Dennis Prager, on this morning’s radio show, directed me to an LA Times Op-ED by Zev Chafets, a non-religious Jew. In it, Chafets explains, once again, why American Jews have to shake off their atavistic fear of American Christians:
For millions of American evangelical voters, living right includes supporting Israel. Last week, Pentecostal televangelist Rev. John Hagee of San Antonio, one of the rising forces in American Christian Zionism, convened a meeting in Washington of Christians Unified for Israel. Hagee sees the newly formed group as an evangelical American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, dedicated to lobbying on Israel’s behalf, especially in states where Jews are few and far between. Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas attended Hagee’s rally. So did Pennsylvania GOP Sen. Rick Santorum (who is running for his political life). Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman was there. So was the Israeli ambassador, Daniel Ayalon.
Jewish Democrats often decry Republican evangelical support on the grounds that these Christians only want to missionize Jews (and if they do, so what? It’s a free country) or use them as cannon fodder at Armageddon (which matters only if you believe in Armageddon in the first place).
In fact, the main motive for Christian Zionism is not devious. As Hagee said, paraphrasing the Book of Genesis, Chapter 12:3, “God will bless those who bless the Jewish people.”
Now, if you don’t believe in the literal truth of the Bible, this probably sounds like a Christian Hallmark card sentiment. But if you do, it’s a marching order.
The idea of militant evangelicals mobilizing for Israel frightens those who believe fundamentalists are trying to push the United States into a war to hasten Armageddon. But they miss the point. One of the central attributes of conservative evangelical Christianity is its eschatological passivity. End times will come when God is ready, and there is nothing anyone can do — not give your old clothes to the maid, join the Sierra Club or even go on a Nation magazine Caribbean cruise — that will hasten Paradise.
This resignation once led to evangelical political quietism. But a new generation of leaders, like Falwell and Pat Robertson, taught evangelicals that if they can’t “fix the world” (in the charmingly modest phrase of the liberal religious left), they can at least support causes they find consistent with biblical teaching.
Now, in my personal opinion, some of these biblical principles are very good (honor your father and mother; don’t steal your neighbor’s ass), some less so (for details, contact my former wives). But one principle — supporting Israel in the face of a genocidal Islamic fascism — is excellent.
I couldn’t agree more. Evangelical Christians are exceptionally principled in hewing to Biblical precepts. In addition to looking to specific language in the Bible to support the State of Israel, Evangelical Christians also look to basic moral principles spelled out in the Bible that enable them to support a free Democracy in the Middle East against murderous totalitarian dictators.
Filed under: Christians, Israel
Thank you, Bookworm. I’ve never understood why so many of my Jewish acquaintances and (even) friends see us Christians as the enemy. I suspect many don’t know that many of the Christians in America came to America from Europe to escape many of the same persecutions that were suffered by the Jews, though not in scale. Our support for Israel (in principle, anyway) and the Jewish people is unconditional, and for a lot more reasons than cited by Zev Chafets. My lack of understanding deepens even more when I find myself defending Israel and opposing the nature of its enemies to Liberal/Leftwing Jews who seem committed to Israel’s destruction. Go figure!
Seriously, there are more true believers that believe in the United States Constitution and American ancestral worship, than there are for Christianity. By that, I don’t mean to say Christianity or Catholicism is a “weak” faith, but it is true that contrasted with the strength of belief in the US Constitution and ancestral worship in the US, it pales in comparison. If people are worried about “believers” in a religion, they should be afraid of America… oh wait they already are, that is why they are anti-Americans, my bad.
The idea of militant evangelicals mobilizing for Israel frightens those who believe fundamentalists are trying to push the United States into a war to hasten Armageddon.
Puhleez. ANybody with a brain in their skull and the experience to use it, knows that strength of belief directly correlates to what the believer will or will not do. A weak belief means the believer won’t do much of what the religion requires. An overtly strong belief means the believer will do more than what the religion requires.
For example. American patriots are willing and eager to join the US military to kill the enemy and expose themselves to the possibility of being killed, maimed, or captured because they believe in America. When’s the last time a Christian joined a Christian army to defend the faithful and kill the unbeliever? Third Crusades?
Fundamental Christians threatening Armageddon *snickers*. Fools.
The funny thing is that a few months ago I realized that Americans somehow created a religion out of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and similar such trapings. I mean, think about it. A religion requires prophets, founders, and a holy book, that spells out what you should and should not do. If you remove the “religious connotations of revealed truth”, then the Constitution and the Founding Father fills in all the hollows. They were after all Deists, they believed in God, but they did not believe in Revealed Religion.
After all, when was the last time you heard someone say that this or that “Founding Father” said or did this and therefore it justified this other thing that was going? Don’t people use the bible and their holy books in the same way, derive lessons to order their life and beliefs?
America also has a strong “ancestor worship” going on. The military being the heaviest portion of those that believe. Similar to Shintoism. Some people feel they “owe” those that fought for their freedom in the past, something in return. They feel that they owe a debt that they must repay through service public or military. This is ancestor worshipping. Respect for those who have gone before, for their sacrifice and wisdom. Respect for the WWII generation, respect and trust in the Founding Fathers.
The people crying wolf over the “dangers” of Christian Fundamentalists, don’t understand what true belief is. They don’t understand why people believe in the Constitution nor do they understand why Muslims believe in Islamic Jihad.
Their predictions, judgements, and analysis are poor and worthless as a result. I think Christians are picked on the same reason why Jews are picked on. Some people need scapegoats to pour their hate and fears into, to justify their emotions and existence. They can’t attack the people they really despise, like AMerica, because then they’d be exposed. So they act like they are virtuous “separation of Church and State” people, when they are nothing like the FOunding Fathers or the American Constitution.
[...] [Read more and discuss…] [...]
“Evangelical Christians are exceptionally principled in hewing to Biblical precepts.”
–yeah, except for the murder junkies like yourself who forget about all of that ‘thou shalt not kill!’ and ‘vengeance is mine, sayeth the lord’ jazz.
you really are hysterical sometimes bookworm.
peace
“–yeah, except for the murder junkies like yourself who forget about all of that ‘thou shalt not kill!’ and ‘vengeance is mine, sayeth the lord’” Dagon
The Biblical quotation you cite, “Thou shall not kill” is of course one of the Ten Commandments. As it is of the Old Testament, it is fair to point out that in the original Hebrew, the word ‘kill’ is a mistranslation. The original word used is “murder”. That renders a completely different meaning to the Commandment…
Nowhere can it be found where Jesus said, “Do not kill under any circumstance.” So Christians are not being inconsistent.
Killing is not always ’seeking vengence’. It is easy for you to characterize it as that of course but inaccurate to do so.
It appears that your ignorance has led you to characterize bookworms’ assertions as ‘hysterical’. Or are you intentionally misstating facts to further an agenda?
Thanks, D-Brit. That was exactly what I was going to write to Dagon, whose shallow interpretation of the Bible explains a whole lot of problems with liberal-think.
“They were after all Deists, they believed in God, but they did not believe in Revealed Religion.Ymarsakar
Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.”George Washington
“Without the belief of a Providence that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection.” Benjamin Franklin
“The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity” John Adams
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations.” – Patrick Henry
“I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds” John Jay – the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
“I anticipate nothing but suffering to the human race while the present systems of paganism, deism and atheism prevail in the world.” Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
“To establish atheism on the ruins of Christianity is to deprive mankind of its best consolations and most animating hopes and to make it a gloomy desert of the universe.” Alexander Hamilton
“I have a thorough contempt for all men . . . who appear to be the irreclaimable enemies of religion.” Samuel Adams
“The most important of all lessons from the Scripture is the denunciation of ruin to every State that rejects the precepts of religion.” Gouverneur Morris, Penman and Signer of the Constitution
In light of the above, it appears that you are a little too in love with your own theory.
{The Biblical quotation you cite, “Thou shall not kill” is of course one of the Ten Commandments. As it is of the Old Testament, it is fair to point out that in the original Hebrew, the word ‘kill’ is a mistranslation. The original word used is “murder”. That renders a completely different meaning to the Commandment…}
–what ever gets you through the night. it must be nice to adhere to such a flexible belief system that basically accomodates whatever sick interpretation that you desire to justify your bloodlust or prejudices.
“Nowhere can it be found where Jesus said, “Do not kill under any circumstance.” So Christians are not being inconsistent.”
–according to who. do you deem to speak for all christians cause i know plenty who view justifications like yours to be just as vile as i do.
he also didn’t say that killing WAS justified under any circumstances either now did he? that you would choose to utilize that omission to justify the systematic slaughter of innocents is very telling, particularly in light of the overall message that jesus was trying to impart.
“Killing is not always ’seeking vengence’. It is easy for you to characterize it as that of course but inaccurate to do so.”
–so what? dead is dead. they were still KILLED weren’t they? so where exactly are you getting this ’seeking vengeance’ caveat from? who the hell are you? that rider doesn’t exist anywhere in the copy of the new testament that i have. or are you just making stuff up? it’s your book people not mine.
i just want to be clear which branch of the ideological relevancy brigade that i’m dealing with. the group that believes that all killing is wrong or that bunch who wants to play games with semantics around the word murder to justify their ambivalence towards the death of innocents.
peace
oh, yeah and this just kills me:
“Evangelical Christians also look to basic moral principles spelled out in the Bible that enable them to support a free Democracy in the Middle East against murderous totalitarian dictators.”
–you really don’t know squat about the history of the region or the ‘right-wing’s’ tendency to prop up ‘murderous totalitarian dictators’ in favor of democratically elected regimes that we can’t control?
newsflash bookwork: lebanon has a democratically elected government and syria and iran have slowly been moderating their stance from within (forced by a very active intellectual youth movements) for years. with a little help and diplomacy, those 2 nations could have developed into vibrant democracies on the their own in a short time.
now, who are the big-bad ‘murderous totalitarian regimes’ in the mid-east? well, two that jump out would be pakistan and saudi arabia…ohhhh, but they’re our allies aren’t they? my bad. oh, and wasn’t our buddy the shah head of a ‘murderous totalitarian regime’ before he got kicked out by his people? oh, oh….and wasn’t hussein our ‘man’ in the region under reagan? didn’t he kill a bunch of his own people during that time?
the reason any of this is relevant is because YOU support all of this bloodshed. i can’t speak for evangelical christians as a whole because i’ve talked with many who denounce this madness…and i suspect that the people who you are ascribing some sort of moral maturity to in their support of israel’s actions are neither christian nor evangelical. they’re most likely fanatical end-timers who think that israel killing muslims is just another in the series of events that will eventually lead up to their big nyah, nyah, nyah moment…the rapture!
seriously bookworm, you need to change your handle.
peace
I’m buried in a series of big projects, and can’t take the time to debate you on a point by point basis, Dagon. I do know that, spin as you may, Israel is a democratic state in the midst of a series of totalitarian regimes that are deeply committed to her destruction as a state and to the murder of her people. From there, everything else is just commentary or, in your case, rather aggressive bloviating. I leave you with words from Dennis Prager’s latest column [http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23519]:
‘The Left’s anti-Israel positions until now were based, at least in theory, on its opposition to Israeli occupation of Arab land and its belief in the “cycle of violence” between Israel and its enemies. However, this time there is no occupied land involved and the violence is not a cycle with its implied lack of a beginning. There is a clear aggressor — a terror organization devoted to Islamicizing the Middle East and annihilating Israel — and no occupation.
‘That is why the Israeli Left is almost universally in favor of Israel’s war against Hezbollah. Amos Oz, probably Israel’s best-known novelist and leading spokesman of its Left, a lifetime critic of Israeli policy vis a vis the Palestinians, wrote in the Los Angeles Times:
‘”Many times in the past, the Israeli peace movement has criticized Israeli military operations. Not this time. . . . This time, Israel is not invading Lebanon. It is defending itself from daily harassment and bombardment of dozens of our towns and villages. . . . There can be no moral equation between Hezbollah and Israel. Hezbollah is targeting Israeli civilians wherever they are, while Israel is targeting mostly Hezbollah.”
‘Likewise, another longtime liberal critic of Israel, historian and Boston Globe columnist James Carroll, wrote last week:
‘”As one who rejects war, I regret Israel’s heavy bombing of Lebanon last week, as I deplored Israeli attacks in population centers and on infrastructure in Gaza. . . . Yet, given the rejectionism of both Hamas and Hezbollah . . . is the path of negotiations actually open to Israel? . . . There is no moral equivalence between enemies here. . . . It seems urgent [to] reaffirm foundational support for Israel. . . . The fury of anti-Israel rage among Arabs and Muslims is accounted for only partially by the present conflict. It resuscitates . . . the long European habit of scapegoating Jews. . . . No one should think that embedded contempt for Jews — anti-Semitism — is not part of the current crisis.”‘
don’t get me wrong bw,
i’m saying that both sides are insane. israel of course has a right to defend herself but her actions have hardly been proportionate to the offence of the kidnapping of the 2 soldiers; particularly since hizbollah has said that that action was itself a reaction to the slaughter of an innocent gaza family by the israelis.
but the cheerleading from the religious right for israel to once and for all wipe these people out exposes that mindset for what it really is, ignorant hatred and xenophobia. if these ‘people of faith’ can’t see that there are NO good guys in this conflict and call instead for a cessation of bloodshed and reconcilliation, then i have no use for them or any of their proffessions of ‘morality’.
the world would be a much better place without religious fanatics: that means jihadists, zionists AND a healthy spattering of christian evangelicals.
peace
In light of the above, it appears that you are a little too in love with your own theory.
In light of the above, it is apparent that you are unable to form a logical argument. Other than copying and pasting a few quotes, and expecting whoever you’re talking to to bow down to your messianic scripture.
There’s nothing to counter, nothing to rebutt. Brit didn’t even state any objection, other than I’m partial to my views (which seems kind of obvious given that they are my views, not his). He didn’t say why, he didn’t specify which part he disagreed with, the only thing he did was to reinforce one of my points that people used quotes from the FOunding Fathers like jihadists used quotes from the Koran, for justification.
I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers went around with quotes from their idols, spewing out proverbs every time they disagreed with someone.
“Ymarsakar Says:”In light of the above, it is apparent that you are unable to form a logical argument.”
Touched a nerve did we?
A ‘logical’ argument was provided by rebutting your central assertion:”They [the Founding Father(s)] were after all Deists, they believed in God, but they did not believe in Revealed Religion.”
By providing a spectrum of quotes from many prominent Founding Fathers that directly contradict your primary thesis I have provided a ‘logical argument’ that at the least, partially refutes your theory.
I say at the least, because Jefferson as well as some others felt in the main just as you assert. My post was meant to point out that Jefferson’s point of view was not the majority view. Which is what you unconditionally asserted.
Clearly you find disputing that assertion disturbing, which is understandable, given the implications. Your inability to acknowledge the reality of mainstream thought during the Founding Father’s time however, changes the truth not at all.
The irony here is that I agree with your other assertion that for many modern secularists and a number of ‘religion’ centered believers as well, The US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, etc. has assumed the characteristics of a religion.
I extended you the courtesy of the benefit of the doubt when I characterized your assertions as, “it appears that you are a little too in love with your own theory”
Your emotional objections notwithstanding, it’s obvious that attachment to your ‘idea’ is of more importance than clarity in understanding.
As I’m not looking for an argument or animus, you may cling to your theory, in toto, all you want. I’ve ventured my opinion and undoubtedly others have reached their own conclusions about the veracity of your insights.
Actually, I just wanted some more elaboration. So I thought the best way to get that, without wasting my time figuring up something more clever, was to present the front of a disgruntled commenter.
It’s not that I disagree with the point that this or that were not all Deists, the number crunching is just an exercise to me. I get annoyed at being required to analyze people’s arguments, and then have to come up with a counter-argument. Double the work, for little returns. So I try and get people like you to do your own work and make up your own arguments.
I leave my comments unpolished in that specific instance simply because there might have been some benefit to showing disgruntlement and annoyance, especially if the source of that discontent was not spelled out. I wasn’t going to polish things and make it clear, that’s too much work given the vagueness of what I was working with.
In reality, I don’t have an argument that all or most of the Founding Fathers were Deists. That was actually a typo and slip on my part. I don’t mind explaining myself now, simply because now I don’t have to expend energy taking apart a couple of miserly words written by Brit, and trying to divine their meanings.
I don’t mind doing work for my own benefit, after all. But I detest doing work for someone else’s benefit. It’s also a little game i play, I suppose, since I’d like to see how good people are at interpreting the psychology of others they see on the internet, just by reading their typed words. I’ve gotten to some degree of skill with that ability, so far. What can I say, I’m bad when it comes to logical thinking like that which chess requires, but I hold my own in terms of non-linear, crooked, thinking that requires subtlety.
Btw, if your quotes actually did contradict the central argument I suspected you had latched upon (and in which I found myself correct, it was the Deist comment), I wouldn’t have said that you, Brit, had a non-existent argument.
There’s few if any, logical explanations that would connect the quotes Brit used to the counter-argument that so and so were not Deists.
Brit still doesn’t provide that explanation, but hey, that’s not my problem.
I know, I love playing mind games, but that’s what happens when you’ve studied guerrila warfare, psychological warfare, and propaganda warfare for 5 years straight starting from 9/11. It’s been 5 years of applying, getting feedback, and getting burned as well. Thinking in tangents, geometric squares and triangles, rather than straight lines and derivatives, is very exotic.
I mean, I could quote Washington, brit’s first quote, and ask Brit why this contradicts my former position on Deists, but why should I bother in the first place? It is after all, Brit’s argument to make. So the question to me becomes, how do I get people to do what I want, without telling them what I want in the first place. Hrm….
Sounds like a diplomatic problem to me. Instead of you know, a “debate” problem.
There was one time, at blackfive, where Roach and I was having an argument. I had an idea that someone might use my age against me, so I went and changed my date of birth so as to lower my age. So that if someone browsed my profile, they would see my age, and be motivated into mentioning it in the debate, spiking themselves in the process. After a day or two, Roach did mention it in an ad hominem attack on me, and I was like, “how do people fall for simple baiting tricks like this anyways?”. Sure, I would have been guillible enough to fall for it 5 years ago, but I was as ignorant as all can get. These people are in their 30s and 40s presumably. I shouldn’t be able to out think them.
So I can read a step beyond a person’s actions, via the net. I’m trying for two steps at the moment. And, Or, XOR. Logic gates agore.
The original word [in the Tenth Commandment you cite] used is “murder”. That renders a completely different meaning to the Commandment–what ever gets you through the night. it must be nice to adhere to such a flexible belief system that basically accomodates whatever sick interpretation that you desire to justify your bloodlust or prejudices
A fine bit of labeling and demonization of opinion contrary to your expressed views. Evidently you believe that murder and killing are equivalent. That presents difficulties in communication and reveals volumes about your moral outlook.
“Nowhere can it be found where Jesus said, “Do not kill under any circumstance.” So Christians are not being inconsistent.”–according to who.(?)
We all read the same book. I made the assertion that nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus categorically forbid killing. If you disagree, provide the relevant passages to support your assertion, otherwise acknowledge the point. To not do so is to reveal intellectual dishonesty.
do you deem to speak for all christians cause i know plenty who view justifications like yours to be just as vile as i do.
I never implied, much less claimed that all Christians hold my view and of course others disagree, that alone does not ‘prove’ anything other than possible disagreement.
he also didn’t say that killing WAS justified under any circumstances either now did he?
No, he didn’t. How does he not saying that something is ok, indicate that it is not ok?
that you would choose to utilize that omission to justify the systematic slaughter of innocents is very telling, particularly in light of the overall message that jesus was trying to impart
Jesus is weeping over the death of innocents. AND if he did assign judgment as to blame, it would rest upon Hamas and Hezbollah. Your moral obtuseness changes the truth of the situation not at all. But it does prove your profound foolishness and your culpability in the continuance of the conflict, with all the responsibility that position creates, notwithstanding your ignorance.
“Killing is not always ’seeking vengeance’. It is easy for you to characterize it as that of course but inaccurate to do so.”–so what? dead is dead. they were still KILLED weren’t they?
Yes, they are dead. If you need the moral difference between murder and killing explained, (and you do) then you have a very far road to travel. Good luck on that journey.
so where exactly are you getting this ’seeking vengeance’ caveat from? who the hell are you? that rider doesn’t exist anywhere in the copy of the new testament that i have. or are you just making stuff up? it’s your book people not mine.
Since its ‘my book’ perhaps I know a bit more about it than you? And not to beg the question, but ‘who are you’? Please, none of my points are ‘made up’ but intellectual inadequacy is a likely explanation for your attempt to characterize my assertions as such.
i just want to be clear which branch of the ideological relevancy brigade that i’m dealing with. the group that believes that all killing is wrong or that bunch who wants to play games with semantics around the word murder to justify their ambivalence towards the death of innocents.dagon
The key words in the above being ‘brigade’, ‘ambivalence’ and ‘innocents’ and ‘games with semantics’… You’re dealing with someone who see’s exactly where you are coming from and understands that you don’t have a clue as to the reverse…
You presuppose that either ‘all killing is wrong’ or ‘games with semantics’ are being played.
That says it all.
“You presuppose that either ‘all killing is wrong’ or ‘games with semantics’ are being played.”
–when it comes to interpreting the bible, yeah…that pretty much sums it up. i’m a moral relativist out here in reality but that isn’t the conversation that we’ve been having.
you sure went a long way around the block to basically just confirm my original assertion that you are little more than a ‘cafeteria’ christian who interprets jesus’ words so as to justify your basest impulses.
that’s the really nifty thing about the bible. it can be interpreted so many ways. hell, i could even use certain passages to justify incest.
what’s telling is that in light of the existence of sects that believe that ALL killing is wrong, you choose to align yourself with a belief-system that gives you some ‘wiggle-room’. now why would that be?
peace
“These people are in their 30s and 40s presumably. I shouldn’t be able to out think them. So I can read a step beyond a person’s actions, via the net. I’m trying for two steps at the moment. And, Or, XOR. Logic gates agore.”
?!? I’m sorry but that statement is a tad pretentious for someone of ANY age to make (as well as being arguably false)–the tactic of verbosity over succinctness fails to persuade.
Dagon-
“i could even use certain passages to justify incest.”
Prove it.
kevin
19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
–now, i know that the bible doesn’t say explicitly that this was a good idea but since none of them was turned into a pillar of salt, it kind of makes you wonder.
plus there’s this from d_btit:
“How does he not saying that something is ok, indicate that it is not ok?”
–we done yet?
peace
Dagon-
As you say, the Bible doesn’t say explicitly that this was a good idea (and btw, not everyone who sins is turned into a pillar of salt.)
Now, regarding explicit instructions on incest, let’s turn to Leviticus 18:6-18 (New International Version)
6 No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.
7 Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
8 Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.
9 Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
10 Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.
11 Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
12 Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.
13 Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.
14 Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
15 Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.
16 Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.
17 Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
18 Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
I have to agree with Bookworm that your knowledge of the Bible is rather shallow but don’t despair as that describes a majority including many, many people who call themselves Christians (and I don’t exclude myself from that assessment but at least I’m trying.)
Based on your previous posts to this thread, it appears your contempt for Christianity (and I guess all religions) is based on a belief that adherents are hypocrites (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.) I’m curious as to what ideals you live up to that enable you to be the paragon of virtue? Why not state them explicitly here and now and allow others to judge how well you live up to the tenets of your belief system? What are they based upon and why is that basis better than someone else’s? It basically comes down to the question of why I should allow someone with an ethereal belief system judge me as a Christian.
kevin
“As you say, the Bible doesn’t say explicitly that this was a good idea (and btw, not everyone who sins is turned into a pillar of salt.)”
–well, since they had just garnered gods’ favor and escaped the destruction of sodom, it’s more than a little relevant that god didn’t have boo to say about their escapades in that cave.
and re Leviticus 18:6-18, all you asked me to do was to prove that i could justify incest by citing a few passages from the bible. by d_brit’s standard of “How does he not saying that something is ok, indicate that it is not ok?”, i did just that. it’s not my fault that the bible is as contradictory as it is.
“I have to agree with Bookworm that your knowledge of the Bible is rather shallow but don’t despair as that describes a majority including many, many people who call themselves Christians (and I don’t exclude myself from that assessment but at least I’m trying.)”
–since there about as many volumes and interpretations of the bible as there points in your iq, i would have to say that my knowledge of the ‘bible(s’ is about as shallow as anyone else’s; particularly selective interpretists such as bookworm or yourself.
but then again, i don’t claim to be an expert on aesop’s fables or druidic alchemy either; both of which hold about as much importance to me as biblical scholarship does.
“Based on your previous posts to this thread, it appears your contempt for Christianity (and I guess all religions) is based on a belief that adherents are hypocrites”
–of course they are hypocrites. all men are hypocrits. but my contempt for religion stems from the fact that i believe that (by and large)it’s adherents are insane, a danger to the species and an impediment to prgress. that trumps any problem that i might have with hypocrisy.
peace
Kevin,
to answer your question about my belief system i can best say that i am a pragmatist, believing that the perpetuation of the species as an imperative naturally requires a set of universal ethics. i’m running short on time but here are some links to info on the basics:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=schick_17_3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist
peace
Ymarsakar Says:July 25th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Now, who’s asking who to do the others work?
“Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.”George Washington
“Let us[inclusive use]with caution [carefully consider]indulge [give the benefit of the doubt]the supposition [an unproven presumption], that morality [our sense of permissible and inpermissable behavior] can be maintained [sufficiently supported]without religion [a codified set of spiritual beliefs and precepts]
Of the 9 quotes provided, 5 specifically mention Christianity in a supportive context. 8 specifically extend support to ‘Revealed Religion’. 2 specifically condemn Diesm.
Playing ‘games’, presenting ‘fronts’,”a little game i play, I suppose, since I’d like to see how good people are at interpreting the psychology of others they see on the internet, just by reading their typed words. I’ve gotten to some degree of skill with that ability, so far. What can I say, I’m bad when it comes to logical thinking like that which chess requires, but I hold my own in terms of non-linear, crooked, thinking that requires subtlety.”
“So I can read a step beyond a person’s actions, via the net. I’m trying for two steps at the moment.”
The above indicates a lack of seriousness and a considerable degree of intellectual vanity.
If Ymarsakar, you can’t acknowledge the clear conflict between Washington’s statement and your assertion that I highlighted previously, then moral obtuseness must be added to your character flaw of intellectual vanity.
You have lots of fun playing with those of like mind.
dagon Says:
July 26th, 2006 at 6:25 am
“You presuppose that either ‘all killing is wrong’ or ‘games with semantics’ are being played.”
–when it comes to interpreting the bible, yeah…that pretty much sums it up. i’m a moral relativist out here in reality …
You are a ’selective’ moral relativist who is denying the difference between murder and justifiable killing and attempting to attach that presumption to the Bible. When your assertions are disputed you revert to ad hominem attacks…
“you sure went a long way around the block to basically just confirm my original assertion that you are little more than a ‘cafeteria’ christian who interprets jesus’ words so as to justify your basest impulses.”
Characterizing my responding to your assertions point-by-point as ‘longwindedness’ is a perfect example of ‘deflection’ in argument when disinclined to respond appropriately.
“what’s telling is that in light of the existence of sects that believe that ALL killing is wrong, you choose to align yourself with a belief-system that gives you some ‘wiggle-room’. now why would that be?”
More veiled implications of dishonorable character. You are seeking to have it both ways. In another argument you would characterize those sects who believe that ‘all killing is wrong’ as absolutists, lacking an understanding of ‘nuance’.
“by d_brit’s standard of “How does he not saying that something is ok, indicate that it is not ok?”
The Bible, in context does indicate disapproval for Lot’s daughters behavior. The Bible clearly indicates God’s condoning of ‘righteous’, neccessary killing, both in the Old and New Testaments. So, your attempt to use my ’standard’ falls apart.
“all men are hypocrits. but my contempt for religion stems from the fact that i believe that (by and large)it’s adherents are insane, a danger to the species and an impediment to prgress.”
All men have ‘blind spots’ and commit sinful [erroneous] behavior.
That is NOT the same thing as behaving hypocritically.
Hypocricy is knowingly behaving in an unethical manner while applying a standard to others that is not personally met.
You are doing a bit of ‘projecting’ on to others, what may be personally true of you. Whether so or not, ALL men are NOT hypocrits.
As for your assertions about religion, it is undeniable that there are ‘insane’ practioners. The same is true of secular moral relativism, which has done at least as much harm.
It is as wrong for you to apply the ‘broad brush’ of opprobrium to religion as it would be for me to apply it to ‘all’ secularists.
To begin with–thank you Bookworm for creating this blog entry. We may not be much on topic but I really needed a bit of mental diversion!
Dagon-
The story of Lot and his daughters is a historical account–it is not explicitly making the point that incest is acceptable, whereas Leviticus explicitly condemns this behavior (contrary to what you seem to be implying, not every passage in the Bible is a command or a law.) I don’t see that as being contradictory as there is an obvious difference between a historical account of an event and explicit commands regarding what is right and wrong. You made a claim and I wanted to see if you could present evidence from the Bible to support it–we’ll have to leave it up to other readers to decide your success.
“i would have to say that my knowledge of the ‘bible(s’ is about as shallow as anyone else’s; particularly selective interpretists such as bookworm or yourself.”
I disagree—that’s a muddled, relativistic viewpoint since you are saying that everyone’s viewpoint (no matter how learned the individual on the subject matter) is basically equal to anyone else’s. Based on your logic, there would be no reason for colleges (or any school for that matter) as reading, and in-depth analyzing of text (in this case it just happens to be the Bible) wouldn’t render a person any more of an expert in a given subject area than someone who perhaps watched a TV show on the same subject. Many people know bits-and-pieces of the Bible but are you honestly making the claim that one can gain (or offer) significant insight on ANY book based on having read a few random passages?
1) “it must be nice to adhere to such a flexible belief system that basically accomodates whatever sick interpretation that you desire to justify your bloodlust or prejudices.”
2) “…but my contempt for religion stems from the fact that i believe that (by and large)it’s adherents are insane, a danger to the species and an impediment to prgress”
3) The Wikipedia link you offered states: “Humanism is a broad category of active ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people.”
It sounds from your tone in (1) and (2) that you have added the caveat, “except people who’s belief system is different from mine” to (3). Would that qualify as a “selective interpretation” of the word all? Hummm, I guess (1) could apply to you as well…
kevin:
“It sounds from your tone in (1) and (2) that you have added the caveat, “except people who’s belief system is different from mine” to (3). Would that qualify as a “selective interpretation” of the word all? Hummm, I guess (1) could apply to you as well…”
hey, you said you’re working on your bliblical scholarship. i’m working on my ‘humanism’. i gotta tell you, it’s tough though.
peace
If Ymarsakar, you can’t acknowledge the clear conflict between Washington’s statement and your assertion that I highlighted previously, then moral obtuseness must be added to your character flaw of intellectual vanity.
If someone doesn’t know your thoughts because you failed to describe them, means you have a problem, not anyone else. Washington’s not speaking for you and you’re not speaking for him. It’s a great way to be opaque and obtuse on purpose, based upon nothing more practical than intellectual laziness.
I’m of course showing a lack of seriousness. It’s the obvious and most practical rebuttal to Brit’s claim that I’m too attached to whatever he was arguing over. Now, if I’m unserious in replying to the argument, this obviously means Brit, you, were quite wrong about my connections, or lack of them, to the subject that you were arguing about.
The logic seems clear to me, why are you twisting about in the wind though?
“The logic seems clear to me, why are you twisting about in the wind though?”Ymarsaker
Your ‘logic’ being that you’re right and anyone who disagrees is mistaken? With nothing but empty claims that others assertions are inadequate? Simply in effect saying, Na, Na, Na I can’t hear you?
It is not I who is twisting in the wind but you who are ‘dancing on the head of a pin’ to avoid answering my quiet specific rebuttals.
But then, you’ve acknowledged your game playing, I hope its fun playing by yourself.