior of our souls did NOT say "if you could" or "pretty please", but gave us a direct "command" to preach the Gosple??? To tell the "GOOD NEWS". It is our duty.
If one sentence can set one a-fire with offence(Jesus said that he would be an offence to some and a stumbling stone)......Maybe they need to do some serious soul searching.. God bless. Laura curious98 answered on 07/04/03:
Hello Laura, long time no hear!
You have read me saying that man is the most stupid (for he is the most egocentric arrogant and haughty) of all living animals no matter having gone to the Moon and inventing Internet.
Consequently, you shouldnt be surprised that some are so damn stupid and arrogant they say dont preach to me
Cigarette cases carry all indications that smoking is bad for the health and yet, people prefer to ignore this sound advice
However, this congenital stupidity should not prevent us from keeping on preaching or advising people smoking can be dangerous
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Najiyah asked on 07/03/03 - Intro Hi, all,
I'm Najiyah. I have been active on the Islam board for awhile, and I noticed that Abir had to take a break from Answerway so I thought I'd pop in over here on the main religion board to kind of "represent" for the Islamic POV. ;-) I'm glad to meet you all. And I hope posting an intro like this is OK.
In peace,
Najiyah curious98 answered on 07/04/03:Hi Najyah,
My most sincere welcome!
It is great to have a representative from the Islamic religion who can help us in any eventual debates over Islam.
Every day, I'm most convinced we should strive towards a religious ecumenism, particularly amongst the three monotheistic religions that exist in our World and the many confessions proliferating within them.
Religion like Languages tend to separate men instead of uniting them. To a certain extent it is understandable, in the case of languages, for men pretend their languages are the cultural wealth and heritage of their respective ethnic groups. It may be true, though I rather think languages are a biblical curse as they have contributed to divide mankind.
But in the case of religions it is even more absurd as they tend to confront us instead of reunite all of us under the common umbrella which is GOD.
All confessions of these three monotheistic religions believe in just ONE GOOD ALMIGHTY GOD WHO created the Universe. But we refuse, more often than not, to accept we are ALWAYS referring to the SAME GOD and that all the paraphernalia surrounding HIM in the different confessions is just but an act of men. Since the beginning of mankind, priests, shamans or medicine men have always tended to complicate simple things to protect their own status. Our religions are not indeed an exception to that. Our different religious leaders spend a good deal of their time telling us what we should and should not do, which is fine in certain cases. But they do not put enough emphasis, if any, in the fact that the GOD we Christians adore, is the same ONE Moslems call ALAH and Jews YAHWEH
So be welcome and lets TRY TO THROW some ecumenism in this forum.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | dotcom333 asked on 03/09/03 - Where can I find free academic journal or research paper on religion of South Africa on the Internet Please tell me the web address where I can find free academic journal or research paper on religion of South Africa.Thanks a lot! curious98 answered on 07/02/03:Hi Dotcom333,
Although most probably you will not be needing the info you requested me, I'm giving it to you all the same just in case.
I have been having health problems which have lasted more than expecte. Hence the reason for my delay, which I regret and apologize for.
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:rAOkdMha5O4J:www.spiraldynamics.com/reviews/religions_SA.htm+*south+africa+religions*&hl=es&ie=UTF-8
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:6Vp6kJPKjawJ:www.africaexpert.org/nav/countries/country44_category110.html+*south+africa+religions*&hl=es&ie=UTF-8
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:ofdjOPlTATgJ:www.episcopalchurch.org/ens/2000-009.html+*south+africa+religions*&hl=es&ie=UTF-8
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:eRxUF2hokOcJ:www.unitarian.co.za/+*south+africa+religions*&hl=es&ie=UTF-8
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:8ASMEBx8Q8AJ:www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/ssrg/africa/religion.html+*south+africa+religions*&hl=es&ie=UTF-8
Hope to have been of some little help.
Best regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | ~Seraph~ asked on 04/12/03 - Don't move a finger to help the suffering The News We Kept to Ourselves
By EASON JORDAN
ATLANTA Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders.
Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff.
For example, in the mid-1990's one of our Iraqi cameramen was abducted.
For weeks he was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a secret police headquarters because he refused to confirm the government's ludicrous suspicion that I was the Central Intelligence Agency's Iraq station chief.
CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk.
Working for a foreign news organization provided Iraqi citizens no protection.
The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international press services who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate reporting.
Some vanished, never to be heard from again.
Others disappeared and then surfaced later with whispered tales of being hauled off and tortured in unimaginable ways.
Obviously, other news organizations were in the same bind we were when it came to reporting on their own workers.
We also had to worry that our reporting might endanger Iraqis not on our payroll.
I knew that CNN could not report that Saddam Hussein's eldest son, Uday, told me in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two of his brothers-in-law who had defected and also the man giving them asylum, King Hussein of Jordan.
If we had gone with the story, I was sure he would have responded by killing the Iraqi translator who was the only other participant in the meeting.
After all, secret police thugs brutalized even senior officials of the Information Ministry, just to keep them in line (one such official has long been missing all his fingernails).
Still, I felt I had a moral obligation to warn Jordan's monarch, and I did so the next day.
King Hussein dismissed the threat as a madman's rant.
A few months later Uday lured the brothers-in-law back to Baghdad; they were soon killed.
I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed.
One Foreign Ministry officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been executed by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter of congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein.
An aide to Uday once told me why he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and told him never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be paid for upsetting his boss.
Again, we could not broadcast anything these men said to us.
Last December, when I told Information Minister Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf that we intended to send reporters to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, he warned me they would "suffer the severest possible consequences."
CNN went ahead, and in March, Kurdish officials presented us with evidence that they had thwarted an armed attack on our quarters in Erbil.
This included videotaped confessions of two men identifying themselves as Iraqi intelligence agents who said their bosses in Baghdad told them the hotel actually housed C.I.A. and Israeli agents.
The Kurds offered to let us interview the suspects on camera, but we refused, for fear of endangering our staff in Baghdad.
Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me.
A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone.
They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch.
In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb.
A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home.
I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me.
Now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment.
At last, these stories can be told freely.
Eason Jordan is chief news executive at CNN
Tell me again why we should stand to one side and ignore the screams of Saddam's victims and why the God who is Love says it is OK not to bear one anothers' burdens.
~Sephie~
curious98 answered on 04/18/03:
What is what is strange, that you agree with what I say or that you at all?
Never mind, what matters now is that we all get together in a common effort to rebuild what has been destroyed and allow the Iraqis to live in peace.
In my opinion, it would be a big mistake to try to impose upon them a western like democracy. They are not just mentally prepared.
A) Moslems in general are not used to democracy as we know it.
B) Establishing a totally free democracy in Iraq would just open up the door to countless problems such as the visceral hate amongst Shiites and Sunnites or amongst Kurds and Iraqis.
C) On the other hand, if a Kurd autonomous state is favoured in Northern Iraq chances are that Turkey will not like it at all. Let's not forget they also have a Kurd problem, which would immediately be aggravated by the constitution of an Irish Kurdistan.
D)Last but not least, it would be necessary that the US government would convince Mr. Sharon of the convenience of softening his attitude towards Palestinians.
E)For that, it might be necessary to make sure Syria understands the need to eliminate from its territory the Hezbollah and Hamas leaders, who are the ones that are actually provoking the Israelis.
Kind of difficult, though. Easier to say than to do.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ~Seraph~ asked on 04/12/03 - Don't move a finger to help the suffering The News We Kept to Ourselves
By EASON JORDAN
ATLANTA Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders.
Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff.
For example, in the mid-1990's one of our Iraqi cameramen was abducted.
For weeks he was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a secret police headquarters because he refused to confirm the government's ludicrous suspicion that I was the Central Intelligence Agency's Iraq station chief.
CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk.
Working for a foreign news organization provided Iraqi citizens no protection.
The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international press services who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate reporting.
Some vanished, never to be heard from again.
Others disappeared and then surfaced later with whispered tales of being hauled off and tortured in unimaginable ways.
Obviously, other news organizations were in the same bind we were when it came to reporting on their own workers.
We also had to worry that our reporting might endanger Iraqis not on our payroll.
I knew that CNN could not report that Saddam Hussein's eldest son, Uday, told me in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two of his brothers-in-law who had defected and also the man giving them asylum, King Hussein of Jordan.
If we had gone with the story, I was sure he would have responded by killing the Iraqi translator who was the only other participant in the meeting.
After all, secret police thugs brutalized even senior officials of the Information Ministry, just to keep them in line (one such official has long been missing all his fingernails).
Still, I felt I had a moral obligation to warn Jordan's monarch, and I did so the next day.
King Hussein dismissed the threat as a madman's rant.
A few months later Uday lured the brothers-in-law back to Baghdad; they were soon killed.
I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed.
One Foreign Ministry officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been executed by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter of congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein.
An aide to Uday once told me why he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and told him never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be paid for upsetting his boss.
Again, we could not broadcast anything these men said to us.
Last December, when I told Information Minister Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf that we intended to send reporters to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, he warned me they would "suffer the severest possible consequences."
CNN went ahead, and in March, Kurdish officials presented us with evidence that they had thwarted an armed attack on our quarters in Erbil.
This included videotaped confessions of two men identifying themselves as Iraqi intelligence agents who said their bosses in Baghdad told them the hotel actually housed C.I.A. and Israeli agents.
The Kurds offered to let us interview the suspects on camera, but we refused, for fear of endangering our staff in Baghdad.
Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me.
A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone.
They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch.
In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb.
A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home.
I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me.
Now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment.
At last, these stories can be told freely.
Eason Jordan is chief news executive at CNN
Tell me again why we should stand to one side and ignore the screams of Saddam's victims and why the God who is Love says it is OK not to bear one anothers' burdens.
~Sephie~
curious98 answered on 04/14/03:The recent confession made by Eason Jordan is something rather surprising for most of us, here in Europe.
I was in Iraq on business several times, in the early and mid 80s. In those days, practically everybody interested in the Middle East was well aware of the kind of ruthless and cruel person Saddam was.
In those days - days and years of the Iran-Irq war - Saddam however was in excellent terms and highly considered by France (they built a nuclear plant, later destroyed by Israel), the then Soviet Union, Great Britain and the United States (which were supplying Saddam with the chemical weapons he used against Iranis and against his own Kurds, up in the north.
In 1991, the UN and the USA had a chance to elliminate Saddam, once and for all, but they chose not to.
So, in my humble opinion, the UN and the USA together are to be blamed jointly with Saddam for all the horror he has commited in these last 12 years.
Am I wrong?
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | bioharmony asked on 04/14/03 - A sign of things to come? One thing Saddam's iron fist rule did was to prevent infighting and civil war among the Shi-ites, Kurds and Sunnis.
Now with that control gone we already can see some of these Islamic Shi-ite expremists taking to the streets, looting even hospitals, homes and shops and destroying statues in the museum, the latter due to the Islamic law to destroy all images of man or beast.
Should the Shi-ites become the ruling power in the new government they could prove to be another Taliban if they continue to enforce Islamic law in a violent way.
Do others share my concern that this could prove to be for Iraq and the war against terrorists a case of from the frying pan into the fire?
curious98 answered on 04/14/03:
A couple of considerations re. your question.
I doubt very much that Islamic Shiites have been the only ones to do all the looting and destroying in Iraq. In fact Shiites were more or less confined to the southern part, i.e. Basra area. In Baghdad most of the population were Sunnis, and then, of course, those who, a week before, had been gathering around Saddam and now have probably thought that by destroying and stealing they could better show they were against the former regime. BTW, Islamics are not necessarily against images of man or beast. They are against in their mosques or when they are supposed to represent forms of deities, as in the sad case of the Buddhas, in Afghanistan.
Lets not however lose sight that while all this destruction was going on basically Hospitals, Museums, some Embassies and Mansions the US army was placidly looking at them without any desire to intervene EXCEPT in the premises of the Ministry of Interior and those of the Ministry of Oil Resources, where the GIs didnt allow anyone to get closer than 100 yards.
Of course, your soldiers were following orders so they cannot be held responsible for what has happened; all the same, it clearly shows the amount of consideration General Franks has for culture, history and hospitals in general.
What will happen from now on will entirely depend on what the US Administration will decide.
You are probably aware that it has already been decided that a certain Ahmed Chalabi (rather wealthy Iraqi, so far living in London, who is responsible of several fraudulent financial operations here and there), will be sort of the Prime Minister, reporting to retired US general Jay Garner, whose HQ will be based in Baghdad.
Very much like McArthur did in Japan, if you know what I mean
Obviously, general Garner will be carrying out orders from Mr. Bush himself, so whatever happens in Iraq from now on, will strictly depend upon the US foreign policy for the country.
But I would not worry too much. As long as there is oil pouring from Iraqi wells chances are the USA will be in control.
Afghanistan was important to build the long expected oleo duct from the former URSS southern republics all the way through to the Persian Gulf. And this is being already built. However, here the US control of this duct requires much less military force.
Last but not least, as for your title a sign of things to come I would rather worry about the continuation of US foreign policy in the Middle East.
To-day, CNN already mentions the very serious warning Mr. Bush is giving Syria to surrender their chemical warfare armament (he is probably assuming that since Iraq does not seem to have it, it must be in Syria) and to severe all connections with terrorists from Al-Qaeda.
One thing Mr. Bush keeps on forgetting though is that countries like Sudan, Yemen and even Saudi Arabia have many more actual connections with AlQaeda than Syria and Iraq have ever had.
Why should that be?
Would like to hear your ideas on the above.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ETWolverine asked on 02/27/03 - War with Iraq --- A post to BIOHARMONY Bio,
Over the past few weeks and months, several items have come out that must make us question your basic premise about the impending war against Saddam Husein.
1) Last week, weapons inspectors found several long-range missiles that violate the 93 mile limit imposed on Iraq. At least one of the missiles was loaded with biological agents. This is direct proof of weapons of mass destruction. When confronted with these findings, the IRaqi government's response was essentially "oops, we forgot about those." What other weapons has Saddam Husein conveniently "forgotten about"?
2) The CIA has revealed Iraqi Government plans to use a "scorched earth" policy and "human shields" as deffensive tactics. They intend to destroy their own oil fields, bridges, dams, etc. in order to keep them from being used by the enemy... despite the death toll on innocent Iraqi civillians it would cause. They plan to pull their Republican Guard forces into Bahgdad city in order to use the civilians as cover (an act that is defined by the Geneva Convention as terrorism... so much for the idea that Saddam doesn't support terrorism).
3) In yesterday's interview with Dan Rather, Saddam Husein clearly spouted lie after lie. He stated that he always calls George Bush Sr. "Mr. Bush"... a lie that is easily found out because in his interviews in Iraqi newspapers, he has called George Bush JR the "Son of the Serpent". He told the absolutely crazy and insane story that Iraq didn't lose the 1991 Gulf war; he left Kuwait by his own choice. He said that he doesn't support terrorism, yet he sent a terrorist to attempt to assasinate George Bush Senior.
4) He claimed that in his 1996 "election" he received 99.6% of the vote, and in 2002 he received 100% of the vote. If these "elections" had been real, that would be patently impossible. As any political scientist will tell you, whenever a leader makes any decision, he automatically alienates somebody. Even if he decides to enforce parking laws, somebody becomes unhappy about it. Thus a 100% vote rate is impossible for any leader who makes decisions regularly. So if Saddam is really receiving a 100% vote rate, he is either not making any decisions (which makes him a terrible leader) or he is threatening people to force them to vote for him (which makes him a terrible leader). Either way, the concept of Iraqi free elections is a sham. Just one more lie that Saddam told the world last night in the Dan Rather interview.
5) The one part of the interview that I believed yesterday was when he stated for the record that he respects Osama bin Laden for his support of the Muslim people. This kind of puts lie to your idea that "Saddam Hussein hates Islamic extremists."
6) Several Iraqi ex-patriots have come forward to tell stories of how Saddam truely rules the land with terror and torture. And a few who had been part of the Iraqi millitary complex have come forward and told of WMDs that are in Iraqi possession.
7) Despite Hans Blix's whitewash of the inspection report, even Blix has admitted that there are a lot of biological, chemical and nuclear materials that Iraq has not accounted for.
Yet despite all of this very clear evidence of Saddams lies and prevarications, and the obvious threat he represents, both to the USA and it allies and to his own people, you still defend him. Why?
Do you believe that Iraqi children are safer under the rule of this madman than they would be under democratic rule?
You have put forward the idea that George Bush is answering to a "Texas Lobby". Sorry to tell you this, but Bush currently has a greater than 70% approval rating among ALL AMERICANS. This is hardly the support merely of a "Texas Lobby".
You have put forward the idea that Bush is out to get rich on Iraqi oil. I hate to tell you this, but that idea simply doesn't work from an economic standpoint. Bush's family is indeed in oil... specifically Texas Oil. What would happen if he opened Iraqi oil to the general market? Simply put, he would bring the price per barrel down dramatically. This would serve to make him poorer, not richer. Frankly, he is getting much wealthier with less oil available than he would with lots of oil available. So the idea that he is "after Iraqi oil" in order to "get rich" is simply an economic impossibility.
Argument after argument, your anti-war position has been proven to be less that tenable. Saddam is clearly in possession of WMDs, is a direct and continuing threat to his own people and the USA and its allies. He is a mass murderer with tens of thousands of murders and rapes under his belt, and tens of thousands more illegal imprisonments and "disappearances". His people are cowed in terror of him. His own scientists and military leaders are defecting because they fear his wrath and they fear what he will do with the WMDs.
So how can you possibly support the anti-war position? A true Christian would do what they could to fight evil at its source, and the source of evil here is clearly Saddam Husein.
Elliot curious98 answered on 02/27/03:
Dear Elliot,
Allow me to interfere in your correspondence with Bioharmony over the subject of the Iraq war, for I have also taken up this subject in another forum we share together.
Re. your no. 1 consideration:
a) You surely do not think that the UNs inspectors are finding anything Saddam does not want them to find, do you? In a country well over 2 times the size of Idaho, do you think it is so difficult to hide, not only all kind of weapons, MDW or otherwise, but entire nuclear plants. The poor inspectors (which number only a few scores for such a large country) have been finding whatever Saddam has deemed it convenient to be found. Letting them find a missile with biological agents served 2 purposes: 1) to let them think precisely what you say. That he has some more weapons like that which he might have conveniently forgotten. 2) to, therefore, convince the International Community of the convenience of allowing the Inspectors more time to conduct their investigations.
Most European countries do not deny S.H. may have MDW, whether chemical or biological but surely, not nuclear.
On the other hand, other than the USA, the U.K, France, Russia and Red China, which certainly have (admittedly) MDWs, there are also Pakistan, India, South Africa and North Korea, which definitely are nuclear powers. Israel, besides a nuclear power boasts of having also certain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. North Korea for instance has taken advantage of the recent visit of Colin Powell to China, to launch a couple of missiles into the Sea of China, just to show off they challenge the US to say something. Not only, last week they restarted one of their nuclear plants
Why pick out on Iraq only? In the countries mentioned before it would not be so difficult to find those MDW
2)
Saddam is certainly capable of
using a scorched earth policy and human shields to protect himself. No only capable but most likely he will if he can.
And that is terrorism alright. But not the kind of terrorism Al-Qaeda practiced on the 9/11 which, theoretically at least, Mr. Bush wants to fight against.
The terrorism Saddam is practicing against his own people is nothing new the US have discovered yesterday.
When I was regularly visiting the Middle East countries for business in the 80s. Iraq declared war on Iran. And Saddam became an ally for the US, France and the URSS, to the extent that practically Iraqs entire air force was formed by the exceptionally good French fighters Mistre and Mirage. Iraqs heavy weaponry, tanks, armoured trucks, missiles were Russian and the US. were supplying chemical weapons! In that interim France built Iraq first nuclear plant (which later on was destroyed by Iraq and subsequently rebuilt by France) and the gases sold by the US used against the Iranian army (which to a certain extent was probably the logical reason why they were sold, Iran being then (not now) a declared enemy of the US. BUT ALSO to kill some 50.000 Kurds in their northern territory. All this, can of course, be found in newspapers archives, if you care to.
The important fact, however, that neither Mr. Carter nor Mr. Reagan considered it acts of terrorism. But in those days Saddam was the head of the Baath movement, which was and is the Iraqi version of the German Nazism ! Nobody, then, considered him a potential risk for Mankind
The question is, why now?
As for the risk of bombing his own oil wells, we may not like the idea, but he can do what he wants. The wells are his or are they not?
A different thing, and nonetheless likely possibility to ponder over, is that he decides to bomb again Kuwaits wells and even the Arab ones
3) No matter what you may think which I respect, of course- I do not think a casus belli that Saddam lies. This is no surprise either. He is just a compulsive liar, just like all dictators are. Nor it is a casus belli that he chooses to insult G. Bush, Jr. In fact, if you navigate through the net you will see that, in practically all over the world, international newspapers, are calling Mr. Bush Jr. much worse things than the "Son of the Serpent", and I do not think Mr. Bush accords too much importance to that. As for Saddam saying Iraq didn't lose the 1991 Gulf war and that he left Kuwait by his own choice, this, of course, if for the benefit of his own people. He is a liar but not stupid. He knows quite well what happened in 1991 and he knows the rest of the world knows that too. Incidentally, are you familiar with the fact General Schwartzkoff used chemical warfare against Iraqi army with the result that American and British troops were contaminated too, as those chemicals were being used on a experimental basis? Check Pentagon papers on the Net, if you wish.
4) You seem to have recently discovered about Saddam. Of course, he got 100% vote in last elections. And Castro, and Pakistan dictator, and all African dictators that, on top of everything, they like to boast of their Democracy. If Im not wrong Saddam is in despotic power since 1958. His three strategic posts were set aside for the ruling clan: the defence ministry, the party's military bureau (al-maktab al-askari) and the National Security Bureau (maktab al-amn al-qawmi). In the early years of the regime, state tribalism (the ruler's employment of his own tribesmen in state institutions) focused on the tribe that made up the ruling elite: Albu Nasir and its leading core, the al-Beijat clan. In later years other junior tribal groups were admitted (2). This strategy, based on fear, aimed to strengthen the regime's power base, build a monolithic ruling elite, and stem the schisms and power struggles that had plagued the army and party politics between 1958 and 1970. Why are you, or anybody, so surprised about his winning any elections he cares to convoke.
People who regularly follow international politics should not be surprised at all. And if you would know Iraq as I do you would even be less surprised
5) What he said about respecting Osama bin Laden is, perhaps, a greatest lie than that of the elections. What he was trying to accomplish was to send a message to Muslim people that he is a devote muslim. But Baath is a laic movement and Saddam a perfect atheist that would kill his mother if needed.
6) What Iraqi ex-patriots have come forward to tell about Saddam has been widely known by the different US administrations for the last 30 years at last. Certainly, Mr. Bush Sr., knew it and he decided to follow the UN recommendations not to enter in Baghdad. But now, his son, may decide to ignore the US recommendations if they do not approve tomorrow the impending war.
7) Hans Blix's statements respond to what is really an actual fact. At least Im convinced of it.
I do not think Bioharmony and certainly not myself, who happens to know Saddams peculiarities possibly better than you do- is defending him. But, both Bioharmony and myself do not consider there is any need to declare war on Saddam to achieve what Mr. Bush Jr. considers his Administration wants to achieve. It just suffices to get rid to the person of Saddam. In other words, if Saddam is killed or simply disappears, the problem disappears too.
And civilian casualties can be then avoided. And I do not accept the explanation that the US Administration cannot murder Saddam, for that would be terrorism. What is preferable. To kill Saddam or have a few hundreds (or maybe thousands) of American soldiers and certainly, thousands of Iraqi civilians dead because of an eventual war.
Iraqi children have never been safe under the rule of Saddam and the World (US included) has never thought it to be that important, except now. As to a democratic rule, maybe you are not familiar with the fact the eventual King of Iraq, at present living in the London West End, is already preparing his luggage. Iraq will eventually become as democratic as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Afghanistan, right now!
Im sorry to tell you that Bushs war policy right now, according to US press polls of opinion has not more than 50% support. I do not know where you get that 70% from. The idea George Bush is answering to a "Texas Lobby" is not Bioharmonys only. It is shared by scores of politicians all over the World. And I can also add he may be answering to the Jewish American lobby, the most powerful in the world.
But, unfortunately, that support may suffer a drastic reduction when the first American corpses start arriving in the States Remember Vietnam?
Re. the oil situation you also need a few facts. The USs annual present consumption is as much as 25% of total world output. US total production is just 9% (including Alaska oil). (figures from the OPEP). Thus the US are heavily depending upon Middle East oil (basically Saudi Arabian oil, which also makes the US too much dependant from Arabia, for comfort). On the other hand, you seem to believe Iraqi oil is used as drinking water by Saddam. Iraqi oil is already in the general market despite the US embargo. In fact, Iraqs old friends (France and Russia) plus Germany are by far Iraqs best countries, plus some other Asia countries. Why do you think that, precisely these 3 Countries are in favour of extending for another 4 months the time given to the UN inspectors and are willing (France and Russia) to veto whatever recommendation from the UN favourable to a war. They are so much afraid of losing their present privileged situation in favour of the US, as Spain (Im Spanish) and the U.K. are hoping to benefit from an American control of Iraqi oil resources. The oil price, in any case, will not get down at all, at the very best, might bet down to the 29$ mark, which was the price a few months ago. Right now is going up for all those involved benefit. Ill bet you a trip to Spain of one week against one trip to New York for me, that Im right. The Iraqi oil will serve to make the US dependency from Saudi Arabia less heavy, thats all.
Argument after argument, your pro-war position has been proven to be less than tenable. All you say about Saddam is true, and many more things you seem to ignore and the CIA and US Administration has known for years and years. Why now, all of a sudden, the US Administrations is worried about Iraqi civilians. And the supreme irony. How can you be worrying about Iraqi civilians while you are getting ready to launch on the very first day of the beginning of the war (according to personal declarations to US press correspondents in Saudi Arabia by the Commander in Chief of the 200.000 stationed US troops) as many missiles over Baghdad as there were launched during the entire Desert Storm campaign.
Last but nor least a true Christian would never support any war, and certainly not any war that may result in the killing of thousands of innocent people, thousands of children amongst them. I, as a Roman Catholic, am much more in favour of killing Saddam (Ill do it myself if I could) than of killing those innocent victims.
You comments will be appreciated, but let me tell you I very much respect your patriotism.
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Unknown asked on 02/09/03 - Christian V Protestant I live in England and as a Catholic I cannot understand why people here believe in the Protestant religion, even the name came about because king Henry V111 'protested' against the Pope, remarried and proclaimed himself head of the English church.
Can anyone explain this?
Mick curious98 answered on 02/23/03:
The Anglicans are, indeed, the result of Henry VIII's disobeying the Pope and divorcing his first Spanish wife. But that is not in the least the origin of Protestantism, which originated in the reformation posed by Martin Luther as a consequence of the constant scandals of the Roman Church and the Popes. particular insofar to the possibility Nobles and influent aristocrats had of supposedly buying their way to Heaven through the papal bulls.
I'm a catholic too and I have lived in England too. Differences between Anglicans and Roman Catholics are minimal, Basically, Anglicans do not accept Vatican and the Pope's authority and leadership.
Their religious leader is the Archbishop of Canterbury who, incidentally, has just decided to join the Pope in his prayers to avoid war against Iraq.
I think we should all, Catholics and the different Protestants confessions, respect one another with a view to, eventually, establish ecumenical agreements that make this mutual respect official,
Regards
Curious
| | Question/Answer | | Nobear asked on 01/31/03 - Throne-Chariot Hi my question is about the Lord's throne-chariot in the book of Ezekiel. Is it possible that this is the chariot of wirl wind that came down and received Elijah (2 Kings 2:1-12).I know Paul doesn't say anything about a wirl wind or nothing like Elijah or Ezekiel- In (2 Corin.12:1-7) he used the word caught up into paradise,where he heard unspeakable words.Is it possible the throne-chariot carried him there also? And the Apostle John on the isle of Patmos seen things and hear things and described the apperance of things in Heaven and seen the Lord in His glory,is it possible he was taken by the Throne-Chariot also?
Thank you very much for your answers Nobear curious98 answered on 01/31/03:Hi Nobear,
In fact Elijah was taken by a chariot of fire.
a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them (Elisha), and Elijah ascended in a whirlwind into heaven.
All the wonderful stories narrated in the O.T. are so wonderful that, either you believe them, hook, line and sinker, or you dont (at least, you dont literally, as I do)
You have to bear in mind that modern archaeology has been unable to prove most of the history of the people of Israel which is narrated in the Bible. On the other hand, it has been proven that some of these legends had already appeared in inscriptions older than the O.T. (Sumerian Tablets) which might evidence that something actually happened.
Now, imagine yourself travelling on a time machine (you may, eventually) into the 15th century. And imagine yourself trying to explain TV or the Space Shuttle to your ancestors. Now imagine a little bit beyond and place yourself in the 40th century BC!
Try to explain the same Space Shuttle or some of the NASA space crafts to those ignorant Jews
In his book The Bible was right by Werner Keller, he puts forward some theories (now shared by a few scientists too, like Zechariah Sitchin) whereby we have been visited time and again by outer world aliens (not necessarily little green men from Mars) who are responsible of some of this narrative
Ive seen in Greillestein castle north of Vienna, Austria. The Piri Reiss Charts (XV century) that shows the land mass of Antarctica in such a form and in such detail that it could have been generated only by someone with access to aerial reconnaissance of the area. This can be taken as evidence that Mr. Reis either had access to data from an ancient civilization that had flying machines, or that he was supplied data by alien visitors to our planet, who photographed / mapped the area with their own aerial vehicles.
Then, I also had the opportunity to fly over the famous Nazca Lines, in Nazca, Peru, and I can tell you can only appreciate the designs from the air. Now, when Pizarro arrived in Peru in the 16th century, these lines were at least one thousand years old!
But all that evidence does not mean the Bible is lying. Rather on the contrary. It may be evidencing facts than in those days could not be explained in any other way but miracles.
But, certainly, nobody can prove whether the chariot that took away Elijah is the same one of the book of Ezekiel and what kind of chariot was it.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | bioharmony asked on 01/19/03 - war against Iraq Should Christians support GW Bush's proposed pre-emptive strike on Iraq? curious98 answered on 01/29/03:Being a Christian has little, if anything, to do with Bush proposed war against Iraq.
Wars are bad, cruel and a sample of man's exreme ambition, arrogance and power abuse.
All religions are against wars, for most Religions preach Love and Peace, unless they are manipulated by men, as it is happening right now in some Muslim Countries, and as, every now and then, happens too within some Christians denominations.
Therefore, supporting or not Bush's intended war will depend on your personal beliefs.
I do not support it. Not only, I do not believe in its necessity at present.
But Bush has the pressure of his Texans Lobbies, weapons manufacturers and his father, who, probably, wanst him to finish the job he started 11 years ago and left unfinished.
Of course, this is just my opinion as an European.
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | bioharmony asked on 01/19/03 - war against Iraq Should Christians support GW Bush's proposed pre-emptive strike on Iraq? curious98 answered on 01/29/03:Being a Christian has little, if anything, to do with Bush proposed war against Iraq.
Wars are bad, cruel and a sample of man's exreme ambition, arrogance and power abuse.
All religions are against wars, for most Religions preach Love and Peace, unless they are manipulated by men, as it is happening right now in some Muslim Countries, and as, every now and then, happens too within some Christians denominations.
Therefore, supporting or not Bush's intended war will depend on your personal beliefs.
I do not support it. Not only, I do not believe in its necessity at present.
But Bush has the pressure of his Texans Lobbies, weapons manufacturers and his father, who, probably, wanst him to finish the job he started 11 years ago and left unfinished.
Of course, this is just my opinion as an European.
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 01/29/03 - Self Control Hello,
What personal benefits result to the Christian who cultivates self-control?
What can lack of self control do to our health as well as to others?
Thank you,
RubyGirl
curious98 answered on 01/29/03:Selfcontrol has nothing whatsoever to do with being Christian of Taoist!
Selfcontrol has, instead, plenty to do with character, temperament, education and tolerance towards our fellow men.
Lack of self-control can seriously harm your health (it makes you more irascible, irritating and with no sense of humour) and, most certainly, you can be a pain in the neck to others...!
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | noredine asked on 01/08/03 - ST.Francis and his "Gey Friars"??? Dear experts....what do you know of the life of St.Francis and of his followres? Thanks. curious98 answered on 01/10/03:This is what my Catholic Encyclopeadia says re. this subject:
"Founder of the Franciscan Order, born at Assisi in Umbria, in 1181 or 1182 -- the exact year is uncertain; died there, 3 October, 1226.
His father, Pietro Bernardone, was a wealthy Assisian cloth merchant. Of his mother, Pica, little is known, but she is said to have belonged to a noble family of Provence. Francis was one of several children. The legend that he was born in a stable dates from the fifteenth century only, and appears to have originated in the desire of certain writers to make his life resemble that of Christ. At baptism the saint received the name of Giovanni, which his father afterwards altered to Francesco, through fondness it would seem for France, whither business had led him at the time of his son's birth. In any case, since the child was renamed in infancy, the change can hardly have had anything to do with his aptitude for learning French, as some have thought.
Francis received some elementary instruction from the priests of St. George's at Assisi, though he learned more perhaps in the school of the Troubadours, who were just then making for refinement in Italy. However this may be, he was not very studious, and his literary education remained incomplete. Although associated with his father in trade, he showed little liking for a merchant's career, and his parents seemed to have indulged his every whim. Thomas of Celano, his first biographer, speaks in very severe terms of Francis's youth. Certain it is that the saint's early life gave no presage of the golden years that were to come. No one loved pleasure more than Francis; he had a ready wit, sang merrily, delighted in fine clothes and showy display. Handsome, gay, gallant, and courteous, he soon became the prime favourite among the young nobles of Assisi, the foremost in every feat of arms, the leader of the civil revels, the very king of frolic. But even at this time Francis showed an instinctive sympathy with the poor, and though he spent money lavishly, it still flowed in such channels as to attest a princely magnanimity of spirit.
When about twenty, Francis went out with the townsmen to fight the Perugians in one of the petty skirmishes so frequent at that time between the rival cities. The Assisians were defeated on this occasion, and Francis, being among those taken prisoners, was held captive for more than a year in Perugia. A low fever which he there contracted appears to have turned his thoughts to the things of eternity; at least the emptiness of the life he had been leading came to him during that long illness. With returning health, however, Francis's eagerness after glory reawakened and his fancy wandered in search of victories; at length he resolved to embrace a military career, and circumstances seemed to favour his aspirations. A knight of Assisi was about to join "the gentle count", Walter of Brienne, who was then in arms in the Neapolitan States against the emperor, and Francis arranged to accompany him. His biographers tell us that the night before Francis set forth he had a strange dream, in which he saw a vast hall hung with armour all marked with the Cross. "These", said a voice, "are for you and your soldiers." "I know I shall be a great prince", exclaimed Francis exultingly, as he started for Apulia. But a second illness arrested his course at Spoleto. There, we are told, Francis had another dream in which the same voice bade him turn back to Assisi. He did so at once. This was in 1205.
Although Francis still joined at times in the noisy revels of his former comrades, his changed demeanour plainly showed that his heart was no longer with them; a yearning for the life of the spirit had already possessed it. His companions twitted Francis on his absent-mindedness and asked if he were minded to be married. "Yes", he replied, "I am about to take a wife of surpassing fairness." She was no other than Lady Poverty whom Dante and Giotto have wedded to his name, and whom even now he had begun to love. After a short period of uncertainty he began to seek in prayer and solitude the answer to his call; he had already given up his gay attire and wasteful ways. One day, while crossing the Umbrian plain on horseback, Francis unexpectedly drew near a poor leper. The sudden appearance of this repulsive object filled him with disgust and he instinctively retreated, but presently controlling his natural aversion he dismounted, embraced the unfortunate man, and gave him all the money he had. About the same time Francis made a pilgrimage to Rome. Pained at the miserly offerings he saw at the tomb of St. Peter, he emptied his purse thereon. Then, as if to put his fastidious nature to the test, he exchanged clothes with a tattered mendicant and stood for the rest of the day fasting among the horde of beggars at the door of the basilica.
Not long after his return to Assisi, whilst Francis was praying before an ancient crucifix in the forsaken wayside chapel of St. Damian's below the town, he heard a voice saying: "Go, Francis, and repair my house, which as you see is falling into ruin." Taking this behest literally, as referring to the ruinous church wherein he knelt, Francis went to his father's shop, impulsively bundled together a load of coloured drapery, and mounting his horse hastened to Foligno, then a mart of some importance, and there sold both horse and stuff to procure the money needful for the restoration of St. Damian's. When, however, the poor priest who officiated there refused to receive the gold thus gotten, Francis flung it from him disdainfully. The elder Bernardone, a most niggardly man, was incensed beyond measure at his son's conduct, and Francis, to avert his father's wrath, hid himself in a cave near St. Damian's for a whole month. When he emerged from this place of concealment and returned to the town, emaciated with hunger and squalid with dirt, Francis was followed by a hooting rabble, pelted with mud and stones, and otherwise mocked as a madman. Finally, he was dragged home by his father, beaten, bound, and locked in a dark closet.
Freed by his mother during Bernardone's absence, Francis returned at once to St. Damian's, where he found a shelter with the officiating priest, but he was soon cited before the city consuls by his father. The latter, not content with having recovered the scattered gold from St. Damian's, sought also to force his son to forego his inheritance. This Francis was only too eager to do; he declared, however, that since he had entered the service of God he was no longer under civil jurisdiction. Having therefore been taken before the bishop, Francis stripped himself of the very clothes he wore, and gave them to his father, saying: "Hitherto I have called you my father on earth; henceforth I desire to say only 'Our Father who art in Heaven.'" Then and there, as Dante sings, were solemnized Francis's nuptials with his beloved spouse, the Lady Poverty, under which name, in the mystical language afterwards so familiar to him, he comprehended the total surrender of all worldly goods, honours, and privileges. And now Francis wandered forth into the hills behind Assisi, improvising hymns of praise as he went. "I am the herald of the great King", he declared in answer to some robbers, who thereupon despoiled him of all he had and threw him scornfully in a snow drift. Naked and half frozen, Francis crawled to a neighbouring monastery and there worked for a time as a scullion. At Gubbio, whither he went next, Francis obtained from a friend the cloak, girdle, and staff of a pilgrim as an alms. Returning to Assisi, he traversed the city begging stones for the restoration of St. Damian's. These he carried to the old chapel, set in place himself, and so at length rebuilt it. In the same way Francis afterwards restored two other deserted chapels, St. Peter's, some distance from the city, and St. Mary of the Angels, in the plain below it, at a spot called the Porziuncola. Meantime he redoubled his zeal in works of charity, more especially in nursing the lepers.
On a certain morning in 1208, probably 24 February, Francis was hearing Mass in the chapel of St. Mary of the Angels, near which he had then built himself a hut; the Gospel of the day told how the disciples of Christ were to possess neither gold nor silver, nor scrip for their journey, nor two coats, nor shoes, nor a staff, and that they were to exhort sinners to repentance and announce the Kingdom of God. Francis took these words as if spoken directly to himself, and so soon as Mass was over threw away the poor fragment left him of the world's goods, his shoes, cloak, pilgrim staff, and empty wallet. At last he had found his vocation. Having obtained a coarse woolen tunic of "beast colour", the dress then worn by the poorest Umbrian peasants, and tied it round him with a knotted rope, Francis went forth at once exhorting the people of the country-side to penance, brotherly love, and peace. The Assisians had already ceased to scoff at Francis; they now paused in wonderment; his example even drew others to him. Bernard of Quintavalle, a magnate of the town, was the first to join Francis, and he was soon followed by Peter of Cattaneo, a well-known canon of the cathedral. In true spirit of religious enthusiasm, Francis repaired to the church of St. Nicholas and sought to learn God's will in their regard by thrice opening at random the book of the Gospels on the altar. Each time it opened at passages where Christ told His disciples to leave all things and follow Him. "This shall be our rule of life", exclaimed Francis, and led his companions to the public square, where they forthwith gave away all their belongings to the poor. After this they procured rough habits like that of Francis, and built themselves small huts near his at the Porziuncola. A few days later Giles, afterwards the great ecstatic and sayer of "good words", became the third follower of Francis. The little band divided and went about, two and two, making such an impression by their words and behaviour that before long several other disciples grouped themselves round Francis eager to share his poverty, among them being Sabatinus, vir bonus et justus, Moricus, who had belonged to the Crucigeri, John of Capella, who afterwards fell away, Philip "the Long", and four others of whom we know only the names. When the number of his companions had increased to eleven, Francis found it expedient to draw up a written rule for them. This first rule,as it is called, of the Friars Minor has not come down to us in its original form, but it appears to have been very short and simple, a mere adaptation of the Gospel precepts already selected by Francis for the guidance of his first companions, and which he desired to practice in all their perfection. When this rule was ready the Penitents of Assisi, as Francis and his followers styled themselves, set out for Rome to seek the approval of the Holy See, although as yet no such approbation was obligatory. There are differing accounts of Francis's reception by Innocent III. It seems, however, that Guido, Bishop of Assisi, who was then in Rome, commended Francis to Cardinal John of St. Paul, and that at the instance of the latter, the pope recalled the saint whose first overtures he had, as it appears, somewhat rudely rejected. Moreover, in site of the sinister predictions of others in the Sacred College, who regarded the mode of life proposed by Francis as unsafe and impracticable, Innocent, moved it is said by a dream in which he beheld the Poor Man of Assisi upholding the tottering Lateran, gave a verbal sanction to the rule submitted by Francis and granted the saint and his companions leave to preach repentance everywhere. Before leaving Rome they all received the ecclesiastical tonsure, Francis himself being ordained deacon later on.
After their return to Assisi, the Friars Minor -- for thus Francis had names his brethren, either after the minores, or lower classes, as some think, or as others believe, with reference to the Gospel (Matthew 25:40-45), and as a perpetual reminder of their humility -- found shelter in a deserted hut at Rivo Torto in the plain below the city, but were forced to abandon this poor abode by a rough peasant who drove in his ass upon them. About 1211 they obtained a permanent foothold near Assisi, through the generosity of the Benedictines of Monte Subasio, who gave them the little chapel of St. Mary of the Angels or the Porziuncola. Adjoining this humble sanctuary, already dear to Francis, the first Franciscan convent was formed by the erection of a few small huts or cells of wattle, straw, and mud, and enclosed by a hedge. From this settlement, which became the cradle of the Franciscan Order (Caput et Mater Ordinis) and the central spot in the life of St. Francis, the Friars Minor went forth two by two exhorting the people of the surrounding country. Like children "careless of the day", they wandered from place to place singing in their joy, and calling themselves the Lord's minstrels. The wide world was their cloister; sleeping in haylofts, grottos, or church porches, they toiled with the labourers in the fields, and when none gave them work they would beg. In a short while Francis and his companions gained an immense influence, and men of different grades of life and ways of thought flocked to the order. Among the new recruits made about this time By Francis were the famous Three Companions, who afterwards wrote his life, namely: Angelus Tancredi, a noble cavalier; Leo, the saint's secretary and confessor; and Rufinus, a cousin of St. Clare; besides Juniper, "the renowned jester of the Lord".
During the Lent of 1212, a new joy, great as it was unexpected, came to Francis. Clare, a young heiress of Assisi, moved by the saint's preaching at the church of St. George, sought him out, and begged to be allowed to embrace the new manner of life he had founded. By his advice, Clare, who was then but eighteen, secretly left her father's house on the night following Palm Sunday, and with two companions went to the Porziuncola, where the friars met her in procession, carrying lighted torches. Then Francis, having cut off her hair, clothed her in the Minorite habit and thus received her to a life of poverty, penance, and seclusion. Clare stayed provisionally with some Benedictine nuns near Assisi, until Francis could provide a suitable retreat for her, and for St. Agnes, her sister, and the other pious maidens who had joined her. He eventually established them at St. Damian's, in a dwelling adjoining the chapel he had rebuilt with his own hands, which was now given to the saint by the Benedictines as domicile for his spiritual daughters, and which thus became the first monastery of the Second Franciscan Order of Poor Ladies, now known as Poor Clares.
In the autumn of the same year (1212) Francis's burning desire for the conversion of the Saracens led him to embark for Syria, but having been shipwrecked on the coast of Slavonia, he had to return to Ancona. The following spring he devoted himself to evangelizing Central Italy. About this time (1213) Francis received from Count Orlando of Chiusi the mountain of La Verna, an isolated peak among the Tuscan Apennines, rising some 4000 feet above the valley of the Casentino, as a retreat, "especially favourable for contemplation", to which he might retire from time to time for prayer and rest. For Francis never altogether separated the contemplative from the active life, as the several hermitages associated with his memory, and the quaint regulations he wrote for those living in them bear witness. At one time, indeed, a strong desire to give himself wholly to a life of contemplation seems to have possessed the saint. During the next year (1214) Francis set out for Morocco, in another attempt to reach the infidels and, if needs be, to shed his blood for the Gospel, but while yet in Spain was overtaken by so severe an illness that he was compelled to turn back to Italy once more.
Authentic details are unfortunately lacking of Francis's journey to Spain and sojourn there. It probably took place in the winter of 1214-1215. After his return to Umbria he received several noble and learned men into his order, including his future biographer Thomas of Celano. The next eighteen months comprise, perhaps, the most obscure period of the saint's life. That he took part in the Lateran Council of 1215 may well be, but it is not certain; we know from Eccleston, however, that Francis was present at the death of Innocent II, which took place at Perugia, in July 1216. Shortly afterwards, i.e. very early in the pontificate of Honorius III, is placed the concession of the famous Porziuncola Indulgence. It is related that once, while Francis was praying at the Porziuncola, Christ appeared to him and offered him whatever favour he might desire.The salvation of souls was ever the burden of Francis's prayers,and wishing moreover, to make his beloved Porziuncola a sanctuary where many might be saved, he begged a plenary Indulgence for all who, having confessed their sins, should visit the little chapel. Our Lord acceded to this request on condition that the pope should ratify the Indulgence. Francis thereupon set out for Perugia, with Brother Masseo, to find Honorius III. The latter, notwithstanding some opposition from the Curia at such an unheard-of favour, granted the Indulgence, restricting it, however, to one day yearly. He subsequently fixed 2 August in perpetuity, as the day for gaining this Porziuncola Indulgence, commonly known in Italy as il perdono d'Assisi. Such is the traditional account. The fact that there is no record of this Indulgence in either the papal or diocesan archives and no allusion to it in the earliest biographies of Francis or other contemporary documents has led some writers to reject the whole story. This argumentum ex silentio has, however, been met by M. Paul Sabatier, who in his critical edition of the "Tractatus de Indulgentia" of Fra Bartholi has adduced all the really credible evidence in its favour. But even those who regard the granting of this Indulgence as traditionally believed to be an established fact of history, admit that its early history is uncertain. (See PORTIUNCULA.)
The first general chapter of the Friars Minor was held in May, 1217, at Porziuncola, the order being divided into provinces, and an apportionment made of the Christian world into so many Franciscan missions. Tuscany, Lombardy, Provence, Spain, and Germany were assigned to five of Francis's principal followers; for himself the saint reserved France, and he actually set out for that kingdom, but on arriving at Florence, was dissuaded from going further by Cardinal Ugolino, who had been made protector of the order in 1216. He therefore sent in his stead Brother Pacificus, who in the world had been renowned as a poet, together with Brother Agnellus, who later on established the Friars Minor in England. Although success came indeed to Francis and his friars, with it came also opposition, and it was with a view to allaying any prejudices the Curia might have imbibed against their methods that Francis, at the instance of Cardinal Ugolino, went to Rome and preached before the pope and cardinals in the Lateran. This visit to the Eternal City, which took place 1217-18, was apparently the occasion of Francis's memorable meeting with St. Dominic. The year 1218 Francis devoted to missionary tours in Italy, which were a continual triumph for him. He usually preached out of doors, in the market-places, from church steps, from the walls of castle court- yards. Allured by the magic spell of his presence, admiring crowds, unused for the rest to anything like popular preaching in the vernacular, followed Francis from place to place hanging on his lips; church bells rang at his approach; processions of clergy and people advanced to meet him with music and singing; they brought the sick to him to bless and heal, and kissed the very ground on which he trod, and even sought to cut away pieces of his tunic. The extraordinary enthusiasm with which the saint was everywhere welcomed was equalled only by the immediate and visible result of his preaching. His exhortations of the people, for sermons they can hardly be called, short, homely, affectionate, and pathetic, touched even the hardest and most frivolous, and Francis became in sooth a very conqueror of souls. Thus it happened, on one occasion, while the saint was preaching at Camara, a small village near Assisi, that the whole congregation were so moved by his "words of spirit and life" that they presented themselves to him in a body and begged to be admitted into his order. It was to accede, so far as might be, to like requests that Francis devised his Third Order, as it is now called, of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance, which he intended as a sort of middle state between the world and the cloister for those who could not leave their home or desert their wonted avocations in order to enter either the First Order of Friars Minor or the Second Order of Poor Ladies. That Francis prescribed particular duties for these tertiaries is beyond question. They were not to carry arms, or take oaths, or engage in lawsuits, etc. It is also said that he drew up a formal rule for them, but it is clear that the rule, confirmed by Nicholas IV in 1289, does not, at least in the form in which it has come down to us, represent the original rule of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance. In any event, it is customary to assign 1221 as the year of the foundation of this third order, but the date is not certain.
At the second general chapter (May, 1219) Francis, bent on realizing his project of evangelizing the infidels, assigned a separate mission to each of his foremost disciples, himself selecting the seat of war between the crusaders and the Saracens. With eleven companions, including Brother Illuminato and Peter of Cattaneo, Francis set sail from Ancona on 21 June, for Saint-Jean d'Acre, and he was present at the siege and taking of Damietta. After preaching there to the assembled Christian forces, Francis fearlessly passed over to the infidel camp, where he was taken prisoner and led before the sultan. According to the testimony of Jacques de Vitry, who was with the crusaders at Damietta, the sultan received Francis with courtesy, but beyond obtaining a promise from this ruler of more indulgent treatment for the Christian captives, the saint's preaching seems to have effected little. Before returning to Europe, the saint is believed to have visited Palestine and there obtained for the friars the foothold they still retain as guardians of the holy places. What is certain is that Francis was compelled to hasten back to Italy because of various troubles that had arisen there during his absence. News had reached him in the East that Matthew of Narni and Gregory of Naples, the two vicars-general whom he had left in charge of the order, had summoned a chapter which, among other innovations, sought to impose new fasts upon the friars, more severe than the rule required. Moreover, Cardinal Ugolino had conferred on the Poor Ladies a written rule which was practically that of the Benedictine nuns, and Brother Philip, whom Francis had charged with their interests, had accepted it. To make matters worse, John of Capella, one of the saint's first companions, had assembled a large number of lepers, both men and women, with a view to forming them into a new religious order, and had set out for Rome to seek approval for the rule he had drawn up for these unfortunates. Finally a rumour had been spread abroad that Francis was dead, so that when the saint returned to Italy with brother Elias -- he appeared to have arrived at Venice in July, 1220 -- a general feeling of unrest prevailed among the friars. Apart from these difficulties, the order was then passing through a period of transition. It had become evident that the simple, familiar, and unceremonious ways which had marked the Franciscan movement at its beginning were gradually disappearing, and that the heroic poverty practiced by Francis and his companions at the outset became less easy as the friars with amazing rapidity increased in number. And this Francis could not help seeing on his return. Cardinal Ugolino had already undertaken the task "of reconciling inspirations so unstudied and so free with an order of things they had outgrown." This remarkable man, who afterwards ascended the papal throne as Gregory IX, was deeply attached to Francis, whom he venerated as a saint and also, some writers tell us, managed as an enthusiast. That Cardinal Ugolino had no small share in bringing Francis's lofty ideals "within range and compass" seems beyond dispute, and it is not difficult to recognize his hand in the important changes made in the organization of the order in the so-called Chapter of Mats. At this famous assembly, held at Porziuncola at Whitsuntide, 1220 or 1221 (there is seemingly much room for doubt as to the exact date and number of the early chapters), about 5000 friars are said to have been present, besides some 500 applicants for admission to the order. Huts of wattle and mud afforded shelter for this multitude. Francis had purposely made no provision for them, but the charity of the neighbouring towns supplied them with food, while knights and nobles waited upon them gladly. It was on this occasion that Francis, harassed no doubt and disheartened at the tendency betrayed by a large number of the friars to relax the rigours of the rule, according to the promptings of human prudence, and feeling, perhaps unfitted for a place which now called largely for organizing abilities, relinquished his position as general of the order in favour of Peter of Cattaneo. But the latter died in less than a year, being succeeded as vicar-general by the unhappy Brother Elias, who continued in that office until the death of Francis. The saint, meanwhile, during the few years that remained in him, sought to impress on the friars by the silent teaching of personal example of what sort he would fain have them to be. Already, while passing through Bologna on his return from the East, Francis had refused to enter the convent there because he had heard it called the "House of the Friars" and because a studium had been instituted there. He moreover bade all the friars, even those who were ill, quit it at once, and it was only some time after, when Cardinal Ugolino had publicly declared the house to be his own property, that Francis suffered his brethren to re-enter it. Yet strong and definite as the saint's convictions were, and determinedly as his line was taken, he was never a slave to a theory in regard to the observances of poverty or anything else; about him indeed, there was nothing narrow or fanatical. As for his attitude towards study, Francis desiderated for his friars only such theological knowledge as was conformable to the mission of the order, which was before all else a mission of example. Hence he regarded the accumulation of books as being at variance with the poverty his friars professed, and he resisted the eager desire for mere book-learning, so prevalent in his time, in so far as it struck at the roots of that simplicity which entered so largely into the essence of his life and ideal and threatened to stifle the spirit of prayer, which he accounted preferable to all the rest.
In 1221, so some writers tell us, Francis drew up a new rule for the Friars Minor. Others regard this so-called Rule of 1221 not as a new rule, but as the first one which Innocent had orally approved; not, indeed, its original form, which we do not possess, but with such additions and modifications as it has suffered during the course of twelve years. However this may be, the composition called by some the Rule of 1221 is very unlike any conventional rule ever made. It was too lengthy and unprecise to become a formal rule, and two years later Francis retired to Fonte Colombo, a hermitage near Rieti, and rewrote the rule in more compendious form. This revised draft he entrusted to Brother Elias, who not long after declared he had lost it through negligence. Francis thereupon returned to the solitude of Fonte Colombo, and recast the rule on the same lines as before, its twenty-three chapters being reduced to twelve and some of its precepts being modified in certain details at the instance of Cardinal Ugolino. In this form the rule was solemnly approved by Honorius III, 29 November, 1223 (Litt. "Solet annuere"). This Second Rule, as it is usually called or Regula Bullata of the Friars Minor, is the one ever since professed throughout the First Order of St. Francis (see RULE OF SAINT FRANCIS). It is based on the three vows of obedience, poverty, and chastity, special stress however being laid on poverty, which Francis sought to make the special characteristic of his order, and which became the sign to be contradicted. This vow of absolute poverty in the first and second orders and the reconciliation of the religious with the secular state in the Third Order of Penance are the chief novelties introduced by Francis in monastic regulation.
It was during Christmastide of this year (1223) that the saint conceived the idea of celebrating the Nativity "in a new manner", by reproducing in a church at Greccio the praesepio of Bethlehem, and he has thus come to be regarded as having inaugurated the population devotion of the Crib. Christmas appears indeed to have been the favourite feast of Francis, and he wished to persuade the emperor to make a special law that men should then provide well for the birds and the beasts, as well as for the poor, so that all might have occasion to rejoice in the Lord.
Early in August, 1224, Francis retired with three companions to "that rugged rock 'twixt Tiber and Arno", as Dante called La Verna, there to keep a forty days fast in preparation for Michaelmas. During this retreat the sufferings of Christ became more than ever the burden of his meditations; into few souls, perhaps, had the full meaning of the Passion so deeply entered. It was on or about the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross (14 September) while praying on the mountainside, that he beheld the marvellous vision of the seraph, as a sequel of which there appeared on his body the visible marks of the five wounds of the Crucified which, says an early writer, had long since been impressed upon his heart. Brother Leo, who was with St. Francis when he received the stigmata, has left us in his note to the saint's autograph blessing, preserved at Assisi, a clear and simple account of the miracle, which for the rest is better attested than many another historical fact. The saint's right side is described as bearing on open wound which looked as if made by a lance, while through his hands and feet were black nails of flesh, the points of which were bent backward. After the reception of the stigmata, Francis suffered increasing pains throughout his frail body, already broken by continual mortification. For, condescending as the saint always was to the weaknesses of others, he was ever so unsparing towards himself that at the last he felt constrained to ask pardon of "Brother Ass", as he called his body, for having treated it so harshly. Worn out, moreover, as Francis now was by eighteen years of unremitting toil, his strength gave way completely, and at times his eyesight so far failed him that he was almost wholly blind. During an access of anguish, Francis paid a last visit to St. Clare at St. Damian's, and it was in a little hut of reeds, made for him in the garden there, that the saint composed that "Canticle of the Sun", in which his poetic genius expands itself so gloriously. This was in September, 1225. Not long afterwards Francis, at the urgent instance of Brother Elias, underwent an unsuccessful operation for the eyes, at Rieti. He seems to have passed the winter 1225-26 at Siena, whither he had been taken for further medical treatment. In April, 1226, during an interval of improvement, Francis was moved to Cortona, and it is believed to have been while resting at the hermitage of the Celle there, that the saint dictated his testament, which he describes as a "reminder, a warning, and an exhortation". In this touching document Francis, writing from the fullness of his heart, urges anew with the simple eloquence, the few, but clearly defined, principles that were to guide his followers, implicit obedience to superiors as holding the place of God, literal observance of the rule "without gloss", especially as regards poverty, and the duty of manual labor, being solemnly enjoined on all the friars. Meanwhile alarming dropsical symptoms had developed, and it was in a dying condition that Francis set out for Assisi. A roundabout route was taken by the little caravan that escorted him, for it was feared to follow the direct road lest the saucy Perugians should attempt to carry Francis off by force so that he might die in their city, which would thus enter into possession of his coveted relics. It was therefore under a strong guard that Francis, in July, 1226, was finally borne in safety to the bishop's palace in his native city amid the enthusiastic rejoicings of the entire populace. In the early autumn Francis, feeling the hand of death upon him, was carried to his beloved Porziuncola, that he might breathe his last sigh where his vocation had been revealed to him and whence his order had struggled into sight. On the way thither he asked to be set down, and with painful effort he invoked a beautiful blessing on Assisi, which, however, his eyes could no longer discern. The saint's last days were passed at the Porziuncola in a tiny hut, near the chapel, that served as an infirmary. The arrival there about this time of the Lady Jacoba of Settesoli, who had come with her two sons and a great retinue to bid Francis farewell, caused some consternation, since women were forbidden to enter the friary. But Francis in his tender gratitude to this Roman noblewoman, made an exception in her favour, and "Brother Jacoba", as Francis had named her on account of her fortitude, remained to the last. On the eve of his death, the saint, in imitation of his Divine Master, had bread brought to him and broken. This he distributed among those present, blessing Bernard of Quintaville, his first companion, Elias, his vicar, and all the others in order. "I have done my part," he said next, "may Christ teach you to do yours." Then wishing to give a last token of detachment and to show he no longer had anything in common with the world, Francis removed his poor habit and lay down on the bare ground, covered with a borrowed cloth, rejoicing that he was able to keep faith with his Lady Poverty to the end. After a while he asked to have read to him the Passion according to St. John, and then in faltering tones he himself intoned Psalm cxli. At the concluding verse, "Bring my soul out of prison", Francis was led away from earth by "Sister Death", in whose praise he had shortly before added a new strophe to his "Canticle of the Sun". It was Saturday evening, 3 October, 1226, Francis being then in the forty-fifth year of his age, and the twentieth from his perfect conversion to Christ.
The saint had, in his humility, it is said, expressed a wish to be buried on the Colle d'Inferno, a despised hill without Assisi, where criminals were executed. However this may be, his body was, on 4 October, borne in triumphant procession to the city, a halt being made at St. Damian's, that St. Clare and her companions might venerate the sacred stigmata now visible to all, and it was placed provisionally in the church of St. George (now within the enclosure of the monastery of St. Clare), where the saint had learned to read and had first preached. Many miracles are recorded to have taken place at his tomb. Francis was canonized at St. George's by Gregory IX, 16 July, 1228. On that day following the pope laid the first stone of the great double church of St. Francis, erected in honour of the new saint, and thither on 25 May, 1230, Francis's remains were secretly transferred by Brother Elias and buried far down under the high altar in the lower church. Here, after lying hidden for six centuries, like that of St. Clare's, Francis's coffin was found, 12 December, 1818, as a result of a toilsome search lasting fifty-two nights. This discovery of the saint's body is commemorated in the order by a special office on 12 December, and that of his translation by another on 25 May. His feast is kept throughout the Church on 4 October, and the impression of the stigmata on his body is celebrated on 17 September.
It has been said with pardonable warmth that Francis entered into glory in his lifetime, and that he is the one saint whom all succeeding generations have agreed in canonizing. Certain it is that those also who care little about the order he founded, and who have but scant sympathy with the Church to which he ever gave his devout allegiance, even those who know that Christianity to be Divine, find themselves, instinctively as it were, looking across the ages for guidance to the wonderful Umbrian Poverello, and invoking his name in grateful remembrance. This unique position Francis doubtless owes in no small measure to his singularly lovable and winsome personality. Few saints ever exhaled "the good odour of Christ" to such a degree as he. There was about Francis, moreover, a chivalry and a poetry which gave to his other- worldliness a quite romantic charm and beauty. Other saints have seemed entirely dead to the world around them, but Francis was ever thoroughly in touch with the spirit of the age. He delighted in the songs of Provence, rejoiced in the new-born freedom of his native city, and cherished what Dante calls the pleasant sound of his dear land. And this exquisite human element in Francis's character was the key to that far-reaching, all-embracing sympathy, which may be almost called his characteristic gift. In his heart, as an old chronicler puts it, the whole world found refuge, the poor, the sick and the fallen being the objects of his solicitude in a more special manner. Heedless as Francis ever was of the world's judgments in his own regard, it was always his constant care to respect the opinions of all and to wound the feelings of none. Wherefore he admonishes the friars to use only low and mean tables, so that "if a beggar were to come to sit down near them he might believe that he was but with his equals and need not blush on account of his poverty." One night, we are told, the friary was aroused by the cry "I am dying." "Who are you", exclaimed Francis arising, "and why are dying?" "I am dying of hunger", answered the voice of one who had been too prone to fasting. Whereupon Francis had a table laid out and sat down beside the famished friar, and lest the latter might be ashamed to eat alone, ordered all the other brethren to join in the repast. Francis's devotedness in consoling the afflicted made him so condescending that he shrank not from abiding with the lepers in their loathly lazar-houses and from eating with them out of the same platter. But above all it is his dealings with the erring that reveal the truly Christian spirit of his charity. "Saintlier than any of the saint", writes Celano, "among sinners he was as one of themselves". Writing to a certain minister in the order, Francis says: "Should there be a brother anywhere in the world who has sinned, no matter how great soever his fault may be, let him not go away after he has once seen thy face without showing pity towards him; and if he seek not mercy, ask him if he does not desire it. And by this I will know if you love God and me." Again, to medieval notions of justice the evil-doer was beyond the law and there was no need to keep faith with him. But according to Francis, not only was justice due even to evil-doers, but justice must be preceded by courtesy as by a herald. Courtesy, indeed, in the saint's quaint concept, was the younger sister of charity and one of the qualities of God Himself, Who "of His courtesy", he declares, "gives His sun and His rain to the just and the unjust". This habit of courtesy Francis ever sought to enjoin on his disciples. "Whoever may come to us", he writes, "whether a friend or a foe, a thief or a robber, let him be kindly received", and the feast which he spread for the starving brigands in the forest at Monte Casale sufficed to show that "as he taught so he wrought". The very animals found in Francis a tender friend and protector; thus we find him pleading with the people of Gubbio to feed the fierce wolf that had ravished their flocks, because through hunger "Brother Wolf" had done this wrong. And the early legends have left us many an idyllic picture of how beasts and birds alike susceptible to the charm of Francis's gentle ways, entered into loving companionship with him; how the hunted leveret sought to attract his notice; how the half-frozen bees crawled towards him in the winter to be fed; how the wild falcon fluttered around him; how the nightingale sang with him in sweetest content in the ilex grove at the Carceri, and how his "little brethren the birds" listened so devoutly to his sermon by the roadside near Bevagna that Francis chided himself for not having thought of preaching to them before. Francis's love of nature also stands out in bold relief in the world he moved in. He delighted to commune with the wild flowers, the crystal spring, and the friendly fire, and to greet the sun as it rose upon the fair Umbrian vale. In this respect, indeed, St. Francis's "gift of sympathy" seems to have been wider even than St.Paul's, for we find no evidence in the great Apostle of a love for nature or for animals.
Hardly less engaging than his boundless sense of fellow-feeling was Francis's downright sincerity and artless simplicity. "Dearly beloved," he once began a sermon following upon a severe illness, "I have to confess to God and you that during this Lent I have eaten cakes made with lard." And when the guardian insisted for the sake of warmth upon Francis having a fox skin sewn under his worn-out tunic, the saint consented only upon condition that another skin of the same size be sewn outside. For it was his singular study never to hide from men that which known to God. "What a man is in the sight of God," he was wont to repeat, "so much he is and no more" -- a saying which passed into the "Imitation", and has been often quoted. Another winning trait of Francis which inspires the deepest affection was his unswerving directness of purpose and unfaltering following after an ideal. "His dearest desire so long as he lived", Celano tells us, "was ever to seek among wise and simple, perfect and imperfect, the means to walk in the way of truth." To Francis love was the truest of all truths; hence his deep sense of personal responsibility towards his fellows. The love of Christ and Him Crucified permeated the whole life and character of Francis, and he placed the chief hope of redemption and redress for a suffering humanity in the literal imitation of his Divine Master. The saint imitated the example of Christ as literally as it was in him to do so; barefoot, and in absolute poverty, he proclaimed the reign of love. This heroic imitation of Christ's poverty was perhaps the distinctive mark of Francis's vocation, and he was undoubtedly, as Bossuet expresses it, the most ardent, enthusiastic, and desperate lover of poverty the world has yet seen. After money Francis most detested discord and divisions. Peace, therefore, became his watchword, and the pathetic reconciliation he effected in his last days between the Bishop and Potesta of Assisi is bit one instance out of many of his power to quell the storms of passion and restore tranquility to hearts torn asunder by civil strife. The duty of a servant of God, Francis declared, was to lift up the hearts of men and move them to spiritual gladness. Hence it was not "from monastic stalls or with the careful irresponsibility of the enclosed student" that the saint and his followers addressed the people" "they dwelt among them and grappled with the evils of the system under which the people groaned". They worked in return for their fare, doing for the lowest the most menial labour, and speaking to the poorest words of hope such as the world had not heard for many a day. In this wise Francis bridged the chasm between an aristocratic clergy and the common people, and though he taught no new doctrine, he so far repopularized the old one given on the Mount that the Gospel took on a new life and called forth a new love.
Such in briefest outline are some of the salient features which render the figure of Francis one of such supreme attraction that all manner of men feel themselves drawn towards him, with a sense of personal attachment. Few, however, of those who feel the charm of Francis's personality may follow the saint to his lonely height of rapt communion with God. For, however engaging a "minstrel of the Lord", Francis was none the less a profound mystic in the truest sense of the word. The whole world was to him one luminous ladder, mounting upon the rungs of which he approached and beheld God. It is very misleading, however, to portray Francis as living "at a height where dogma ceases to exist", and still further from the truth to represent the trend of his teaching as one in which orthodoxy is made subservient to "humanitarianism". A very cursory inquiry into Francis's religious belief suffices to show that it embraced the entire Catholic dogma, nothing more or less. If then the saint's sermons were on the whole moral rather than doctrinal, it was less because he preached to meet the wants of his day, and those whom he addressed had not strayed from dogmatic truth; they were still "hearers", if not "doers", of the Word. For this reason Francis set aside all questions more theoretical than practical, and returned to the Gospel.
Again, to see in Francis only the loving friend of all God's creatures, the joyous singer of nature, is to overlook altogether that aspect of his work which is the explanation of all the rest -- its supernatural side. Few lives have been more wholly imbued with the supernatural, as even Renan admits. Nowhere, perhaps, can there be found a keener insight into the innermost world of spirit, yet so closely were the supernatural and the natural blended in Francis, that his very asceticism was often clothed in the guide of romance, as witness his wooing the Lady Poverty, in a sense that almost ceased to be figurative. For Francis's singularly vivid imagination was impregnate with the imagery of the chanson de geste, and owing to his markedly dramatic tendency, he delighted in suiting his action to his thought. So, too, the saint's native turn for the picturesque led him to unite religion and nature. He found in all created things, however trivial, some reflection of the Divine perfection, and he loved to admire in them the beauty, power, wisdom, and goodness of their Creator. And so it came to pass that he saw sermons even in stones, and good in everything. Moreover, Francis's simple, childlike nature fastened on the thought, that if all are from one Father then all are real kin. Hence his custom of claiming brotherhood with all manner of animate and inanimate objects. The personification, therefore, of the elements in the "Canticle of the Sun" is something more than a mere literary figure. Francis's love of creatures was not simply the offspring of a soft or sentimental disposition; it arose rather from that deep and abiding sense of the presence of God, which underlay all he said and did. Even so, Francis's habitual cheerfulness was not that of a careless nature, or of one untouched by sorrow. None witnessed Francis's hidden struggles, his long agonies of tears, or his secret wrestlings in prayer. And if we meet him making dumb-show of music, by playing a couple of sticks like a violin to give vent to his glee, we also find him heart-sore with foreboding at the dire dissensions in the order which threatened to make shipwreck of his ideal. Nor were temptations or other weakening maladies of the soul wanting to the saint at any time. Francis's lightsomeness had its source in that entire surrender of everything present and passing, in which he had found the interior liberty of the children of God; it drew its strength from his intimate union with Jesus in the Holy Communion. The mystery of the Holy Eucharist, being an extension of the Passion, held a preponderant place in the life of Francis, and he had nothing more at heart than all that concerned the cultus of the Blessed Sacrament. Hence we not only hear of Francis conjuring the clergy to show befitting respect for everything connected with the Sacrifice of the Mass, but we also see him sweeping out poor churches, questing sacred vessels for them, and providing them with altar-breads made by himself. So great, indeed, was Francis's reverence for the priesthood, because of its relation to the Adorable Sacrament, that in his humility he never dared to aspire to that dignity. Humility was, no doubt, the saint's ruling virtue. The idol of an enthusiastic popular devotion, he ever truly believed himself less than the least. Equally admirable was Francis's prompt and docile obedience to the voice of grace within him, even in the early days of his ill-defined ambition, when the spirit of interpretation failed him. Later on, the saint, with as clear as a sense of his message as any prophet ever had, yielded ungrudging submission to what constituted ecclesiastical authority. No reformer, moreover, was ever, less aggressive than Francis. His apostolate embodied the very noblest spirit of reform; he strove to correct abuses by holding up an ideal. He stretched out his arms in yearning towards those who longed for the "better gifts". The others he left alone.
And thus, without strife or schism, God's Poor Little Man of Assisi became the means of renewing the youth of the Church and of imitating the most potent and popular religious movement since the beginnings of Christianity. No doubt this movement had its social as well as its religious side. That the Third Order of St. Francis went far towards re-Christianizing medieval society is a matter of history. However, Francis's foremost aim was a religious one. To rekindle the love of God in the world and reanimate the life of the spirit in the hearts of men -- such was his mission. But because St. Francis sought first the Kingdom of God and His justice, many other things were added unto him. And his own exquisite Franciscan spirit, as it is called, passing out into the wide world, became an abiding source of inspiration. Perhaps it savours of exaggeration to say, as has been said, that "all the threads of civilization in the subsequent centuries seem to hark back to Francis", and that since his day "the character of the whole Roman Catholic Church is visibly Umbrian". It would be difficult, none the less, to overestimate the effect produced by Francis upon the mind of his time, or the quickening power he wielded on the generations which have succeeded him. To mention two aspects only of his all- pervading influence, Francis must surely be reckoned among those to whom the world of art and letters is deeply indebted. Prose, as Arnold observes, could not satisfy the saint's ardent soul, so he made poetry. He was, indeed, too little versed in the laws of composition to advance far in that direction. But his was the first cry of a nascent poetry which found its highest expression in the "Divine Comedy" wherefore Francis has been styled the precursor of Dante. What the saint did was to teach a people "accustomed to the artificial versification of courtly Latin and Provencal poets, the use of their native tongue in simple spontaneous hymns, which became even more popular with the Laudi and Cantici of his poet-follower Jacopone of Todi". In so far, moreover, as Francis's repraesentatio, as Salimbene calls it, of the stable at Bethlehem is the first mystery-play we hear of in Italy, he is said to have borne a part in the revival of the drama. However this may be, if Francis's love of song called forth the beginnings of Italian verse, his life no less brought about the birth of Italian art. His story, says Ruskin, became a passionate tradition painted everywhere with delight. Full of colour, dramatic possibilities, and human interest, the early Franciscan legend afforded the most popular material for painters since the life of Christ. No sooner, indeed did Francis's figure make an appearance in art than it became at once a favourite subject, especially with the mystical Umbrian School. So true is this that it has been said we might by following his familiar figure "construct a history of Christian art, from the predecessors of Cimabue down to Guido Reni, Rubens, and Van Dyck".
Probably the oldest likeness of Francis that has come down to us is that preserved in the Sacro Speco at Subiaco. It is said that it was painted by a Benedictine monk during the saint's visit there, which may have been in 1218. The absence of the stigmata, halo, and title of saint in this fresco form its chief claim to be considered a contemporary picture; it is not, however, a real portrait in the modern sense of the word, and we are dependent for the traditional presentment of Francis rather on artists' ideals, like the Della Robbia statue at the Porziuncola, which is surely the saint's vera effigies, as no Byzantine so-called portrait can ever be, and the graphic description of Francis given by Celano (Vita Prima, c.lxxxiii). Of less than middle height, we are told, and frail in form, Francis had a long yet cheerful face and soft but strong voice, small brilliant black eyes, dark brown hair, and a sparse beard. His person was in no way imposing, yet there was about the saint a delicacy, grace, and distinction which made him most attractive.
The literary materials for the history of St. Francis are more than usually copious and authentic. There are indeed few if any medieval lives more thoroughly documented. We have in the first place the saint's own writings. These are not voluminous and were never written with a view to setting forth his ideas systematically, yet they bear the stamp of his personality and are marked by the same unvarying features of his preaching. A few leading thoughts taken "from the words of the Lord" seemed to him all sufficing, and these he repeats again and again, adapting them to the needs of the different persons whom he addresses. Short, simple, and informal, Francis's writings breathe the unstudied love of the Gospel and enforce the same practical morality, while they abound in allegories and personification and reveal an intimate interweaving of Biblical phraseology. Not all the saint's writings have come down to us, and not a few of these formerly attributed to him are now with greater likelihood ascribed to others. The extant and authentic opuscula of Francis comprise, besides the rule of the Friars Minor and some fragments of the other Seraphic legislation, several letters, including one addressed "to all the Christians who dwell in the whole world," a series of spiritual counsels addressed to his disciples, the "Laudes Creaturarum" or "Canticle of the Sun", and some lesser praises, an Office of the Passion compiled for his own use, and few other orisons which show us Francis even as Celano saw him, "not so much a man's praying as prayer itself". In addition to the saint's writings the sources of the history of Francis include a number of early papal bulls and some other diplomatic documents, as they are called, bearing upon his life and work. Then come the biographies properly so called. These include the lives written 1229-1247 by Thomas of Celano, one of Francis's followers; a joint narrative of his life compiled by Leo, Rufinus, and Angelus, intimate companions of the saint, in 1246; and the celebrated legend of St. Bonaventure, which appeared about 1263; besides a somewhat more polemic legend called the "Speculum Perfectionis", attributed to Brother Leo, the sate of which is a matter of controversy. There are also several important thirteenth- century chronicles of the order, like those of Jordan, Eccleston, and Bernard of Besse, and not a few later works, such as the "Chronica XXIV. Generalium" and the "Liber de Conformitate", which are in some sort a continuation of them. It is upon these works that all the later biographies of Francis's life are based.
Recent years have witnessed a truly remarkable upgrowth of interest in the life and work of St. Francis, more especially among non-Catholics, and Assisi has become in consequence the goal of a new race of pilgrims. This interest, for the most part literary and academic, is centered mainly in the study of the primitive documents relating to the saint's history and the beginnings of the Franciscan Order. Although inaugurated some years earlier, this movement received its greatest impulse from the publication in 1894 of Paul Sabatier's "Vie de S. Franois", a work which was almost simultaneously crowned by the French Academy and place upon the Index. In spite of the author's entire lack of sympathy with the saint's religious standpoint, his biography of Francis bespeaks vast erudition, deep research, and rare critical insight, and it has opened up a new era in the study of Franciscan resources. To further this study and International Society of Franciscan Studies was founded at Assisi in 1902, the aim of which is to collect a complete library of works on Franciscan history and to compile a catalogue of scattered Franciscan manuscripts; several periodicals, devoted to Franciscan documents and discussions exclusively, have moreover been established in different countries. Although a large literature has grown up around the figure of the Poverello within a short time, nothing new of essential value has been added to what was already known of the saint. The energetic research work of recent years has resulted in the recovery of several important early texts, and has called forth many really fine critical studies dealing with the sources, but the most welcome feature of the modern interest in Franciscan origins has been the careful re-editing and translating of Francis's own writings and of nearly all the contemporary manuscript authorities bearing on his life. Not a few of the controverted questions connected therewith are of considerable import, even to those not especially students of the Franciscan legend, but they could not be made intelligible within the limits of the present article. It must suffice, moreover, to indicate only some of the chief works on the life of St. Francis. "
Hope it helps
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | bioharmony asked on 01/07/03 - Our home Who of you believes it is God's plan to destroy the earth? curious98 answered on 01/10/03:Who are we to analyze GOD's designs?
Yet, if we have recourse to earthen logic -probably nothing to do with GOD's designs -
why should GOD plan to destroy GOD's own creation?
If this Earth of ours is not destroyed by natural causes - in a few more million years it should, when our Sun definitely cools off - don't worry. Man will take care of that chore and, eventually, will do the necessary to destroy it, one way or other.
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | bioharmony asked on 01/07/03 - Our home Who of you believes it is God's plan to destroy the earth? curious98 answered on 01/10/03:Who are we to analyze GOD's designs?
Yet, if we have recourse to earthen logic -probably nothing to do with GOD's designs -
why should GOD plan to destroy GOD's own creation?
If this Earth of ours is not destroyed by natural causes - in a few more million years it should, when our Sun definitely cools off - don't worry. Man will take care of that chore and, eventually, will do the necessary to destroy it, one way or other.
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | laurieq asked on 11/21/02 - Prophesy What is the purpose of prophesy in the Church today?
laurieq curious98 answered on 11/22/02:Hi Laurieq,
Prophecies are unfashionable now a days.
Many Bible schools, churches, preachers, evangelists, ministries, and missionaries seem to believe that the church age we are currently living in is the best ever. The Gospel is going out to the world through television, regular and short-wave radio, missionaries, and by other means. The Gospel has been published in most languages of the world. Yet, the Bible proclaims clearly that this is the worst church there has ever been. But then Gods Word also tells us that the wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked church of today does not know these things. In other words, the churches of today believe they are just the opposite of their true condition. They believe they are the best, yet are in reality the worst. Some churches and ministries are sometimes proclaiming they have won tens of thousands, or even millions of people to Christ. However, when the people they claim to have won are examined by their fruits, there is no evidence that the person truly repented. There is no evidence that Jesus is their Lord and Saviour. There is no evidence they are obeying Gods Word or are following the Jesus of the Bible. Both their conversation and actions are centred on this world, not on Jesus and the world to come.
For the most part, the salvation message of this generation is to simply say a prayer. Once that prayer is said, then the person is eternally saved no matter what they may or may not do. The message of true repentance, true trust in Jesus Christ, forsaking everything, persecutions, Gods wrath, hell and the lake of fire, sin, the Revelation and Daniel, Bible prophecy, and good sound Bible doctrine is seldom heard in todays churches. Most of todays churches are storytelling, fun- filled, prosperity-seeking institutions that hear of Gods love, but despise and get angry when biblical correction comes forth. It is a church age that claims that they know God, but in both fruits and works, they deny Him. The lukewarm, Laodicean church is the one that will be spit out. It is the church that will be left behind when the Rapture comes. As very few were saved in the days of Noah, in like manner, very few are truly saved today. When the Rapture comes, only a few will be taken.
Regarding America and the more developed countries, it is a church age where men may sit in church on Sunday and then go home and click on the internet searching for pornography. It is a church age in which people claim they are saved, but have a cigarette or drugs in one hand and a beer in another. They are full of anger, they hate people, and seldom read their Bibles or pray. They are a people that claim to be Christian, but have no understanding of Gods truth. They do not or cannot examine themselves truthfully by Gods Word to see if they are truly in the faith-ref 2 Cor 13:5.
Check this site for some interesting articles about Prophecies.
http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:Q96Ns6gXqHEC:www.prophecyfulfillment.com/+*prophecy+in+today%27s+churches*&hl=es&ie=UTF-8
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | paraclete asked on 11/20/02 - What has happened? What has happened here, has this site fallen over? I dont see any contributions for a week? curious98 answered on 11/20/02:Hi Paraclete,
I'm wondering myself too!
Though I think the explanation is quite simple.
There is not enough difussion as yet to this site.
I think we should tell all our friends about it, and then gradually, it will grow.
It takes patience, like all starts.
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 11/12/02 - Criticizing other Religions. Hello,
Criticizing Anothers Religion-Is It Unchristian? What do you think?
Respectfully,
RubyGirl curious98 answered on 11/13/02:Hello,
In my honest opinion, criticizing how somebody's else may think or believe in
reflects very poorly on us.
Once again, it shows how arrogant we can be...
When we criticize someone elses beliefs, we are:
a) taking for granted that our beliefs are the right ones.
b) presuming that the others are stupid
Now think of how religious fundamentalism is being harmful for Mankind How some Moslems can hate us or how a Catholic boy was a few weeks ago crucified by some Irish Protestants in Belfast
We can debate whether the other is right or wrong by expressing our own arguments and opinion, but we should not criticize him/her, for he may be right too. And this is also the principle of Democracy. Everybody is entitled to his/her own opinion.
Cordially,
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 11/12/02 - How to find God. Hello,
The world of mankind has searched for God, this has led people down thousands of pathways, as is evidenced by the diversity of religions, sects, and cults in the world today. But how can you find the true God? What can you do to be sure to find the right God and the right religion?
Respectfully,
RubyGirl curious98 answered on 11/13/02:
GOD is to be found in your heart and in your own faith in Mother Natures laws.
It should not really matter the name you give HIM and the rites you care to follow provided you always behave in accordance with Natures commandments for, after all, Moses Ten Commandments are just following what we consider as the Natural Law.
As you can imagine, GOD is infinitely over and above our petty problems. And HE should therefore over and above the name we gave HIM or the way we choose to adore HIM, as long as we always ACT in Good Faith.
Some may consider this as a Blasphemy!
To that Ill only say that one of the best Popes we ever had, such as Pope John XXIII, in the opening of his Vatican Ecumenic Council, on Jan. 25th, 1959, he said with different words, something to the same extent, i.e. all those who honestly believe in God, are entitled to Salvation, irrespective of their confession
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 11/12/02 - Religion and Myths. Hello,
WHY consider myths? Are they not just fictions from the distant past? Or are they part of religion today?
Respectfully,
RubyGirl
curious98 answered on 11/13/02:Hi,
Considering my previous answer re Religions, we should conclude that Myths are in the origin of all religions we know of.
You must bear in mind that the more primitive man is the more superstitious he tends to be and, consequently, he has a tendency to exaggerate events or to dress them up with a considerable amount of fantasy
To give you an instance, and since you are a scholar of Bible studies, you probably should know that the legend of Noahs Ark and the Flood (Gen. 6-14/16) is actually a copy of the Gilgamesh Epic.
Gilgamesh was an historical king of Uruk in Babylonia, on the River Euphrates in modern Iraq; he lived about 2700 B.C. Many stories and myths were written about Gilgamesh, some of which were written down about 2200 B.C. (The book of Genesis was written by Moses (Mark 10:2-8) around 1500 years BC!) in the Sumerian language on clay tablets which still survive. These Sumerian Gilgamesh stories were integrated into a longer poem, versions of which survive not only in Akkadian (the Semitic language, related to Hebrew, spoken by the Babylonians) but also on tablets written in Hurrian and Hittite. All the above languages were written in the script known as cuneiform, which means "wedge-shaped." The fullest surviving version is derived from twelve stone tablets, in the Akkadian language, found in the ruins of the library of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria 669-633 B.C., at Nineveh.
On the other hand, references to The Flood are numerous. The story of the Flood is a familiar one, as we shall see in Popol Vuh (Plato also gives an account of the Flood and the city of Atlantis in the dialogue, Critias ; the Nez Perce of the Palouse also have a flood story in which the only humans that survived did so by climbing the mountain, Yamustus, that is, Steptoe Butte). The earliest surviving reference to the Flood goes back, though, to the above mentioned epic of Gilgamesh.
So as you can see a number of events described in certain religions are or were rather, copied or interpreted from other previous legends or religions. A number of references in old Sumerian and Babylonic religion were translated later on to the Egyptian cult. And, similarly, in the O.T. books there can be found a number of references which, obviously, have been taken from older myths, legends or religions.
Which does not necessarily mean that they are false! On the contrary, they may mean that they actually happened but were described according to the culture and/or mentality of the writers.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 11/12/02 - Religion Hello,
Religion-How Did It Begin in general? In your opinion how did it begin? How did your denomination beging?
Respectfully,
RubyGirl curious98 answered on 11/13/02:Hello RubyDear,
When GOD created man, HE made him with an irresistible anxiety as to his origins, his reasons to be and as to why was he down here and what for So, as soon as man was able to reason he felt he had to adore something or someone who was, no doubt, responsible for his being. Thus, religions were born!
Initially, it was Mother Earth and the Sun who were the main subjects of reverence on the part of man. And then, gradually, as men became more sophisticated so were religions to the point some, like Hinduism, could have thousands of different gods. However, to the best of my knowledge, all religions had and have one common denominator, i.e., there could be many gods but there was always one who was the big boss around. Mardouk, Zeus, Jupiter, Manitou, etc. etc.
My own denomination began when a righteous Man died in a cross to redeem all of us, and those to come yet, from our sins
Cordially,
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 11/12/02 - What Criteria?? Hello,
By what criteria should a religion be judged? By whose standard?
Respectfully,
RubyGirl curious98 answered on 11/12/02:Hi RubyGirl,
As Cyb, who are we to judge anything?
We can try to judge how we interpret GOD's will, for we do have a tendency to misinterpret HIM...
Insofar, the three most important religions of this world are monotheistic you can already visualize them as probably being closer to inducing us to believe in ONE and ONLY GOD.
However, the three of them are being, in most cases, interpreted to the convenience of those who have to teach them.
Anyway, as long as any religion teaches us to love each other, to forgive and to adore ONE ONLY GOD, I would say that religion is on the right track...
And, of course, I'm not trying to say I'm interpreting GOD's will, but according to human logic what I say before seems to stand to reason!
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | Cybele asked on 11/12/02 - Curious98 Thanks for the comments, still have no idea if the follow ups are getting where they belong.
Cyb curious98 answered on 11/12/02:Hy Cyb,
Neither do I! I guess it takes time to get used to a new system
Best regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | Fr_Chuck asked on 11/11/02 - Askme downloads For all those old askme.com experts, just a note that the ASKME.com site has added the download. It allows you to down load your answers very quicly into a text readable file.
curious98 answered on 11/11/02:Thanks for the info. Chuck.
I'll take advantage of downloading mine, some 750 which I'd like to keep as a souvenir...
Thanks again
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | SuzyQ asked on 11/10/02 - Hi everyone, I found my way here... I came here sort of by mistake, but I think I like it. Course it looks like we have a Judona clone, but then it can't all be perfect. I was SuzyQ42 on Askme, wasn't there for long before they shut it down, was it me?? ;O Anyway it is nice to see so many familiar names, feels like old home week. Does anyone know if this place works like Askme did, or similar? curious98 answered on 11/11/02:Hi SuziQ,
Welcome back!
And it does work rather as AskMe used to.
So I am sure you will enjoy yourself here as I do now.
Cordially
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | Nadia_Alexa asked on 11/10/02 - Greetings all.... WTY seems to be up and running.
By mistake I hit the wrong icon, intending to come here and instead arrieved at WTY and it appears that it is back with all its previous conversations, commentaries, etc.
Laura, thanks for the welcome, tried to answer you but I am not too well acquainted with this venue yet.
Nadia curious98 answered on 11/11/02:Hi
May I ask what is this WTC venue?
Thanks
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 11/10/02 - What does your religion propduce? Hello,
All religions ought to be producing some kind of peaceable fruitage. But do they? Does yours?
Respectfully,
RubyGirl curious98 answered on 11/11/02:This fruitage they should be producing is mutual love for each other. Now, as to whether it does, unfortunately I am a bit pessimistic.
We are all too mean for that. I'll give you an instance.
I keep on saying to myself and to everybody who wants to listen to me, that we should all love each other; that that was GOD's most important commandment!
And yet I was very happy when all my sons decided to marry some nice conventional white Spanish girls - who I adore - instead of falling for some others from some other country or race... Is this true Christian spirit?
One day I will have to respond before the BIG BOSS for this mental attitude, and I still-after so many years-don't know what could I say in my defense...
Could you help?
Best regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 11/10/02 - What kind of effect? Hello,
If you have a religion, what effect does your religion have on you? Does your religion produce a kinder person? More generous, honest, humble, tolerant, and compassionate?
Respectfully, RubyGirl curious98 answered on 11/11/02:Dear RubyGirl,
I was born in the Roman Catholic religion, so much so that I even had an Arcbishop in my family. This religion taugh me to be generous, honest, humble, tolerant and compassionate alright and it also taught me these were the virtues to be exemplified precisely by those who were teaching it.
Soon I realized that most of them were a sad reflection of the antithesis of those virtues. And, therefore, I chose to rely upon GOD's only help and try my best to become a better person. I'm now 76 and am still fighting to become better and I see I have a long way to go yet.
I only hope that when I go -and the final station cannot be very far now- my accounting in GOD's ledger does not show too many red-figures...
Love and Peace
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 11/10/02 - reations Hello,
What makes some people react so vehemently in matters of religion?
Respectfully,
RubyGirl
curious98 answered on 11/11/02:Hi RubyGirl,
Lack of humility. Or extreme arrogance!
Whichever you prefer, because both lead to the same end result.
The vehemence you refer to!
Love and peace!
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | Laura asked on 11/10/02 - Hey Everyone!! How do!! My husband took me out to dinner and we went to see our son play(he is lead guitar in a band) Just got back and saw my email. Just joined as expert in religion and Christianity. God Bless. Laura(swesterfield3) curious98 answered on 11/11/02:Hello Laura,
Another hearty welcome to you from this end. I was in religious counseling back in AskMe, and I have the feeling I am going to enjoy myself here too.
All the best
Love and Peace
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | Nadia_Alexa asked on 11/10/02 - Greetings and Salutations - Thanks for relaying my message, Cyb. I had difficulty on reloggin, however, finally achieved success and am succesfully esconced at Answerway.
Regards to old friends and new friends,
Nadia curious98 answered on 11/11/02:Thanks and be welcome you too. As I said before the more the merrier!
Best regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | whitefawn asked on 11/10/02 - Feel Lost. I have been to so many denominations and have studied so much. I have not given up on Christ though.
Some real nice Christians came out and took my son to Church it's a nice little Church, it was his choice he is only twelve but very smart, but today I got into a lot of trouble with some I was studying with.
Why is it Religions can't get along? Why not just go by the scriptures of Jesus?
Have you ever felt so lost that the only one to turn to is Jesus and not man-kind?
curious98 answered on 11/11/02:Hi WHitefawn,
I had. Many, many years ago! And after walking alone over a long and lonesome road, I turned to Jesus and then, I turned to His FATHER, the only GOD there is, whether we like it or not, irrespective of what we may think
And ever since, I never walked along that lonesome road again
And I could see with crystal clear clarity the answer to your question:
Religions cannot get along because those who represent them are small-minded and petty, selfish and haughty and in the meanness of their arrogance they consider themselves to be in possession of the only truth. And that goes to Christians, Moslems, Jews and in general, to all those who feel they have been blessed by GOD ITSELF with a special privilege that makes them special And in their arrogance they feel better than all the rest when they preach from their pulpits of from wherever they preach
Now, when I march on this new and bright road, I find all kind of people there: I find Christians from all denominations, I find Moslems who may be chiites, wahhabites or sunnies; I find Jews, and Hindus and Buddhists and even some agnostics, who are trying to find their own way
And the common denominator we share is love for mankind and hope, faith and charity. SO if you wish to join us in that road, you are very welcome to and can start marching on!
Peace and Love
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | laurieq asked on 11/09/02 - thank you Pete I thank you for offering to take care of me and I sure will be happy to accept the offer. I am most vulnerable after being anonymouse. i signed as an expert on your express orders . thankee laurieq curious98 answered on 11/11/02:Hi Laurieq,
I don't know you and you don't know me, for I have been with AskMe only for 3 months...
But you should not feel any more vulnerable than anybody else.
We are good fellers and I'm sure you will end up by liking all of us as you seem to like Pete.
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | Cybele asked on 11/09/02 - Greetings and Salutations - Just a few words to inform Pete, Aton, Cyb, etc. that I am here. Inform me of location where all signed up so I can emulate your example.
Nadia curious98 answered on 11/11/02:Hi Cybele,
If you just look for the name of the person you want - you can try the same alias he/she used in AskMe - you will get his/her profile and all the categories she/he have signed in.
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | Cybele asked on 11/09/02 - Hmm - -- is this another Exodus for the Askme cavalcade???
Beginning to wonder if it is! 3 days now and most of the 'family' is missing.
anybody heard from Sheridan, Nancy, Kamila, AlCarter, etc. etc. Just got word from Nadia; informed her of what's going on. She will try and log on here when time permits.
Cyb curious98 answered on 11/11/02:I guess that's life! They say it's always the best ones who go first.
Let's hope this will not be the case over here.
Welcome Cybele
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | laurieq asked on 11/09/02 - Aton Doggone, I didn't mean to triple post like that. Now you'll really think I like you. still not familiar with all of this yet. laurieq curious98 answered on 11/11/02:If you visit the new forum in the upper lefthand side of this page, you can pose your problems to the site management!
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | laurieq asked on 11/09/02 - Pete & Aton Hey of course I remember you Pete And yur ears. I have to answer this way because I am not an expert. I was the anonymous who liked ATOn and still do. I used this name when I was just looking and now seem to be stuck with it. Really good to see both of you. laurieq I guess it'll be. curious98 answered on 11/11/02:Welcome everybody. The More the Merrier, and right now we got to increase our "clientele"
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | bioharmony asked on 11/09/02 - War If your country asks you to join the army, will you obey? curious98 answered on 11/11/02:Hi Bioharmony,
If I would be asked to volunteer and join the army, I would most certainly not, unless my Country would be in danger, in which case I would.
If you would be drafted, what else can you do?
In case of war, in my country you would be court-martialled and shot!
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | laurieq asked on 11/09/02 - hey cybele What has happened to wetellyou. Good to see you, I was on askme, always as one of the anonymouses. curious98 answered on 11/11/02:I have heard of you! Always good things!
So I wish you a heartly welcome to this site.
An ex-AskMe too
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 11/09/02 - counseling Hello,
Being a religious board, most have at some time or another given spiritual counsel. What is the key to successful counseling?
Respectfully,
RubyGirl curious98 answered on 11/11/02:Just telling the truth as you understand or as you see it, and saying before hand, to whoever you are giving your counsel to, that what you are saying in a bona fide basis is also what you are trying to do, though most of the time, you don't succeed.
This is what happens to me. Whatever I say, I say it because I believe in it. Although, when I try to apply to myself my own piece of advice, I find it more often than not very difficult to fulfil it.
The only thing I can say in my own discharge is that I never pretend to be perfect, but rather, full of imperfections.
On the other hand, by writing my own ideas helps me pondering over them and trying to be a little bit better next time...
So, in the end, it is worth my while responding to your questions to the best of my knowledge and possibilities, which are not much, believe me
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 11/09/02 - Attention Hello Experts,
The Bible speaks of giving attention to infants. What kind of attention do children need from infancy?
Respectfully,
RubyGirl curious98 answered on 11/11/02:This I interpret as loving and respecting infants, which by the way we do not do anymore as we should...
When a mother of a father let a child watch some of the animated series (not to speak of real movies) supposedly intended for children consumption (some of the Japanese ones of the Symsons, for inst.) we are not GIVING ATTENTION to the infants. We are just contributing to introduce the concept of disorder and chaos in their innocent minds, to the extent, they are not innocent any more after a short while.
And you probably remembered what Jesus said about those who throw trash and corromp infants innocence.
"Let The Children Come To Me And Do Not Hinder Them" Matthew 19:14
Love and Peace,
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 11/09/02 - Persoanl Study Hello Experts,
Why is personal study of the Bible so essential?
Respectfully,RubyGirl curious98 answered on 11/11/02:One again, hello Ruby, you look like a machine gun shooting questions, don't you!
For us Christians personal study of the Bible is essential because from its study we can learn the basics of our Religion.
However, studying it and knowing it by heart, as many do, who can recite entire chapters when needed, IS NOT enough. In fact, in my opinion, it is just plain useless IF NOT accompanied by a life of true love for Mankind and respect for others. It's just sheer hypocresy to preach in the pulpit about morals and later in the evening devote myself to pederasty practices. I know flesh is weak but then I should not be telling others what they should do or not do. I, rather, should tell them first that I know what I'm saying because I have sinned time and again and I'm struggling with my own flesh to overcome this vice...
Look around a littlr, and you will see how much hypocresy you can detect!
Love and Peace
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 11/09/02 - "sin" Hello,
What is meant by the word sin as used in the Bible?
Respectfully,RubyGirl curious98 answered on 11/11/02:Hy RubyGirl
Although almost everyone understands that sin is doing something wrong, there is often confusion about exactly how to determine if something is wrong. Sin in the Bible is simply disobeying GOD, doing things HE has said we should not do, or not doing things HE said we should do. God is the unchanging standard of right and wrong, and when we choose to disobey HIM, we are wrong and we have sinned. (See 1 John 5:17)
Love and Peace
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 11/09/02 - Christian Marriage Hello,
What causes a Christian marriage to flourish?
Respectfully.
RubyGirl curious98 answered on 11/11/02:Probably the mere fact that the couple, if truly christians, must share some of the virtues praised by true Christianism, like patience, tolerance and understandig, the three of them surrounded by sheer and everlasting true love.
Mind you, these are not exclusive virtues of Christians, but I tend to believe that people with a strong Faith and/or Spirituality (such as Hindus, for instance) are more likely to have flourishing marriages than not.
You must also necessarily believe in the Family as one of the pillars of Society!
I do, and my marriage has lasted, "through fair and stormy weather" for 52 solid years and still going strong, thanks GOD.
Love and Peace
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 11/09/02 - 1 Thessalonians 5:3 Hello Everyone,
What is implied by the expression: Whenever it is that they are saying: Peace and security! 1 Thessalonians 5:3?
Respectfull,
RubyGirl
curious98 answered on 11/11/02:Dear RubyGirl,
For its great interest, pls. read this paper:
"To apocalyptic movements the end has always been at hand. Without doubt this has been the key to their success. How many people wouldnt like our world of endless problems to disappear and be replaced by a better one? Any movement that is able to keep such expectations alive has a guaranteed increase.
War and Peace as Signs of the Times
Such expectations are created by interpreting different world events as prophetic signs, which indicate that the end is close. There are always Scriptures which, by the aid of a little imagination, can be applied to the current world situation. In times of war Jesus words about nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom (Matt. 24:7) are quoted. And during more peaceful periods attention is drawn to other biblical statements. At such times the Watch Tower Society has commonly referred to the words of the apostle Paul at 1 Thessalonians 5:3. This text says, according to the New World Translation:
Whenever it is that they are saying: Peace and security! then sudden destruction is to be instantly upon them just as the pang of distress upon a pregnant woman; and they will by no means escape.
The Society interprets this text as follows, according to The Watchtower of May 15, 1984, page 6:
This prophecy makes it clear that, just prior to the end of this system of things, peace and security will be declared in some exceptional way, whether by the United Nations or independently by political and religious leaders. What will follow that declaration? Paul said: Then sudden destruction will be instantly upon them.1 Thessalonians 5:2, 3
An Unmistakable Sign?
Seventy-six years have now passed since 1914, when, according to the Society, the last generation began. That the present peace efforts have heightened the expectations among Jehovahs Witnesses is, therefore, nothing to wonder at.
Thanks to Gorbachevs glasnost policy a new period of relaxation between the great powers has developed. A number of protracted wars have ended, the dictatorships in Eastern Europe are falling, and important steps have been taken in the negotiations on peace and disarmament. Will this development result in a proclamation of Peace and Security around the world? This is, at least, what Jehovahs Witnesses are now being led to look for.
According to the Society, such a proclamation will be the signal for God to move into action, yes, an unmistakable signal that world destruction is imminent. - Awake!, April 8; 1988, page 14; True Peace and Security - How Can You Find It? (1986), page 85.
But how unmistakable, really, is the signal the Witnesses have been told to look for? Most of them are completely unaware of the fact that the Society repeatedly during its past history has proclaimed that the period of peace and security is immediately at hand, or even that this period already has begun. Each time, however, the unmistakable signal has turned out to be a mistake!
Peace and Security in the Period 1899-1914
Towards the end of his life Charles Taze Russell, the first president of the Watch Tower Society, arrived at the conclusion that 1 Thessalonians 5:3 was fulfilled in the period 1899-1914. When, during a question and answer session at a convention in 1915, he was asked how this text should be understood, he answered:
We think that this saying of peace! peace! has been going on for some years. The Church systems and everybody have been claiming, ever since the first Peace Conference at The Hague (in 1899), that war had to come to an end, that we were having the time of peace that the Bible tells us about.
According to Russells interpretation, this period of peace and security was cut off in 1914 by the great tribulation, which was to culminate in the predicted world destruction. - See the book: What Pastor Russell Said (written by L. W. Jones, a close associate of Pastor Russell), page 529
Peace and Security in 1918
Russells interpretation turned out to be shortlived. In 1917, when world developments indicated that the war, instead of culminating in world destruction, would soon come to an end, Russells interpretation was changed by the new president, J. F. Rutherford. The war would end, he wrote, and be followed by a short period of peace, when the people would say Peace in accordance with 1 Thess. 5:3. Soon after that the end would come. - The Watch Tower, Jan. l, 1917, pp. 4-5; Dec.1, 1917, p. 358
Peace and Security in the 1930s
The sudden destruction expected to follow quickly upon the peace that commenced in 1918 turned out to be long in coming. In the middle of the 1930s, therefore, the time was due for a new application of the peace prophecy. Thus, in 1936, Rutherford, in the booklet Choosing Riches or Ruin?, wrote that they now were in the period when the prophetic words in 1 These. 5:3 would be fulfilled. But prior to this imminent peace period, Rutherford predicted, the nations on earth, headed by religious leaders, would silence the preaching work of Jehovahs Witnesses. Thereafter they would proclaim Peace and security worldwide. - See also pages 291-294 of the book Enemies, published in 1937. On page 293 of the latter book Rutherford wrote:
The old whore (Roman Catholic Church) sitting upon the back of the beast may soon be expected to say: Peace and safety; we have silenced all opponents. Then Jehovahs strange act will begin, and sudden destruction comes upon her as travail upon a woman with child.
Peace and Security After 1945
In 1939, however, World War II broke out without having been preceded by the predicted world peace. Once again, therefore, Rutherford had to postpone the peace period. In 1940 he foretold that the war would soon be interrupted by a brief peace period, immediately followed by Gods war Armageddon. - The Watchtower August 15, 1940, page 246 and September 1, 1940, pp. 259, 260, 265, 266.
Early in 1942, in the middle of the war, Rutherford died. His successor, N. H. Knorr, stuck to this latest interpretation. In the booklet Peace - Can It Last?, published in 1942, Knorr explained that the peace period soon to come will be very short-lived, as it would quickly be followed by the battle of Armageddon. (Page 26)
But the peace period that began after the end of the war in 1945 was not to become as short-lived as the Watch Tower Society had predicted! We are, in fact, still living in that peace period! Historians now point out that such a long era of peace between the great powers is unique in history! Historian Robert Jarvis, for instance, wrote in 1988 that,
Such a long period of peace between the mightiest states is without precedence. (International Security, Vol. 13 1988, p. 80)
And two years earlier K. J. Holsti noted that,
By historical standards a forty-one year period without an intra-Great Power war is unprecedented. (International Studies Quarterly, 30 December 1986, p. 369)
This peace period has now lasted over 45 years
Peace and Security in the 1970s
During the greater part of the peace period after 1945 the relations between the great powers have been strained, a situation that has often been described as the cold war. The peace prophecy at 1 Thess. 5:3, therefore, was generally pushed into the background. But early in the 1970s a relaxation, a detente, of the strained relations occurred. This was greeted in the Watchtower publication as an important sign, especially as the Society for a number of years had been stressing that 6,000 years since the creation of Adam would expire in 1975. Strange events are taking place in our time, said the Awake! magazine of October 8, 1972., on page 4. This special issue on the theme World Peace Coming - Will it Last? contained a series of articles discussing the peace efforts. On page 9 the magazine referred to the prophecy about Peace and Security at 1 Thessalonians 5:3 and stated:
This prophecy seems to be rapidly nearing its fulfillment.
Two books, both published in 1973, added more fuel to the expectations. True Peace and Security - From What Source? clearly related the detente in the world to the prophecy at 1 Thess. 5:3. And the other book, Gods Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached, said on page 364:
The current world events appear to be flowing toward the situation when men in control of affairs will jubilantly cry out in a self-congratulating way: Peace and security!
Similar statements appeared repeatedly in the Watchtower publications during the next two years.
1986: The International Year of Peace
Despite all the predictions and expectations for the 1970s, the decade passed without either world peace or world destruction. And when also the relaxation and peace talks between the great powers broke down, The Watchtower finally had to admit that none of these efforts fit the description at 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 3. (The Watchtower, November 15, 1981, p. 14)
But toward the end of 1985 the speculations got a new start. On October 24, 1985, the United Nations, on its 40th anniversary, declared 1986 as the International Year of Peace.
The Watchtower of October 1, 1985, stated that Jehovahs Witnesses watch the event with interest, but cannot say in advance whether this will prove to be the fulfilment of Pauls words quoted above. (Page 18) For safetys sake, however, The Society dusted off one of the books from 1973, True Peace and SecurityFrom What Source? and published it again in a new, revised edition during the peace year 1986 (renamed as True Peace and SecurityHow Can You Find It?). Referring to the United Nations declaration of 1986 as the Year of Peace, the book quoted the prophecy at 1 Thess. 5:3 and stated that:
this, no doubt, is a step toward the fulfilment of Pauls above-quoted words. (Page 85)
Like all the earlier predictions and expectations, the peace year 1986, too, failed to signal the imminent apocalypse. (The Watchtower, February, 1986, page 6) The developments in recent years, however, during our present so-called glasnost era, have kept the expectations alive. At first, though, the statements in the Watchtower publications were framed somewhat more cautiously. One hundred years of failed predictions seemed to have left their marks. In Awake! magazine of December 8, 1989, the question was asked if the recent surprising world events could be a fulfilment of 1 Thess. 5:3. The answer given was:
We cannot say. Nevertheless, it is obvious that today, in December 1989, peace and security is closer to realization than before. (page 24)
The issues of The Watchtower of April 1 and 15, 1990, both carried special articles on world peace, but still one could notice a palpable caution. The April 1 issue just briefly mentioned that 1 Thessalonians 5:3 will be fulfilled very soon (page 9), while the issue of April 15 didnt mention Pauls prophecy at all.
This caution turned out to be short-lived. A few months later, at the Society's summer conventions a new book, Mankinds Search For God, was released. On page 371 of this book we found the following bold statement
Already, another outstanding Bible prophecy is approaching fulfillment before our eyes.
Then, quoting Pauls words at 1 Thess. 5:1-3, the Society applies them to the present world situation by saying it would appear that the nations that were formerly belligerent and suspicious of one another are now moving cautiously to-ward a situation in which they will be able to declare world peace and security. New expectations are thus, once again, being built up among the Witnesses worldwide. In view of the past record, it seems safe to predict that these expectations also will fail.
Timely Warnings to the Reading Public?
Time and again, for almost a whole century, the Watch Tower society has proclaimed that Pauls prophecy about peace and security has been close to fulfillment. Each time these predictions have gone wrong. It might be expected that a movement that has failed so com-pletely in its predictions would finally assume a more humble attitude and begin to tone down its prophetic claims. But instead the movement continues, with stubborn presumptuousness, to speak as if it receives its messages directly from Jehovah himself: We are confident that Jehovah will keep his people well informed, said The Watchtower of May 15, 1987 (page 19) And in the same magazine, in the issue of September 1, 1987, the following promise is given on page 22:
To help you keep on guard, the Watch Tower Society will continue issuing in its publications timely warnings to the reading public, so that you will not be caught off guard by the coming pretentious proclamation Peace and security, as devised by the nations of this old system of things.
Timely warnings? How much is such a promise worth to the one who knows that every warning of this kind given in the past by this Society has been given in the wrong time? Not a scrap, of course. Unfortunately, however, millions of unsuspecting and confiding people will continue to take such promises in sober earnest and act accordingly. No one is so misled as the one who believes it is a grave sin to question those who misled him. (Matthew 15:14)
What Did the Apostle Mean?
Did Paul really predict that the nations, immediately before the end of the age, would proclaim a world peace? Did he say that this would be the final signal heralding that sudden destruction is imminent? (The Watchtower, May 15, 1987, page 19) The context, and especially the broader context, shows this conclusion to be totally wrong.
Bible commentators often point out that the apostle Paul in 1 Thess. 5:1-11 simply gives a summary of Jesus own words about his coming as recorded at Matt. 24:36-44, Luke 17:26-30 and 21:34-36. Jesus had said that he would come unexpectedly, like a thief in the night. It would be as in the days of Noah, before the Flood, and as in the days of Lot, before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. People back then were occupied with their daily activities and didnt suspect anything; they were eating and drinking, men were selling, they were planning, they were building. In the middle of all this the destruction suddenly came upon them. Paul briefly sums up Jesus words:
Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well (from Jesus own words) that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, Peace and safety, destruction will come on them suddenly. 1 Thessalonians 5.1-3 New International Version
A thief does not announce in advance the times and dates of his coming. He does not signal his coming in any way. He comes unexpectedly, surprisingly, when people feel safe and secure. It was because of this absence of any signs or signals that Jesus urged his disciples to keep awake and ready and sober. (Matt. 24:42, 44; Luke 21:34, 36) Paul repeated these exhortations. (1 Thess. 5:6-8) To keep awake would not mean to keep looking for any final signal, but to keep our senses and have on the breastplate of faith and love and as a helmet the hope of salvation. (1 Thess. 5:8) The one clothed in that armor would not be taken by surprise by the Lords day. He would be ready, whenever it came.
The Watch Tower Society has changed the sense of Pauls words to mean exactly the reverse. They have made the predicted absence of signs and signals, which Paul expressed with the words Peace and safety (NW: Peace and security) to the final signal that world destruction is imminent!
Peace, Peace; When There Is No Peace
The Greek word used by Paul of peace is eirene. This word is used in the New Testament as an equivalent of the Hebrew word schalom, which often occurs in the Old Testament. Schalom did not merely refer to peace in the political sense, but also, and primarily, to Gods good will toward men, Gods peace. Pauls use of the expression Peace (eirene) and safety is commonly supposed to be an allusion to Jeremiahs words about the Jews of his time at Jer. 5:14 and 8:11 (ASV):
They have healed also the hurt of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.
There was no political peace at that time The Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar was involved in a campaign of conquests aimed at subduing the whole Middle East, and Judah, too, was threatened. But the people felt safe, imagining that they had Gods protection, His peace. They expected no evil to come upon them. (Jer. 23:17) The destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 587 B.C., therefore came as a shocking surprise.
This too indicates that Pauls words about Peace and Safety should not be understood as a political proclamation of world peace, interpreted as the final signal of world destruction."
GOD in HIS infinite misericordy has not yet thought it fit to send Armaggedon
to us!
But we should not try HIM much more!
Love and Peace,
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 11/09/02 - Reasonableness Hello All,
Can you name some ways in which God demonstrates reasonableness?
Respectfully,
RubyGirl curious98 answered on 11/11/02:Hi once more Ruby Girl. You are probably going to hate me but I want to be honest with you and with myself.
GOD does NOT have to show us reasonableness in any way. GOD does not have to show ANYTHING and yet, HE HAS SHOWN limitless love for Mankind. Otherwise, we should have all disappeared bearing in mind how we treat HIM...
All HE had to show HE already DID when HE created the Universe!
And we should ALL revere HIM in awe at this accomplisment!
Let us not even attempt to evaluate HIM after our poor and insignificant parameters...
Love and Peace
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | Pete_Hanysz asked on 11/08/02 - . Hi, Shulona!!
Pete:) curious98 answered on 11/11/02:Hi Pete,
From what I'm reading I gather you must be an old timer from the religion category in AskMe.com? Isn't it?
I also come from AaskMe but not from religion but from religious counseling where, apparently, I fared quite well!
At any rate glad to meet you here too
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Pete_Hanysz asked on 11/08/02 - Ode from a lost A lost soul! Is there any one in??
Pete curious98 answered on 11/08/02:Hi Pete
May I help somehow?
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 11/08/02 - Jeremiah 24 Hello,
In Jeremiah chapter 24, what did the two baskets of figs, the good figs and those that were bad, represent?
Thank you,
RubyGirl curious98 answered on 11/08/02:Hi once more RubyGirl,
The explanation is implicit in the chapter, which I copy for you, in case you do not have it available.
24:1 The Lord showed me two baskets of figs sitting before his temple. This happened after King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon deported Jehoiakim's son, King Jeconiah of Judah. He deported him and the leaders of Judah, along with the craftsmen and metal workers, and took them to Babylon. 24:2 One basket had very good-looking figs in it. They looked like those that had ripened early. And the other basket had very bad-looking figs in it. They looked like they were so bad they could not be eaten. 24:3 The Lord said to me, "What do you see, Jeremiah?" I answered, "I see figs. The good ones look very good. But the bad ones look very bad, so bad that they cannot be eaten."
24:4 Then the Lord said to me, 24:5 "I, the Lord, the God of Israel, say, 'The exiles whom I sent away from here to the land of Babylon are like those good figs. I consider them to be good. 24:6 I will look after their welfare and will restore them to this land. There I will build them up and will not tear them down. I will plant them firmly in the land and will not uproot them. 24:7 I will give them the desire to acknowledge that I am the Lord. I will be their God and they will be my people. That is because they will wholeheartedly return to me.'
24:8 "I, the Lord, also solemnly assert, 'King Zedekiah of Judah, his officials, and the people who are left in Jerusalem or who have gone to live in Egypt are like those bad figs. I consider them to be just like those bad figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten. 24:9 I will bring such disaster on them that all the kingdoms of the earth will be horrified. I will make them an object of reproach, a proverbial example of disaster. I will make them an object of ridicule, an example to be used in curses. That is how they will be remembered wherever I banish them. 24:10 I will bring war, starvation, and disease on them until they are completely destroyed from the land I gave them and their ancestors.'"
You will have, no doubt realized by now, that when reading The Book there seems to be two kind of Gods. The Merciless, Angry and expecting unconditional obedience God of the Old Testament, always willing and ready to punish and condemn, and our Lord Jesus, loving, understanding and always willing to forgive
Regards
Curious98
PS
I have the feeling I'm going to enjoy your questions! | | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 11/08/02 - Moses Hi
Why is Moses such a fine theocratic example for us to follow?
Thanks.
RubyGirl curious98 answered on 11/08/02:Hi RubyGirl,
Sorry, I don't agree with you!
As you know, a Theocracy, is a country in which God is regarded as the sole sovereign and the laws of the realm are seen as divine commands. By extension a theocracy is a country in which control is in the hands of the clergy.
These two definitions of Theocracy are considering a country, but as we all know there is also at least one organization who claim to be a Theocracy, namely the Watchtower Society.
History tells us that the absolute worst despotic and horrible regimes imaginable have been "Theocratic". As the definition above states, a theocracy is a country (organization) in which control is in the hands of the clergy. In other words, those who claim to be in "communication" with God. In the case of the Watchtower Society it is the Governing Body.
The Watchtower magazine informs us of the nature of their "Organization":
"As part of Jehovah's family, we are not only joyful but also secure. This is so because his organization is theocratic. God's Kingdom is a theocracy (from Greek theos', god, and kra'tos, a rule). It is a rule by God, ordained and established by him. Jehovah's anointed "holy nation" is in submission to his rule and therefore is also theocratic." (The Watchtower, July 15, 1996, p. 13, 14)
Like all totalitarian-minded people, the Watchtower Society's leaders are extremely enthusiastic when it comes to the rule of "Theocracy". Just look at this statement in the Watchtower:
"That is why, throughout all human history, only one form of government has been truly successful. Which one? Theocracy under Jehovah God. In Biblical Greek, "theocracy" means a rule [kra'tos] by God [theos']. What better government could there be than that of Jehovah God himself?". (The Watchtower, January 15, 1994, p. 10, 2)
This issue of the Watchtower endeavors to give a historical view of the first national theocracy:
"Theocracy ruled for a short time in Eden, until Adam and Eve rebelled against Jehovah. (Genesis 3:1-6, 23) In Abraham's time, a theocracy appears to have existed in the city of Salem, with Melchizedek as king-priest. (Genesis 14:18-20; Hebrews 7:1-3) However, the first national theocracy under Jehovah God was established in the wilderness of Sinai in the 16th century B.C.E. How did that come about? And how did that theocratic government work?" (The Watchtower, January 15, 1994, p. 10, 3)
Yes, indeed, how did it work? And as we could see the Watchtower said that it is the "only [...] form of government" that "has been truly successful." Why not take a look at what this success consists of. According to the Watchtower, the birth of this "theocratic nation" started with war and carnage:
"A Theocracy Is Born
In 1513 B.C.E., Jehovah rescued the Israelites from slavery in Egypt and destroyed the pursuing armies of Pharaoh in the Red Sea. Then He led the Israelites to Mount Sinai. When they were encamped at the foot of the mountain, God told them through Moses: "You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, that I might carry you on wings of eagles and bring you to myself. And now if you will strictly obey my voice and will indeed keep my covenant, then you will certainly become my special property out of all other peoples." The Israelites responded: "All that Jehovah has spoken we are willing to do." (Exodus 19:4, 5, 8) A covenant was made, and the theocratic nation of Israel was born. -- Deuteronomy 26:18, 19." (The Watchtower, January 15, 1994, p. 10, 4)
Now how did this wonderful new "theocratic nation" behave in the years after its birth? Before we take a look at this we must keep in mind this next quote from the Watchtower:
"As this journal has previously pointed out: "Theocracy is rule by God; God is love; therefore theocracy is rule by love."" (The Watchtower, September 1, 1996, p. 15, 9)
So when we now turn our investigation to the history of this "nation" we should expect to find that it will be brimming with examples of this "rule by love", shouldn't we? Of course!
Fortunately we have very good written records of the actions of this "theocratic nation" and it's "rule of love" thanks to the Bible. As mentioned above, the "theocratic nation" was born through the annihilation of the Egyptian army. The Watchtower is of course very careful to point out that "God" is conveniently invisible and that his rule therefore will have to be carried out by proxy. This of course will mean that "God" will bestow his "authority" upon a leader or a group of leaders, who of course won't settle for anything less than blind obedience, having the "authority" of "God" the almighty himself. The first example of a human being with such awesome "authority" was Moses:
"The first to exercise high authority in Israel was Moses. He was a fine example of a theocratic authority figure. True, on one occasion human weakness showed through. However, Moses always relied on Jehovah." (The Watchtower, January 15, 1994, p. 11, 7)
According to the Watchtower, Moses personally said about himself that he was "by far the meekest of all the men who were upon the surface of the ground." And of course we all know that people who say such things about themselves must be exceptionally humble!
"How did Moses resist the temptation to use his high position for his own glory? Well, although he led a nation of millions, he was "by far the meekest of all the men who were upon the surface of the ground." (Numbers 12:3)" (The Watchtower, January 15, 1994, p. 11, 7)
Now it is about time we try to find out what a person who claims to be "by far the meekest of all the men who were upon the surface of the ground" really does when he is carrying out the politics of this "theocratic nation". Meekness, love and consideration should of course manifest itself in the very implementation of the will of God in a "theocratic nation". When reading the story about this "theocratic nation" one would naturally expect these qualities to be present. Let us examine the record:
"And they went waging war against Mid'ian, just as Jehovah had commanded Moses, and they proceeded to kill every male. And they killed the kings of Mid'ian along with the others slain, namely, E'vi and Re'kem and Zur and Hur and Re'ba, the five kings of Mid'ian; and they killed Ba'laam the son of Be'or with the sword. But the sons of Israel carried off the women of Mid'ian and their little ones captive" (Numbers 31:7-9)
Most of us are of course aware of the horrors of ethnic cleansing and genocide as we have seen examples of recently in Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, and now Kosovo, not to speak of the horrors of W.W.II. These recent events have sickened and horrified people all over the world and the international community has been pretty unanimous in condemning such atrocities as unacceptable in a civilized society. What we see described in the quote from the above Bible text is an example of such genocide and ethnic cleansing. Jehovah, who according to the Watchtower is love, commanded Moses, the extraordinary meek man, to slaughter men, women and children, but the subjects of this "theocratic nation" didn't quite follow the orders and took the women and the children captive instead. Was Moses proud because the people did show such a spark of compassion and spared the lives of these women and children? Let us find out:
"And Moses grew indignant at the appointed men of the combat forces, the chiefs of the thousands and the chiefs of the hundreds who were coming in from the military expedition. So Moses said to them: "Have YOU preserved alive every female? Look! They are the ones who, by Ba'laam's word, served to induce the sons of Israel to commit unfaithfulness toward Jehovah over the affair of Pe'or, so that the scourge came upon the assembly of Jehovah. And now kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has had intercourse with man by lying with a male. And preserve alive for yourselves all the little ones among the women who have not known the act of lying with a male."" (Numbers 31:14-18)
According the Bible, the meek man, Jehovah's representative and leader of his new "theocratic nation", became very indignant with them. They had disobeyed Moses (Jehovah's) orders and had failed to kill all the women and children. Again he ordered them to kill the women and children but being practical as well as "meek" he made the small concession that virgins and baby girls could be spared, they could of course be used for breeding purposes. The more Israelites the better.
Can't you all feel the immense love and meekness expressed in these writings? This wonderful "theocratic nation" did, according to the Bible, roam the Sinai desert for 40 years, killing, looting and grabbing all they could possibly get hold of. When they finally embarked upon taking possession of the land area that "God had given them", the ethnic cleansing and the genocide continued with full force for many, many years.
The Watchtower stated:
"That is why, throughout all human history, only one form of government has been truly successful. Which one? Theocracy under Jehovah God." (The Watchtower, January 15, 1994, p. 10, 2)
Very true. Reading the history of this theocracy as recorded in the Bible, one has to admit that as a killing machine and a tool for ethnic cleansing and genocide it was truly successful. No doubt about it. As an example of "rule of love" however the "theocratic nation" leaves a lot to be desired, to say the least. The nation of Israel, born out of such a horrible blood bath and carnage, is the model for the Watchtower Society, their idea of an ideal world. So much so that they today dream of recreating this "theocratic nation" on a "cleansed earth".
Theocracy, therefore, and in my opinion, is the tool fanatics in every religion have always used to get rid of those opposing their views and convictions.
This is why I cannot agree with you about Moses being a fine theocratic instance to follow. I believe in Mans freedom. I believe that we are all alike and that we all have the same rights and responsibilities. I have also seen when I was young how catholic church behaved in my own country Spain. And I cannot but remember what the Inquisition did in Europe and South America, since it was created by the Roman Pope!
No thank you, theocracies are not for me, though I respect your right to believe in them, of course.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 11/08/02 - Anger Hi,
How does anger affect our health?
What does the Bible say about anger?
Thank you,
RubyGirl curious98 answered on 11/08/02:Hi again RubyGirl
Im not a scholar in Bible studies, but this is what I have found re. your question:
A picture of Gods anger and a good example for us is Psalm 30 5, "For His anger is but for a moment. His favour is for life: Weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning."
Psalm 37:7, 8 shows us the choice we have. First to "rest in the Lord and wait patiently for Him." Then we are to "Cease from anger and forsake wrath; do not fret--it only causes harm."
Psalm 4:4, "Be angry, and do not sin..." The footnotes from the Spirit-Filled Life Bible say:
"Angry: That is, in expressing feelings about immediate distress, do not sin against God (Ephesians 4:26)."
Psalm 103:8 says, "The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in mercy." Proverbs 15:18; 16:32; and 145:8 all speak of being "slow to anger." Psalm 78:38, "But He, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and did not destroy them. Yes, many a time He turned His anger away, and did not stir up all His wrath" Because of Gods compassion (love), He forgave and did not destroy. He turned His anger away (His choice) and didnt stir up all His wrath (fury, poison, rage, hot displeasure).
Some specific instructions we are given in the Word can be found in: Proverbs 15:1, "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." Ephesians 4:31,32 "Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamour, and evil speaking be put away from you with all malice. And be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you." The Greek word for anger here is orge and means anger or temper (I found this interesting). In Colossians 3:8 we are instructed to "put off" anger, among other things.
Pastor Hayford has done teachings based on the Ephesians passage entitled, "Seven Steps to Success -- Parts 1, 2, and 3" (Part 2 specifically deals with anger).
The Bible, irrespective of whatever our beliefs may be, is a sound set of books with a sound collection of sound advices for those who want to listen to.
4.000 years later, doctors have come to the conclusion that anger is bad for the health, whereas laughing is excellent.
Some confessions might follow that example for, strangely enough, there are still some which believe in preaching by raising the voice in anger against Mankind sins and speaking all the time of doom and hell!
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 11/08/02 - why? Hello
Why did the Israelite spies choose to lodge at the house of Rahab the harlot?
Respectfully,
RubyGirl curious98 answered on 11/08/02:Hi RubyGirl,
Supposedly, they thought that would be the last place where they could be detected. In the first place, we very seldom can affirm with certainty the reason for any past historical event. At the very best, we can assume it happened in such a way and for such a reason. We can hardly affirm how present events have happened (sometimes, we are facing all kind of contradictory news), so we can do nothing but to speculate on the O.T. legends.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 11/08/02 - Can you explain? Hello,
God warned Cain that sin was crouching at the entrance and for him was its craving, which seems to allude to a wild beast and its prey. (Genesis 4:7) Why would that language be used if before the Flood, animals ate only vegetation?
Respectfully,
RubyGirl curious98 answered on 11/08/02:
My Dear RubyGirl,
You may resent what Im going to tell you but thats life. You do not have to take the Bible to the letter. I know that some confessions still reject this statement but it is like insisting the World was made in 6 actual days
Before the Flood (which came in times of Noah, as you know) there were all kind of animals and they ate vegetables and other animals, depending on their species and on whether they were carnivorous or herbivorous
The Catholic Church has since long accepted that quite a number of things mentioned in the O.T. are just literary images and should not be interpreted literally. I suppose Protestant churches which have always been more updated share that attitude.
Regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 11/07/02 - Mercy killing Hi,
I was working at a local hosptial and when I looked up from my desk there was a man with a
lump on the side of his jacket, which I thought might be a gun. This man was there to
visit his wife who was dying in the trauma unit at the hospital. When I saw this lump, I
got frightened, so I called security and they came up and sure enough it was a gun. When
we asked the man why he was carring this gun, he said he was an ex policeman. As we
further questioned him we found out he was going to kill his wife so she wouldn't suffer
anymore and then kill himself, so he wouldn't miss her.
My question is this: Do you all feel it is wrong for medical people to prolong the life
of others who have no hope, or those who wish to die?
Respectfully,
RubyGirl curious98 answered on 11/07/02:Hi Ruby Girl
I refer you to my previous answer.
I believe that in some VERY VERY special cases, merciful administration of some drug BY A DOCTOR might eventually be acceptable PROVIDED the patient and his/her family agree.
It cannot be acceptable IN ANY CASE to kill someone in the way you have mentioned that man was willing to...
That would be homicide! if not plain murder.
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 11/07/02 - Therapeutic? Euthanasia? Good Afternoon,
The unprecedented rise in the number of elderly and the enormous cost of caring for the
aged in developed nations may cause the upcoming generation to call for therapeutic
euthanasia, according to Dr. Lachlan Chipman of the Department of Jurisprudence at the
University of Sydney, Australia.
As reported in The Medical Post of Canada, Dr. Chipman said that the calculated killing
of the elderly was not as absurd as it sounded.? Why not? Because, the doctor explained,
a generation which has readily accepted the idea of abortion as an efficient and morally
neutral mechanism . . . at the birth end, will readily embrace . . . therapeutic
euthanasia as a mechanism for disposing of a surplus population at the death end.
How ironic it would be if those now advocating the killing of the unborn by abortion would
themselves be the ones killed by herapeutic euthanasia, should such a measure be
adopted in the future! Rather than advocate abortion or death end uthanasia, much wiser
it is to heed Jesus advice: You must not murder, . . . honor your father and your mother, thus laying groundwork even for a better life now and in the future
.Matthew 19:16-19.
What are your opinions on this matter, please be sincere since this is a question that I need to answer for my own peace of mind.
Respectfully,
RubyGirl curious98 answered on 11/07/02:
Hi Ruby Girl
It is very simple for me to answer your question. Let me just tell you Im 76 years old, and I do not believe in abortion nor in euthanasia. I have never accepted abortion because it goes against Natural Law and because it is actually a murder, as you say.
A murder of someone who cannot yet decide whether he wants to live or not.
As for Euthanasia, I also believe it is murder, when we look at it as ancient Spartans used to look at, i.e., to eliminate those who were not useful any more
A different thing, though, is whether a person (I, for instance) accepts to peacefully go with the help of a doctor, if he/she is so irreversible ill that there is no possible solution and he/she avoids then unnecessary suffering for him/her and his/her family. Not long ago, there was a case in Spain, of a doctor that applied euthanasia to an old man who had spent 24 years in bed (he was a tethraplegic, who could not even speak) and both his wife and the doctor though it was a matter of compassion to prevent him from suffering additional pains.
But even in this cases, I would not go with an easy hand
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | ttalady asked on 11/06/02 - Curious Understand I do not practice a religion. I have had schooling of Catholic as a child but have found it un-true to my heart and beliefs even then. I noticed Halloween was a subject on this board and truly want to speak on it. One is that, to most likely 99.9% of the world this is not a holiday. Yes we do take note of this day however it is in fun. I personally find it sickening that religious practicors take a day for kids to use their imaginations, dress up in costumes, and trick or treat as finding that evil in anyway. Sure we have kids that dress as dracula or a zombie (the dead) however we also have that of Barbie, Spiderman, ect that are not of the dead but of heros. Halloween has never been a holiday, it is observed as a fun day to go out and raise your dentists income!
I believe in one thing 100% and that is that what ever you practice for religion you are a parent over that. A child is a gift from what ever religion you practice and for that the simplicity of trick or treating should not be overlooked with a religion. I will always say that as good as religions are, it makes some people rediculious in life. RELIGION IS TEACHING OF HOW TO GUIDE YOU THRU LIFE. It is not a rule book on life. If that were the matter for everyone that has been 100% true to their religion, well bad stuff would never happen to them. How religion is distorted into ones means of living. And then to not let a child decide his/her own way in a simple Halloween of dressing up (which is fun) and getting candy (even better) nothing to do with raising the dead!
It is good to always give a child insight into life. But to limit a child due to ones own beliefs is beyond me. As were a child grows up and feels neglected of not going trick or treating due to something his/her parents may have not believed in. Do you see what I am saying?
Again I did practice a religion in my younger years. My father and Grandmother Catholics. This was not forced on me, all a choice I made. In those teachings I found something greater than the Bible. I found that God (he or she or it) intended me to not practice and all due to my insight I already have in life. All my decision in what I felt and thought. But let me say that ALL religions are good natured. And maybe if all combined we would know the true story of this!!
Your thoughts please!
ttalady curious98 answered on 11/07/02:
Hi, Ttalady,
First things first. Halloween or All Hallows Eve, originated from the Pagan Holiday Samhain (pronounced sow-wen). Its name means summers end. This spirit connotation originated as the ancient Celtic druids paid tribute with gifts and food (and sometimes it was rumoured sacrifices) to the spirit world to insure that next years crop would be bountiful. It was a time for communicating with the dead and receiving wisdom from past ancestors to insure prosperity.
When the Christians set about to convert the pagans, some adaptation of these spiritual rituals had to be made to keep the Pagans in the Church. Therefore, November 1st became All Saints Day to honour all those in heaven and October 31st was tacked on as All Hallows Eve or Halloween, the night when all the dead are remembered.
Today, this night of the dead is remembered and observed in many cultures. For some, the ritual still includes leaving out food for the dead, or cooking a special meal that the dearly departed enjoyed. For others, who think of the dead in a less personal manner, it is catching the midnight showing of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. It is a time for fortune telling and sances, Halloween parties and the most famous ritual of all Trick or Treat.
Trick or Treat, or going from house to house to ask for gifts, was said to have originated in England, where peasant children, dressed in rags like prisoners, would beg for coins or treats as a token of remembrance of a man, Guy Fawkes, who was drawn and quartered after attempting to blow up the British government offices. However, Halloween did not become an American Hallmark Holiday until the 20th century. It evolved from children going next door for a treat to parents driving around carloads of children looking for choice neighbourhoods to get loot. Homemade costumes gave way to boxed sets with masks and accessories. Nowadays, costumes of the latest super heroes or horror figures are on the shelves in August, a far cry from the rag costumes of old.
The Jack O Lantern was adapted from the old British practice of carving out turnips or other vegetables to make lanterns. Pumpkin carving remains one of the main attractions at any Halloween gathering.
Since the revival of the Pagan religion, many are again choosing to celebrate Samhain in a more traditional sense with reverence for those passed on, although many pagans enjoy modern day fun as well. And Catholics still celebrate November 1st as All Saints Day.
So, as you can see, Halloween, as North Americans understand it, has nothing or very little of a religious holiday. We, in Spain, where Im from, celebrate the All Saints day, but it is not an official holiday. And whatever families or schools are trying to implement Halloween they are doing it upon the influence of USA marketing companies who are trying to extend their influence and succeeding at that all over the world. In this respect, therefore, I agree with you and I find this holiday quite unnecessary except for trade.
This said, let me elaborate a little bit on the religious aspect of your question. All religions are basically good and they intend good. But I believe we should establish a clear cut difference between religions and GOD. The concept of GOD is simply impossible for us to understand and/or to assimilate. We are much too insignificant for that. So then men had to invent religion to explain GOD.
And, depending on the cultures and epochs, the explanations were varied and displayed a lot of imagination. Initially, religions were always based on a main God, responsible for the Creation, Who was followed by a court of lesser gods, saints, semi-gods or whatever. Names were changing depending on the cultures
Then, there came a time when rulers and priests tried and succeeded- to implant in their followers the idea only their interpretation of religion was the right one and all the others were false.
As if there could be any man intelligent or wise enough to understand GOD.
And there came a time when they really believed each one of them were in possession of the only and real truth. And started to fix rules and regulations and what was alright and what was wrong. In most cases following the natural Law, which is wiser than man, and has been created by GOD, along with everything else.
We, Christians are probably right when we believe Jesus was GODs messenger (Son?) sent over here to redeem our sins. No harm in that, as long as we also believe that our GOD is everybody elses GOD, whether they like it or not, whether we like it or not, and that we are not any better if we believe in Christ, than Moslems who believe in Allah, Jews who are awaiting for their Messiah, Hindus, Taoists, etc.
And, of course, if we are able to understand that all religions, and Catholics are no exception (Im a catholic myself), are more or less managed as great multinational companies, where the Chairman of the Board, can make mistakes (and more often than not, he does), taking advantage of the good natured shareholders.
Whatever you believe, therefore, be honest with yourself and be convinced that ALL AROUND US THERE IS THAT INCOMPREHENSIBLE POWER WHO CREATED US AND WHO WE CANNOT EVEN START TO IMAGINE.
Best regards
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Fr_Chuck asked on 11/03/02 - Jewish Sacrifice During the time of Christ, the Jews still offered sacrafices in thier temples to be forgiven for thier sins.
At what point did they stop doing this, and why, and how are they now forgiven?? curious98 answered on 11/05/02:Hi,
Through repentment in their daily prayers and in Yom Kippur atonement celebration.
The Ramba'm in Hil. Teshuvah 2:9-10, writes:
"Repentance and Yom Kippur only atone for sins between Man and God such as eating forbidden foods or engaging in forbidden sexual relations. Sins between one man and his fellow, such as striking, cursing, or stealing are never forgiven until one pays up his debt and appeases his fellow. Even if he returns the money he owes he must still ask for forgiveness. Even if he only spoke badly about him, he must appease and beseech until he is forgiven. If his fellow refuses to forgive him then he must bring a group of three of his friends (presumably the injured party's friends) and go to him and ask him [for forgiveness]. If he still does not forgive him he must go to him a second and third time (with a different group of three people). If he still refuses to forgive him he may cease and the other is the sinner. If [the injured party] is his teacher (rebbe) he must go to him even a thousand times until he is forgiven.
It is forbidden to be cruel and difficult to appease, rather, a person must be quick to forgive and difficult to anger and when the sinner asks for forgiveness he should forgive him willingly and wholeheartedly...."
In Shulchan Aruch, Orech Chaim 606:1 in the halachos of Yom Kippur we find essentially the same thing. The Rem'a does add that one may withhold forgiveness if it is for the good of the person asking. The Mishna Berurah explains that it may be appropriate to withhold forgiveness to teach the supplicant not to take it lightly. The Rem'a also permits withholding forgiveness when someone spread false rumors about you but the M"B says that in such a case one should still forgive.
In the Tefilah Zaka which many people say before Kol Nidrei on Erev Yom Kippur it says:
"I extend complete forgiveness to everyone who has sinned against me, whether physically or monetarily, or spoke lashon hara (negative speech) about me or even false reports. And (I also forgive them) for any damages, whether on my body or my property, and for all sins between a man and his fellow except for money which I can claim in a court of law and except for someone who sins against me saying, "I will sin against him and he will forgive me". Except for these I grant complete forgiveness and no person should be punished on my account. And just as I forgive everyone so should You grant me favor in the eyes of all men that they should completely forgive me."
The complete tefilah (prayer) is printed in many machzorim (holiday prayer books)."
Hope to have helped,
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | RubyGirl asked on 10/30/02 - help: Hello,
I am new here and in need of help in understanding how this board works. Can someone help me pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese?
Thanks,
RubyGirl curious98 answered on 10/30/02:Hi RubyGirl,
If you come from AskMe, it works basically the same.
If you want to place a question, choose the category you think your question belongs to, and place the question with the expert you want or just in que question board.
If you need more guidlines, pls let me know
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | bioharmony asked on 10/26/02 - Gday Hi to all former Askme users. I will be going back and forth from here to WeTellYou.com. See you there too! curious98 answered on 10/29/02:Hi Bioharmony,
Good; I am still collaborating in pointask.com, but I think Ill drop it as soon as there is some more activity here!
I prefer this one.
Regards
Curious98 | | Question/Answer | | Trinket asked on 10/28/02 - Halloweeen Many in my christian neighborhood ,baptists,lutheran,pentacostel,etc do not celebrate halloweeen because of the background of this holiday. Some change the name to fall festival and celebrate that way. My question is how do you view this holiday and do you celebrate? What are your views on this celebration? Thank you curious98 answered on 10/28/02:III
The Jack-o-lantern custom probably comes from Irish folklore. As the tale is told, a man named Jack, who was notorious as a drunkard and trickster, tricked Satan into climbing a tree. Jack then carved an image of a cross in the trees trunk, trapping the devil up the tree. Jack made a deal with the devil that, if he would never tempt him again, he would promise to let him down the tree.
According to the folk tale, after Jack died, he was denied entrance to Heaven because of his evil ways, but he was also denied access to Hell because he had tricked the devil. Instead, the devil gave him a single ember to light his way through the frigid darkness. The ember was placed inside a hollowed-out turnip to keep it glowing longer.
The Irish used turnips as their "Jacks lanterns" originally. But when the immigrants came to America, they found that pumpkins were far more plentiful than turnips. So the Jack-O-Lantern in America was a hollowed-out pumpkin, lit with an ember.
So, although some pagan groups, cults, and Satanists may have adopted Halloween as their favorite "holiday," the day itself did not grow out of evil practices. It grew out of the rituals of Celts celebrating a new year, and out of Medieval prayer rituals of Europeans. And today, even many churches have Halloween parties or pumpkin carving events for the kids. After all, the day itself is only as evil as one cares to make it.
As for me, I live in Spain, which is a catholic country, and what we celebrate is All Saints days. At the American School, however, they celebrate Halloween alright.
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Trinket asked on 10/28/02 - Halloweeen Many in my christian neighborhood ,baptists,lutheran,pentacostel,etc do not celebrate halloweeen because of the background of this holiday. Some change the name to fall festival and celebrate that way. My question is how do you view this holiday and do you celebrate? What are your views on this celebration? Thank you curious98 answered on 10/28/02:III
The Jack-o-lantern custom probably comes from Irish folklore. As the tale is told, a man named Jack, who was notorious as a drunkard and trickster, tricked Satan into climbing a tree. Jack then carved an image of a cross in the trees trunk, trapping the devil up the tree. Jack made a deal with the devil that, if he would never tempt him again, he would promise to let him down the tree.
According to the folk tale, after Jack died, he was denied entrance to Heaven because of his evil ways, but he was also denied access to Hell because he had tricked the devil. Instead, the devil gave him a single ember to light his way through the frigid darkness. The ember was placed inside a hollowed-out turnip to keep it glowing longer.
The Irish used turnips as their "Jacks lanterns" originally. But when the immigrants came to America, they found that pumpkins were far more plentiful than turnips. So the Jack-O-Lantern in America was a hollowed-out pumpkin, lit with an ember.
So, although some pagan groups, cults, and Satanists may have adopted Halloween as their favorite "holiday," the day itself did not grow out of evil practices. It grew out of the rituals of Celts celebrating a new year, and out of Medieval prayer rituals of Europeans. And today, even many churches have Halloween parties or pumpkin carving events for the kids. After all, the day itself is only as evil as one cares to make it.
As for me, I live in Spain, which is a catholic country, and what we celebrate is All Saints days. At the American School, however, they celebrate Halloween alright.
Curious98
| | Question/Answer | | Trinket asked on 10/28/02 - Halloweeen Many in my christian neighborhood ,baptists,lutheran,pentacostel,etc do not celebrate halloweeen because of the background of this holiday. Some change the name to fall festival and celebrate that way. My question is how do you view this holiday and do you celebrate? What are your views on this celebration? Thank you curious98 answered on 10/28/02:II
Some accounts tell of how the Celts would burn someone at the stake who was thought to have already been possessed, as sort of a lesson to the spirits. Other accounts of Celtic history debunk these stories as myth.
The Romans adopted the Celtic practices as their own. But in the first century AD, Samhain was assimilated into celebrations of some of the other Roman traditions that took place in October, such as their day to honor Pomona, the Roman goddess of fruit and trees. The symbol of Pomona is the apple, which might explain the origin of your modern tradition of bobbing for apples on Halloween.
The thrust of the practices also changed over time to become more ritualized. As belief in spirit possession waned, the practice of dressing up like hobgoblins, ghosts, and witches took on a more ceremonial role.
The custom of Halloween was brought to America in the 1840s by Irish immigrants fleeing their countrys potato famine. At that time, the favorite pranks in New England included tipping over outhouses and unhinging fence gates.
The custom of trick-or-treating is thought to have originated not with the Irish Celts, but with a ninth-century European custom called souling. On November 2, All Souls Day, early Christians would walk from village to village begging for "soul cakes," made out of square pieces of bread with currants. The more soul cakes the beggars would receive, the more prayers they would promise to say on behalf of the dead relatives of the donors. At the time, it was believed that the dead remained in limbo for a time after death, and that prayer, even by strangers, could expedite a souls passage to heaven.
| | Question/Answer | | Trinket asked on 10/28/02 - Halloweeen Many in my christian neighborhood ,baptists,lutheran,pentacostel,etc do not celebrate halloweeen because of the background of this holiday. Some change the name to fall festival and celebrate that way. My question is how do you view this holiday and do you celebrate? What are your views on this celebration? Thank you curious98 answered on 10/28/02:Hi Trinket,
Halloween ist, as some claim, a kind of demon worship? Or is it just a harmless vestige of some ancient pagan ritual?
The word itself, "Halloween," actually has its origins in the Catholic Church. It comes from a contracted corruption of All Hallows Eve. November 1, "All Hollows Day" (or "All Saints Day"), is a Catholic day of observance in honor of all the saints that have not a festivity of their own. But, in the 5th century BC, in Celtic Ireland, summer officially ended on October 31. The holiday was called Samhain (sow-en), the Celtic New year.
One story says that, on that day, the disembodied spirits of all those who had died throughout the preceding year would come back in search of living bodies to possess for the next year. It was believed to be their only hope for the afterlife. The Celts believed all laws of space and time were suspended during this time, allowing the spirit world to intermingle with the living.
Naturally, the still-living did not want to be possessed. So on the night of October 31, villagers would extinguish the fires in their homes, to make them cold and undesirable. They would then dress up in all manner of ghoulish costumes and noisily paraded around the neighborhood, being as destructive as possible in order to frighten away spirits looking for bodies to possess.
Probably a better explanation of why the Celts extinguished their fires was not to discourage spirit possession, but so that all the Celtic tribes could relight their fires from a common source, the Druidic fire that was kept burning in the Middle of Ireland, at Usinach.
| | Question/Answer | | JesseGordon asked on 10/23/02 - Yiddish phrase? How do you spell "sheyne boyele und a shikse", by which I mean to transliterate "A nice Jewish boy and a non-Jewish girl". Id like to use it for a jocular name of a Bar Mitzvah catering company. Maybe "sheyne boythick" would be better? curious98 answered on 10/25/02:Hi Jesse James (ooups!)Gordon!
You can also try these ones:
http://www.online-dictionary.net/yiddish/index.htm
http://www-sci.lib.uci.edu/HSG/Language.html#ENGTO-YIDDISH
Hope to have been of help
Curious98 |
|
|
|
