The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Announcements
Open Thread #1
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A Dedicated Open Thread.

 
• Tags: OpenThread 
Hide 796 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:

    Please try to add Caitlin Johnstone to the columnist roster.

    • Agree: Biff
    • Replies: @Adrian
  2. anonymous[357] • Disclaimer says:

    I want to challenge to what seems to be mainstream opinion on this site regarding land development in the United States.

    Arguably the dissident right should approach land use policy with two goals: A) minimize diversity, and B) promote family formation among the historic American population. The problem, which some posters here don’t seem to fully appreciate, is that the current means used to achieve (A) detract from (B). In the current political climate, finding the best policy is therefore an optimization exercise which does not fully maximize either of the two individual variables.

    Goal (A) is to minimize diversity. There are three main ways to achieve this:

    1) Ethnostate. Diversity is minimized throughout the country. A number of countries have situations approaching this, but barring some dramatic change, it is not a viable option in the United States.

    2) Apartheid. This can be acheived in a number of ways, including law, as in pre-1990 South Africa, and restrictive convenants, as in the United States of the past. This also is not viable in the present U.S. political climate.

    3) Zoning. This is what is actually used. The idea is to restrict development by erecting onerous approval processes and mandating things like low density, large setbacks, and large minimum lot sizes. This decreases the local supply of housing which increases its cost. But if white people earn more than other groups, they will be disproportionately able to afford this expensive housing, which makes areas with restrictive zoning disproportionately white. “Our prices discriminate so we don’t have to.”

    Some posters on this site seem to consider restrictive zoning an unqualifiedly good thing, and attack people who push for changes (like the growing “Yes In My Backyard” movement). The reality is more complicated. Even in a best-case scenario, restrictive zoning is a very crude tool that produces many unintended, negative consequences. And, from a diversity-minimizing standpoint, its effectiveness is declining steadily.

    One obvious problem with restrictive zoning is that the bell curves for different groups overlap considerably. So expensive housing will price out a huge number of white people along with minority groups. And as Steve Sailer discussed in his classic Value Voters essay, whites appear to be more price-sensitive regarding family formation than other groups. So restrictive zoning does a lot of damage.

    Another serious problem with restrictive zoning is that it weakens community ties by geographically isolating the generations. Detached, single-family homes are ideal for only certain periods of life. Young people without children and the elderly are better-suited for apartments, but if their towns contain only large (so as to be expensive) houses, they will have to move away. And momentum often takes over, making planned “temporary” moves permanent. The result is that towns are filled with transient people who lack deep community connections.

    Finally, the restrictive zoning strategy is becoming outdated because it is ineffective in the face of high-skilled immigration. In fact, it actually makes the situation worse, since East and South Asians tend to pool their resources and live with multiple generations under the same roof, allowing them to outbid white suburbanites for expensive real estate. In my expensive Blue State region, a number of pricey suburban areas with good schools are rapidly changing from white to Chinese or Indian.

    There are no really good solutions here, but ultimately we are going to shoot ourselves in the foot if we don’t permit a certain amount of additional housing. I fully concede that there are many pernicious policies out there; each situation needs be addressed on a case by case basis. I welcome the thoughts of others here.

    • Replies: @RWS
  3. When we get “free” college education, will we finally be able to keep the climate deniers and racists out of higher education?

    • LOL: jim jones
  4. My humble suggestion would be to even out the political balance. As things stand, the site publishes viewpoints which are overwhelmingly right-wing, often far-right. It is true that from a Western media PoV, these viewpoints are the most stigmatised (and thus those often most excluded).

    Nevertheless, I strongly believe that censorship against the genuine left is an underappreciated issue. Many anti-war leftists got censored in the aftermath of the Soleimani attack, their posts deleted arbitrarily on major social media platforms. I’m pleased that Mr. Escobar has joined the roster but there is room for more. Not only foreign policy people but also domestic politics. Basically, left-wingers who move beyond petty ‘woke’ identity politics in favor of real left-wing policies.

    There are some on the site like Michael Hudson but with all due respect, I believe that there are higher-caliber people out there. Someone like Branko Milanovic would be a dream, though someone of his stature would probably think twice before allowing himself to be published on a site where people with frankly neo-Nazi views are published.

    I for one have been distressed that very few mainstream liberal publications have covered the escalating attacks on Glenn Greenwald in Brazil with any empathy, partly because he has criticised them so harshly. A much bigger scandal is the ongoing blackout on the unconscionable and arbitrary arrest (and frankly torture) of Julian Assange. Many of these issues deserve more attention. There is a wealth of left-wing perspectives that many on the right are unable to differentiate. They incorrectly believe the ruling class is “cultural marxist” and other tripe. The ruling class is neoliberal imperialist.

    • Agree: Kali
  5. It’s obvious that Trump had Kobe killed to take the focus off of impeachment. Is there no end to what the Orange Monster will do?

    • Replies: @Hail
  6. @Thulean Friend

    My humble suggestion would be to even out the political balance

    My not so humble suggestion is to ignore those who force car-salesman false binary choices on people.

    “Will you be paying with Visa or Mastercard?”

    “…Fuck you, I’m paying cash, and I’m paying somewhere else.”

    • Thanks: Mr McKenna
  7. A lot of people seem to be directing their comments towards Mr. Unz himself. I’m not so certain he’s actually going to read any of this. I thought it was just for entertainment.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  8. Hail says: • Website
    @Ozymandias

    I went to InfoWars for the latest theorizing on Who Killed Kobe; they didn’t disappoint, but the theorizing is still in the process of formation.

    Current InfoWars headline:

    STAR-KILLING IS A REAL PHENOMENON & KOBE BRYANT’S TRAGIC HELICOPTER CRASH SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED

    As if the normal procedure is to not investigate, to ask no questions, to close book ASAP.

    Alex Jones explains how Kobe Bryant’s tragic death warrants an investigation given the establishment has a track record of killing stars who buck the system.

    Millionaire, celebrity, ultimate insider, Obama crony, Kobe Bryant “bucked the system”?

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
  9. @Hail

    “Millionaire, celebrity, ultimate insider, Obama crony, Kobe Bryant “bucked the system”?”

    Well the people on TV are telling me that he was a HERO, and the world will now go into mourning. You’ve got to admit there aren’t that many rapist heroes, so he’s kind of bucking the system.

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
  10. “Tears in rain”…

    Bartenders always seem to know the truth.

    RIP Rutger.

    • Thanks: Talha
  11. @Ozymandias

    Now, if he killed them as well, then he would be Ed Bucking the system.

  12. Ron Unz says:
    @Thulean Friend

    My humble suggestion would be to even out the political balance. As things stand, the site publishes viewpoints which are overwhelmingly right-wing, often far-right.

    Actually, I don’t think that’s correct. For example, consider our list of regular columnists who are currently active. Excluding me, they number 28.

    Of those, I’d say 15 would be generally considered on the Left: Gilad Atzmon, Kevin Barrett, Pat Cockburn, Stephen Cohen, Jonathan Cook, Linh Dinh, Pepe Escobar, C.J. Hopkins, Michael Hudson, Ted Rall, the Saker, Israel Shamir, Andre Vltchek, Whitney Webb, and Mike Whitney.

    Meanwhile, only 9 would be placed on the Right: Pat Buchanan, John Derbyshire, Guillaume Durocher, E. Michael Jones, Trevor Lynch, Ilana Mercer, Ron Paul, Fred Reed, and Eric Striker.

    The remaining four probably wouldn’t be as clearly situated ideologically. So the Left outnumbers the Right 15-to-9.

    However, I’d certainly admit that all four of our bloggers would clearly fall on the Right, and I’d also say we do publish considerably more outside articles from the Right than from the Left. So these additional factors do outweigh the Left-leaning columnist ratio.

    But while I’d probably agree that on balance, that our website provides more content on the Right than the Left, I don’t think the ratio is anything as extreme as you suggest.

    • Agree: Blinky Bill, gsjackson
  13. Nodwink says:
    @Thulean Friend

    It’s hard to pigeonhole many UR contributors. Gilad Atzmon has some sympathies with the Left, but some other views which would put him somewhere on the Alt Right. The true distinguishing ideological feature of UR writers is that of the Dissident, which of course applies to Ron Unz himself.

    One person who no longer belongs in the Dissident category is Pat Buchanan. I used to read Buchanan’s work at Antiwar, and he is one of the more bearable conservative writers; but his apologetics for the current occupant of the White House make him very much an Establishment figure these days.

  14. Kali says:

    Where the US/”israel goes, the UK follows.
    And whist we quarrel and fight over immigration, skin colour and IQ test scores, “our” “israeli” governments are destroying all that is beautiful and sacred, and doing so in the name of “democracy” and “freedom”

    Just one example out of possibly hundreds:

    Guantanamo’s indelible legacy

    [MORE]

    https://mondoweiss.net/2020/01/guantanamos-indelible-legacy/

    Here are eight ways in which the toxic policies of that offshore facility have contaminated American institutions, as well as our laws and customs, in the years since 2002.

    1. Indefinite detention: The first item on any list of Guantánamo’s offspring would have to be the category “indefinite detention.” In the context of U.S. law, until that long-ago January, the very notion was both foreign and forbidden. Detention without charge or trial was, in fact, precluded by the Fifth Amendment’s right to due process, a reality that had been honored since the founding of the republic. Though the detainees there were eventually granted access to lawyers and the right to have their cases reviewed, for only a handful of them has that right of being charged or released been realized.
    […]
    2. . A new legal language for the purpose of bypassing the law: From the very start, Guantánamo challenged the normal language of law and democracy. The detainees there could not be called “prisoners” as they would then have been considered “prisoners of war” and so subject to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. The cages and later prefab prison complexes (transported from Indiana) could not be labeled “prisons” for the same reason. So the government invented a new term, “enemy combatant,” derived from “unlawful enemy belligerent,” that did have legal standing. The point, of course, was to create a whole new legal category that, like the offshore prison itself, would be immune to existing laws, American or international, pertaining to prisoners of war.
    […]
    3. Legal cover: While a new language was being institutionalized, the Department of Justice offered its own version of legal cover. Its Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) was enlisted to provide often-secret legal justifications for the policies underlying what was then being called the Global War on Terror. The OLC would, in fact, devise farfetched rationales for many previously outlawed policies of that war, most notoriously the CIA’s torture and interrogation programs whose “enhanced interrogation techniques” were used at the Agency’s “black sites” (or secret prisons) around the world upon a number of high-profile detainees later sent to Guantánamo.
    […]
    4. The sidelining and removal of professionals: From its inception, Guantánamo’s supervisors shoved aside any professionals or government officials who stood in their way. Notably, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appointed individuals to run Guantánamo who would report directly to him rather than go through any pre-existing chain of command. In that way, he effectively removed those who would contradict his orders or the policies put in place under his command, including, for instance, that prisoners on hunger strikes should be force-fed.
    […]
    5. The use of the military for detention operations: In the fall of 2002, General Tommy Franks, the head of U.S. Central Command, complained to Rumsfeld that his troops were being wasted on detainee operations. Hundreds of prisoners had been captured in the invasion of Afghanistan that began in October 2001 and Army personnel were being asked to serve as guards in the detention centers set up at the new American military bases in that country. Though many of those detainees would subsequently be transferred to Guantánamo, the military was not off the hook. A joint task force of all four of its branches would be deployed to Guantánamo to serve as guards for the arriving detainees. Some of them insisted that it was not a task they were prepared for, that their previous service as guards at military brigs for service personnel who had broken the law was hardly proper preparation for guarding prisoners from the battlefield. But to no avail.
    […]
    6. Secrecy and the withholding of information: When it came to Guantánamo, Pentagon officials discussing the number of detainees there would usually offer only approximations, rather than specific numbers, just as they would generally not mention the names of the prisoners. Journalists were normally kept from the facility and photographs forbidden. Meanwhile, a blanket of secrecy shrouded the prior treatment of those detainees, many of whom had been subjected to abuse and torture at the black sites where they were held before being transported to Guantánamo.
    […]
    7. Disregard for international law and treaties: In characterizing the Geneva Convention as “quaint” and “obsolete” as part of its justification for the detention and treatment of prisoners in the war on terror, President George W. Bush’s administration began to steadily eat away at Washington’s adherence to international treaties and conventions to which it had previously been both a signatory and a principal moral force. What followed, for instance, was a contravention of the Convention Against Torture, both in the CIA’s global torture program and in Washington’s toleration of the mistreatment of detainees it rendered to other countries.
    […]
    8. Lack of accountability: Although some of the newly legalized policies of the Bush-era, including the use of torture, were ended by the Obama administration, there has been no appetite for holding government officials responsible for illegal and unconstitutional conduct. As President Obama so classically put it when it came to taking action to hold individuals accountable for the CIA’s torture program, it was time “to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

    There’s plenty more gory detail at the link, but I’m sure you get the picture.

    All of those immigrants and refugees are VICTIMS of of “our” governments, even more so than we are!

    And unless we can pull out shit together to overthrow those evil entities the entire planet may well be fucked for a very long time to come!

    Stop squabbling and start organising!

    With love,
    Kali.

  15. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Buying into a binary, Left/Right characterization can lead to rationalizing cutout Progressive(tm) lightweights like Mr. Rall, the apparent replacement for Mr. Engelhardt.* Their views are largely orthodox, boxed into Red/Blue Washington politics and issues du jour like the ClimApocalypse. While on the “Right” you seem to have a soft spot of loyalty for the 100% Beltway Mr. Buchanan, and others such as Mr. Derbyshire who keep people thinking that the Establishment will be cured of its self-serving nature if enough of its political puppets are GOP.

    A more important distinction than Left/Right is whether the ideas being expressed are condoned elsewhere. The writers and their readers who need TUR and who I learn the most from include Linh Dinh, Philip Giraldi, C. J. Hopkins, Michael Hudson, Paul Craig Roberts, and Mike Whitney. Not merely coincidentally, they are among those who you probably struggled to categorize.

    Please focus on quality and true dissidence.

    ———

    * It would be interesting to learn for certain why Engelhardt, Lang, and Napolitano left the roster. I suspect that each was receiving more sound, negative comments than he had bargained for, but proffered the excuse that he no longer wanted to appear alongside those crimethinkers too heterodox for mainstream publication.

  16. No Jo says:

    A big win for Unz would be publishing G Maxwell’s emails.

  17. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ozymandias

    Wrong. Again.

  18. Rurik says:

    I love the idea of an open, free speech thread. (thank you Mr. Unz).

    And in that vein, this is one of several comments that Steve Sailer finds too ‘whatever’ to publish on his blog. Specifically, this thread:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/profiles-in-courage/

    I responded to another commenter

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/profiles-in-courage/#comment-3682479

    The rape case is actually quite compelling.

    And the following is my censored comment:

    I remember it. An accusation of rape, and then a tsunami of outraged basketball fans howling that she should keep her mouth shut! This was Kobe! Who the f’ did this little bitch think she was?! She should feel honored that Kobe! raped her. How many other little no-body girls get raped by Kobe?!

    It was sickening to listen to all these white men I know, basketball fans, defending Kobe and calling her a lying gold-digger- without a shred of evidence. ‘She went to his room’, ‘what the f’ did she expect?! Blah, blah..

    The evidence indicated that she was brutally raped, as you mention. And that she went to the authorities.

    And then the pile-on. It wasn’t enough that she was raped by a basketball player, then she got raped by the media and sport fans of America.

    From what I remember about the case, she finally said she wouldn’t press charges (either criminal or civil), so long as he admitted what he did, so that the media and sports fans would st0p demonizing her. So Kobe admitted publically that ‘It wasn’t consensual”, and they both moved on.

    But I’ll never forget the way sports fans (black and white men) reacted to a young woman being brutally raped, so long as it was a (black) sports ‘hero’ that did it.

    ‘F that bitch’ was their attitude, and I remember remembering why I was never a sports fan.

    If they could teach a gorilla play football, and to be gentle with the other players, and not break their bones and rip their arms from their sockets, the gorilla could make a touchdown almost every time you gave him the ball.

    ‘Toby’ the gorilla would soon become a sensation, and male sports fans would be dressing their daughters in jungle attire to try to get Toby’s attention.

    Now, is that too hurtful for the ears or eyes of Steve’s readers?

    Will their tender sensibilities suffer irreparable damage by that opinion?

    Or, does my shiv ~ aimed at a certain type of (white, male) sports fan;

    Steve: [with comment by Rurik]

    Kobe was a 3-digit IQ [Wow!] guy from the nice suburbs of Philadelphia and who’d lived in Italy when his dad was wrapping up his pro career there, who would have gone to Duke if he hadn’t gone straight to the NBA out of high school.

    Oddly, though, I once made up a list of the best centers in basketball history up through about 2008 and only Moses Malone came up as low IQ

    ~ cut a little too deep?

    Is there any irony at all, at Steve censoring my (innocuous and gentle by Unz standards) comment, on a thread about:

    Profiles in Courage: Washington Post Suspends Reporter for Tweeting Link to a #MeToo Story About Kobe Bryant

    ?

    • Replies: @Hail
  19. Talha says:

    Whoa!!! The Saudis are letting non-Muslims into Madina al-Munawarra! This is potentially huge and overturns centuries of local practice. Yes, the guy was not allowed in the mosque itself, but that may change (since the Hanafi school is OK with that also):

    I did not expect to see this within my lifetime.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
    , @Art
  20. Bertrand Russell: the best laid plans…

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    , @Adrian
  21. @Talha

    Amazing good news.

    May East, Middle East, and West finally talk with one another in love.

    Be well.

    • Replies: @Talha
  22. Hail says: • Website
    @Rurik

    Your comment was not censored and was published, eventually:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/profiles-in-courage/#comment-3682768

    I think what happens is this:

    Any time a comment has one or more of a list of certain trigger words, it is put on the backburner into a low-priority, “spam”-like folder, and approved only hours later. Yours has a word that rhymes with ‘witch,’ which I think did it. Other ways to trigger it: use of any ethnic slurs or posting more than one link at a time, maybe some other things too.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  23. Talha says:
    @SeekerofthePresence

    Amen! You as well!

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
  24. Biff says:
    @Thulean Friend

    There’s a growing number of us that simply don’t do the left/right dichotomy much anymore. It’s more often the ruling elite “them” vs the rest of the population “us”.

    It’s the rubes and dupes think they are on some sort of winning high ground in their diametric opposition to “the left” “the right”.

    • Replies: @Thulean Friend
  25. iffen says:
    @Talha

    We’ll see how it plays after Mossad slips a suicide bomber inside.

    • Replies: @Talha
  26. Rurik says:
    @Hail

    was published, eventually:

    yes, once it’s so far up the page as to be invisible.

    a comment has one or more of a list of certain trigger words, it is put on the backburner into a low-priority, “spam”-like folder, and approved only hours later. Yours has a word that rhymes with ‘witch,’ which I think did it. Other ways to trigger it: use of any ethnic slurs

    I don’t think so. I once replied to someone who wrote ‘England has been conquered’, and I simply replied ((conquered)), and it wasn’t published, at least that day.

    I don’t go to Sailer’s blog often, but I’m so disgusted at how people gush over rapists like Polanski or Kobe, that I felt compelled to shove it in their faces. They seem to worship these animals like they’re demigods or something. (Kobe has a three digit IQ!)

    How would they feel if it was their daughter being raped? And you know what? I don’t want to know. I’m afraid of the answer.

  27. How courageous of you to speak out when you’ve nothing to lose.

    PS: You may wish to explore the #new comments feature.

  28. Talha says:
    @iffen

    Mossad wants to play nice right now with Saudi so it’s likely not a concern, but yes; any non-Muslims applying to visit the city (and especially should the mosque be opened up for them for visitation – something I actually support) should be thoroughly vetted and have their background checked.

    Peace.

  29. @Biff

    That viewpoint is too simplistic. Right and left does not go away just because both sides can be further subdivided into insiders and outsiders.

    What you’re referring to is when ‘normal’ people being caught up in partisanship so they don’t realise that they cheer for two controlled sides. But I am saying that even among the non-controlled opposition, there is internal ideological diversity. That’s not a bad thing. Variety is the spice of life.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Brás Cubas
  30. Andrew Peek, son of Liz Peek, and Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs at the National Security Council, was escorted off of the White House compound the Friday before last. He was placed on administrative leave. Peek succeeded Fiona Hill and Tim Morrison, both of whom testified in the House Impeachment trial.

    John Bolton, before his upcoming book release, was required to have that manuscript submitted to the NSC for review. Bolton claims that this is the only copy that was released. All the same, it was leaked to the New York Times to be strategically released while the Trump legal team was putting on its defense.

    Peek is now under investigation. Am I the only one connecting the dots here?

  31. Miro23 says:

    An interesting article by Robert Bridge on RT:

    Sanders storms ahead as Democrats confront their worst nightmare – and it’s not Donald Trump

    “As Sanders gains in the polls, Democratic leaders are getting nervous, arguing the ‘democratic socialist’ has no chance against Trump. The reality, however, is that they are terrified of their radical fringe gaining power.”

    https://www.rt.com/op-ed/479399-sanders-democrats-trump-polls/

  32. Adrian says:
    @anonymous

    I second that but I fear that she will be put off by the white nationalist side of it. Also she has never been outspoken on Israel probably fearing that that would make her less welcome in some other publications. But yes, she is great.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  33. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Adrian

    Your take sounds right, in light of the hasty vaporization of her one column that was published here months ago. OTOH, my several requests for an explanation – including this one – were moderated, then merely ignored.

    I would have even higher regard for Mr. Unz if this were made clear, and for Ms. Johnstone if she would take the FREE speech position of C. J. Hopkins and allow her columns to be published anywhere.

  34. David says:

    Here’s an open thread comment. There’s a video of Job Biden saying some odd things (“go vote for someone else” while actually pushing the guy away) to a voter seeking a picture with him. The weirdest thing about it is that Biden, while talking, fiddles with the mans jacket zipper or buttons. If I were talking to an old man and he started adjusting my coat zipper, I would assume he was generally insane.

    • Replies: @Tusk
  35. Carl Sagan on Humanity…

    • Thanks: Talha
  36. Tusk says:
    @David

    Trump vs Biden would be amazingly funny so I definitely hope he gets the nomination.

  37. Adrian says:
    @SeekerofthePresence

    That interview with Russell.(or rather his monologue) was quite interesting. When he spoke about the time before the First World War as a time of stability and settled verities about politics he was generalizing his British upper class point of view. I have just been reading the correspondence of the distinguished Swiss nineteenth century historian Jacob Burckhardt. His view of the world differed quite considerably from that of Russell. Even in the 1880’s he thought that a general European war was imminent and he wondered about the fact that they were alll continuing their daily lives as if there was nothing to worry about. He thought that the outbreak of the French Prussian war of 1870 confirmed the views of “the philosopher” (by whom he meant Schopenhauer) that the underlying principle of worldly affairs was a non-rational will rather than Reason (as that “charlatan” Hegel assumed – “charlatan” was Schopenhauer’s term for him, not Burckhardt’s).

    Another surprising thing in this correspondence was B’s obvious animus against the Jews – surprising in so moderate a man whom Nietzsche called the ‘wise and knowing’ one. He must have had his reasons but that is for another letter.

    • Thanks: utu
    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  38. I’m a big fan of the article here – https://www.unz.com/article/coronavirus-the-dark-side/

    Please ask Mr Robets to look into the Attention Grabbing Social Media Professor who is behind most of the hype and panic over this Corona Virus.

    Some interesting highlights of his apparent career in this article here (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/wors-panicdemic-part-2-r0-r-naught-charlie-%E5%A9%B5%E5%A9%B5-liu-%E5%88%98-/) and also interesting to note the patterns of the development of his Wikipedia Page. Aside from most of the “content” coming from accounts that don’t exist, there was an explosion by “bots” in many subtle changes over the last few months – see for yourself, check the edit history on the Wikipedia Page. His Linked In page has so few connections for such a massive figure in his apparent fields of expertise….and not a single recommendation made to him. Hmmmmm.

    Something isn’t quite right………

  39. iffen says:
    @Thulean Friend

    Categories and labels are just that.

    As to this site, the main lump, right and left, is the blame America first group. The 2nd biggest lump is blame America first because the “wrong” people are calling the shots. The remaining lump is tiny.

  40. Art says:

    The Jews are making their move – it is 99% certain that Bloomberg will be the Dem nominee.

    DNC overhauls debate requirements, opening door for Bloomberg

    The committee is eliminating the donor threshold, which had functionally barred Bloomberg from the stage.

    The Democratic National Committee is drastically revising its criteria to participate in primary debates after New Hampshire, doubling the polling threshold and eliminating the individual donor requirement, which could pave the way for former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg to make the stage beginning in mid-February.

    Candidates will need to earn at least 10 percent in four polls released from Jan. 15 to Feb. 18, or 12 percent in two polls conducted in Nevada or South Carolina, in order to participate in the Feb. 19 debate in Las Vegas. Any candidate who earns at least one delegate to the national convention in either the Iowa caucuses or New Hampshire primary will also qualify for the Nevada debate.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-shifts-debate-requirements-opening-door-for-bloomberg-110017

    You can be sure – it is Trump vs. Bloomberg – in 2020

  41. Art says:
    @Talha

    Talha — could not help but see the overwhelming wave of Arab Sunni humanity, condemning Kushner’s “deal of the century” – that is being forced on Palestine — Art

    • Replies: @Talha
  42. iffen says:

    The Jews are making their move

    But Sanders is … and Kushner is …, oh, never mind.

    • Replies: @Art
  43. Klaatu on 100 Seconds till Midnight…

    “The Day the Earth Stood Still” 1951

  44. Kali says:

    Gandhi (love him or hate him) said, “No-violent, non-cooperation becomes every mans sacred duty when the state is lawless and corrupt.”

    Given that all government is by concent, and that, as the old saying goes, we get the government we deserve, I feel it’s time to stop cooperating and stop consenting to globalised tyranny in the name of “democracy”, “freedom” and “zion”.

    That said, I guess it’s more than a little ironic that I publish the above (Unz willing) on a website where so much outstanding argument, information, opinion is posted anonymously for fear of reprisals and retribution from said lawless and corrupt state(s).

    Kali.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
    , @Art
  45. @Thulean Friend

    That viewpoint is too simplistic. Right and left does not go away just because both sides can be further subdivided into insiders and outsiders.

    I agree with you that right and left are, when taken in their appropriate meanings, permanent concepts. But I also agree that there is a problem because those words have ceased to be understood by the people, partly because the institutions which claim those concepts have not been proper embodiments of them. So, those who say that left and right are no longer valid concepts may have the practical upper hand, as long as they can push new concepts that function better and achieve satisfactory results.

    If one were discussing abstract philosophy, one could make a solid case for the concepts of left and right. But in politics, theory cannot exist without praxis. So, you have to use words that work. What those words are is still open to debate, and it is possible that they are not going to be sweeping generalizations as right and left were. Maybe one will have to deal with a multiplicity of concepts and combinations thereof to make sense of new political realities.

    The case of this website provides ample exemplification of what I have just said, beginning with its owner Ron Unz, who has at least in one occasion defined himself as a very conservative man. I have no elements to conclude that he has changed his self-classification, but the fact that stands out is that he has donated to (and, one presumes, voted for) the most leftwing candidate in the last presidential elections, Bernie Sanders. He also has been on record praising George Soros for donating to the Democratic Party against George W. Bush, which leads us to conclude that he has been misaligned with official “conservatism” for quite some time. It is obvious that when too many people begin to dissent from the mainstream of one movement, claiming that his own system of beliefs is the more “authentic” version of it, it may be time to scrap that movement altogether. Beyond a certain level of repair to be done in a house, it is better to build a new one.

    Another phenomenon that is observable in general is how geopolitical considerations tend to trump the individual categorization of left/right as applied to countries. For example, leftwing governments tend to align with Russia and China in detriment of the U.S.A.. They (and their journalistic allies) will come up with a million rationalizations about those countries (e.g., they are less aggressive toward others than the U.S. is; or, they are not strictly democratic in the ‘bourgeois’ sense, but their populations are majoritarily happy and so are not oppressed; etc). But I would bet that what really drives those governments is the simple strategic geopolitical reasoning that, the U.S.A. being the major Capitalist country in the planet, its weakening as a hegemonic global power is the first step to be achieved in order to bring down Capitalism as a hegemonic system. This may go terribly wrong, of course, at least for the leftists. As for dissenting journalists of a conservative persuasion, I do not know what their reasoning would be for wishing the U.S. weakened; maybe in their case those rationalizations I cited are real beliefs.

  46. Art says:
    @iffen

    The Jews are making their move

    But Sanders is … and Kushner is …, oh, never mind.

    Jews here Jews there – Jews lead everything!

    Bernie is an old-world socialist Jew – a kubutz type – who Bloomberg mocks.

    95% of US Jews would support Bloomberg over Bernie. The pressure to elect Bloomberg, put on the American people, would be overwhelming.

    If Bernie does not win on the first convention ballot – Bloomberg will be a shoe in.

    p.s. What would Fox’s Hannity do – support the Jew or Trump?

    p.s. Bloomberg gave the DCN 300K, just days before he entered the race.

    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/z3bmjx/mike-bloomberg-gave-the-dnc-dollar300000-two-days-before-he-entered-the-race

  47. Art says:

    https://theweek.com/articles/892890/mitch-mcconnell-does-again

    Major kudos to Mitch McConnell – he has saved the republic again – impeachment is off.

    The first time he saved us, was when he kept the Jew judge off the Supreme Court.

    The next thing he has done is get all those conservative judges appointed.

    Thanks!!

    • Replies: @Nodwink
  48. Talha says:
    @Art

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Art
    , @Lot
  49. Art says:
    @Talha

    Talha —- Touché — Peace — Art

  50. @Ron Unz

    What intrigued me until recently was that you just don’t seem to care whether the people whom you publish diverge from your own views, sometimes to a large degree. I kept trying to figure out what your goal is in publishing people with whom you explicitly disagree. Why would you want to publish those “Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media” and, most importantly, why do you consider them “interesting” and “important”?

    I still don’t know what your ultimate goal is, and in fact I don’t even know whether there is such an ultimate goal. But your immediate goal became fairly clear to me after I read a piece you wrote about a guy named Dauman who claimed his IQ was enormous. That article apparently had nothing whatsoever to do with anything you were writing at the time. As my first guess, I supposed it to be a tongue-in-cheek reference to your own IQ. I was entertaining that silly notion when I came upon the answer, not out of any brilliant insight of my own, but simply because, after you noticed that readers were clearly not getting your point, you explained it in not one, but two comments. Your purpose was exposing the amazing ability of the press to conceal, deceive, and fabricate. That’s when the whole agenda of your website became clear to me (you see, I am more than a little daft): to expose the extreme corruption and the lies of the mainstream press. To achieve that, you don’t have to publish exceptionally uniform views, and not even 100% sensible opinions. Your immediate goal is a destructive, or to use a less shocking word, deconstructive one. You aim primarily at producing doubt, not certainty. If you succeed at instilling doubt about what the hegemonic press says, your goal has been achieved. I am not saying that you prefer to publish lies over publishing the truth. In fact, the more truthful everything you publish is, the more effective you will be, that goes without saying. Also, those categories appertain to facts, not to opinions; and even with regard to facts, they are problematic. The decision whether something that occurred 50 years ago is true or false is, more often than not, a matter of opinion.

    That of course explains why in fact the ideological make-up here is almost balanced. Since you apparently don’t care in the least whether you publish rightwing or leftwing pieces, the balance will tend to be more of less even-handed, and a little skewed to the side which is most rejected by the mainstream media. So, it falls a little to the right.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @iffen
  51. Ron Unz says:
    @Brás Cubas

    Your purpose was exposing the amazing ability of the press to conceal, deceive, and fabricate. That’s when the whole agenda of your website became clear to me (you see, I am more than a little daft): to expose the extreme corruption and the lies of the mainstream press. To achieve that, you don’t have to publish exceptionally uniform views, and not even 100% sensible opinions. Your immediate goal is a destructive, or to use a less shocking word, deconstructive one. You aim primarily at producing doubt, not certainty. If you succeed at instilling doubt about what the hegemonic press says, your goal has been achieved.

    Sure, that’s a pretty reasonable summary of a major aspect of my effort. I also laid out the strategy pretty explicitly in one of my American Pravda articles from a few years ago:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-breaching-the-media-barrier/

  52. @Kali

    Gandhi (love him or hate him) said

    Based Ghandi also said:

    “Your Petitioner has seen the Location intended to be used by the Indians. It would place them, who are undoubtedly infinitely superior to the Kaffirs, in close proximity to the latter”

    “I venture to write you regarding the shocking state of the Indian Location. … There is, too, a very large Kaffir population in the Location for which really there is no warrant.”

    “Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension”

    “Of course, under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess I feel most strongly.”

    “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals. … The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company!”

    “Some Indians do have contacts with Kaffir women. I think such contacts are fraught with grave danger. Indians would do well to avoid them altogether.”

    • Replies: @Kali
  53. Nodwink says:
    @Art

    In the short term, McConnell’s undermining of the rule of law has played out very well for him and the GOP. I frankly wonder why it took so long for the Republicans to work out they could take the country, with only token resistance from some winemoms in pussy hats.

    In the long term, this gambit may backfire. If the hard Left continues its infiltration of the Democrats, then they will encounter a more formidable foe. Take this headline, for example:

    Bernie Sanders Leads Trump, All 2020 Candidates in Donations From Active-Duty Troops

    One suspects that the troops see Bernie as something of a peacenik; and with the exception of the Rambo types, I assume that most would rather be home with their families, rather than some Middle East dustbowl. It is possible, though, that quite a few are sympathetic to the movement that Bernie is building, and the next iteration of that movement is likely to be far more radical than Sanders.

    • Replies: @Art
  54. iffen says:
    @Brás Cubas

    Your purpose was exposing the amazing ability of the press to conceal, deceive, and fabricate.

    Assuming that you are correct, and I do, most “normal” people who land here will be put off by the bizarre conspiracy mongering, the Jew baiting, the racist ranting, etc. and move on, noticeably with the idea that the MSM is likely “right” about neo-Nazis, racists, etc. Many of the writers and most of the commenters already distrust the MSM. So exactly how does providing neo-Nazies, etc. a playpen bubble where they can back-slap each other, but which scares the hell out of the “normal” reader (the very person that is supposed to be reached) advance “the cause”?

    • Replies: @Art
  55. Art says:
    @iffen

    So exactly how does providing neo-Nazies, etc. a playpen bubble where they can back-slap each other, but which scares the hell out of the “normal” reader (the very person that is supposed to be reached) advance “the cause”?

    Those “normal readers” will for the first time hear something they never heard before – of course they will reject the anti-Jew notions.

    BUT – it will start them looking and thinking. If one looks, one cannot but see the truth of Jew coercion in our culture.

    Peak Jew is coming – a crash – then healing.

    Think Peace

    • Thanks: iffen
  56. Art says:

    American Oligarchs – by Andrea Bernstein — the Trump and Kushner families. CSpan2 Book TV

    Every voter should see!

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?467980-1/after-words-andrea-bernstein

    This raises many questions about Trump!

    At a minimum, he is a master manipulator of government.

  57. Kali says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    Your quote, Hippo’drome, is why I placed the “love him or hate him” caveat with my quote.

    It was the quote itself I was sharing rather than any endorsement of the man himself.

    The notion of non-violent non-cooperation with a lawless and corrupt state as a means to bring the state back into line with the people it is supposed to serve or to bring it down entirely if need be.

    It’s undeniable that all across the Western world, politicians and governments serve their own self-interests over and above the interests of the people/nations they are “elected” to serve, and that they place themselves above the law and use the state as a shield against prosecution..

    There is no obligation for any people to bow to such entities. – In fact there is arguably a moral/ethical responsibility for us to bring them down before it’s too late.

    Non-violent non-cooperation is one means by which we might do that,

    Regards,
    Kali.

  58. Art says:
    @Kali

    Gandhi (love him or hate him) said, “No-violent, non-cooperation becomes every mans sacred duty when the state is lawless and corrupt.”

    Given that all government is by concent, and that, as the old saying goes, we get the government we deserve, I feel it’s time to stop cooperating and stop consenting to globalised tyranny in the name of “democracy”, “freedom” and “zion”.

    Hear hear!

    Think Peace — Do No Harm — Do No Business — with the morally inferior Jews.

  59. Art says:
    @Nodwink

    Bernie Sanders Leads Trump, All 2020 Candidates in Donations From Active-Duty Troops

    One suspects that the troops see Bernie as something of a peacenik

    Absolutely – Bernie and Tulsi Gabbard are the lone voices for peace.

    The elite 20% led by the Zion Jews hate them both. Tulsi has been pushed out and ignored by the elite. They are trying to do the same to Burnie. Jew ownership of the media controls what we can hear.

    Sorry but our military has become a mercenary killing machine for the Jews. There is NO glory in that.

    Think Peace — Do No Harm — Do No Business — with the morally inferior Jews.

  60. Anonymous[285] • Disclaimer says:

    Luke Ford’s loss can be Unz Review’s gain.

    Kevin Michael Grace has been let go by the Luke Ford Show.

    Kevin Michael Grace has journalistic experience, erudition of history/politics, and wide-ranging interests in culture, from high art to pop culture.

    It might be a good idea to create a corner for him on Unz Review where he post videos and writings about various topics.

    KMG’s contact email: [email protected]

  61. Anonymous[320] • Disclaimer says:

    Mr. Unz,

    Could you please delete my comment history from unz.com. Further, could you also prevent my username from making further posts.

    Thank you.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  62. Ron Unz says:
    @Anonymous

    Could you please delete my comment history from unz.com. Further, could you also prevent my username from making further posts.

    Existing comments can’t be removed without severely disrupting old threads. But your the comment-archive for your Handle has now been hidden, which has much the same impact. It may take a little time for the change to propagate across the Internet.

    • Replies: @iffen
  63. Paul Craig Roberts’ latest article, “As the Democratic Party Hates ‘Trump Deplorables,’ How Can It Represent White People?” is a perfect description of the current State of the Union.

    Since Mr. Roberts doesn’t allow comments, I am using this open thread to make this statement. If you want to know what this American is thinking right now about life for him in his own country, and for others like him in countries like his, read the article.

    Every word of it is true.

    • Thanks: Art
    • Replies: @Tusk
    , @Colin Wright
  64. iffen says:
    @Ron Unz

    Existing comments can’t be removed without severely disrupting old threads.

    Could I just get my obviously stupid comments deleted? There shouldn’t be more than 10 or 12.

  65. Tusk says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    PCR does have some good articles. The commentary on his WW2 article, which was opened surprisingly, was a fantastic thread full of good discussion.

  66. Swan Song to a Millenium…

    “Dreams” The Cranberries Paris 1999

  67. Anon[970] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thulean Friend

    My humble suggestion would be to even out the political balance. As things stand, the site publishes viewpoints which are overwhelmingly right-wing, often far-right. It is true that from a Western media PoV, these viewpoints are the most stigmatised (and thus those often most excluded).

    This site needs mo ho’s. Where are the ho’s? Too many fellas.

  68. Anonymous[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Of those, I’d say 15 would be generally considered on the Left: Gilad Atzmon, Kevin Barrett, Pat Cockburn, Stephen Cohen, Jonathan Cook, Linh Dinh, Pepe Escobar, C.J. Hopkins, Michael Hudson, Ted Rall, the Saker, Israel Shamir, Andre Vltchek, Whitney Webb, and Mike Whitney.

    They are more left-of-left or exiled left, that is most current mandarin ‘leftists’ consider them as renegades.

  69. @Buzz Mohawk

    ‘Paul Craig Roberts’ latest article, “As the Democratic Party Hates ‘Trump Deplorables,’ How Can It Represent White People?” is a perfect description of the current State of the Union…’

    The comic bit is that now the party appears to be considering nominating a homosexual for president.

    Blacks are notoriously homophobic, and Hispanics aren’t too crazy about homosexuals either; the Democrats will wind up representing nobody at all.

    • Replies: @Talha
  70. Another succinct statement of truth from Paul Craig Roberts was published yesterday, here in the Unz Review: The Consequence of Globalism Is World Instability.

    Our leaders in business and government have brought us to a point at which a plague in China will destroy our livlihood in America — even if Americans don’t get sick. If the coronavirus, or some other illness in the future, becomes serious, the globalist system of which we are a part will suffer.

    He explains that Americans, like Citizens of many other counties in the supply chain, would suffer an economic crash if China were unable to produce the parts and finished products it exports. Employment, sales, supplies, would all fall.

    The title of Mr. Roberts’ essay is a true statement.

    Greedy fools pushed us to this point! What ever happened to the idea of redundant systems? Independence? How stupid it is to force Americans and everyone else to toil in a single industrial system, where if any one (Chinese) part fails, we all fail. How insane.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  71. Perhaps the science-minded readers of this webzine will find this article as interesting as I did:

    Are noncommunicable diseases communicable?
    B. B Finlay1,2, CIFAR Humans, the Microbiome2
    See all authors and affiliations

    Science 17 Jan 2020:
    Vol. 367, Issue 6475, pp. 250-251
    DOI: 10.1126/science.aaz3834

    Summary
    The past century has seen a profound decrease in mortality rates across the world, accompanied by a marked shift from communicable diseases (caused by infectious microbes) to noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) such as cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and respiratory diseases. NCDs—defined as diseases that are not transmissible directly from one person to another—account for more than 70% (41 million) of all deaths globally (1). The definition of NCDs rules out microbial involvement and instead focuses on genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors. Data increasingly show that the microbiota is dysbiotic (altered) in individuals with various NCDs. In animal models of NCDs, transplantation of dysbiotic microbiota into healthy animals results in disease, and microbiota composition is shaped by close contact with others. Therefore, we propose that some NCDs could have a microbial component and, if so, might be communicable via the microbiota.

    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6475/250

  72. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:

    What became of the Video pages of those squelched by YouTube? Weren’t they to be accessible here?

    • Replies: @Talha
  73. Talha says:
    @anonymous

    Extremely high-yield post on useful meta-concepts to help sift reality i(in our information age) from the detritus:

    Peace.

  74. Talha says:

    Also, I have not laughed this hard in years, so I thought I would share:

    Peace.

  75. Steve Bannon vs. Bill Maher…

  76. @Adrian

    Thank you renewing my interest in that once out-of-season historian, Jacob Burckhardt, who had little faith in progressive democratic institutions and technology. Years ago I read parts of his “Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy.” Hate to say, I did not really appreciate its brilliance. He wrote of the whole person, whose need for and love of beauty placed him next to divinity, and gave life and strength to his culture and nation. Now that governing bodies and institutions are in many ways disintegrating, his conceptions seem to be more timely than ever.

    Burckhardt did not believe modern rationalism was sufficient to sustain the person or society. Russell, on the other hand, sought truth in mathematics. It was touching to hear him describe as you say, “the time before the First World War as a time of stability and settled verities about politics….” Those times held fast to family and religious traditions. After the War, the center lost its hold. Humanity was cast adrift in a sea of doubt and questioning. Even Russell’s great protege, Wittgenstein, questioned whether mathematics was truth or merely a human construct.

    Burckhardt foresaw the crisis of metaphysics and culture that was to come upon Europe. It was realized in the War and in our own day by countless wars springing up everywhere like mushrooms. The “Letters of Jacob Burckhardt” by Alexander Dru is on order; hope to read the profound challenge our time fleshed out by this master of cultural history. Thanks again.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  77. @SeekerofthePresence

    Thanks for elevating Burkhardt’s ideas of art-family-religion. I’ve read a bit of his history of Italy and found it balm for the spirit.

    I don’t know much about Russell, but your comparison was instructive.

    Motivated by Phil Giraldi’s article on the billionaire backers of Pete Buttegieg, with Seth Klarman taking the lead role, I’ve been reading materials that our children are force-fed by an organization Klarman heads.

    Klarman is Chair of the Trustees at Facing History and Ourselves, an extensive collection of courses in (history) with holocaust and countering antisemitism as the centerpiece, that is taught to middle-school students in dozens of US states as well as internationally.

    The program started out a holocaust education program in one school in Klarman’s hometown in 1976; it now reaches over 100,000 public, private and charter school kids each year, and also conducts special programs, seminars and trainings for educators.

    The Facing History program on Weimar Germany offers a stunning contrast to the world Burckhardt admired: Facing History viewed Weimar as an outstanding period of cultural development that is important because it was a transition point to a fully democratized political, material, and artistic culture that sadly, claims the author, Paul Bookbinder, the German people were not able to navigate successfully. Bookbinder hopes that by studying the possibilities but failure of Weimar, young people can learn how to adopt the modern forms of art and social being Weimar envisioned, in a fully democratic way. (Klarmen fully endorses the varieties of re-gendering now in vogue).

    Bookbinder does not mention that Weimar was also a period when ordinary German people were forced to prostitute themselves to eat; when children were used and abused shamelessly; when the literature, painting, performing arts and popular culture of the period were considered degraded and decadent by many Germans.

    Germans were Burckhardtians being forced into a world not of their own making or preference — not at all “democratic.”

    I don’t know if Ron Unz is amenable to using this platform to attempt to organize to this extent: a full critique of the large body of material Facing History produces, and that our kids have been taught for over 40 years, is more than I can manage alone. But if several Unz participants agree to coordinate efforts to study the Facing History material and analyze it in comparison with, for example, Pravda articles on holocaust, on antisemitism, and the like, perhaps we could combine forces to produce at least a pamphlet that could be distributed to parents at school conferences, and to Boards of Education and school councils.

    The material Klarman’s group is teaching America’s children is nothing short of psychological warfare.
    We need to confront it and reclaim our own children.

  78. Lot says:
    @Talha

    Jerusalem was conquered, not purchased.

    Like Istanbul and, more recently, northern Cyprus.

    • Replies: @Talha
  79. Talha says:
    @Lot

    It was actually a negotiated surrender from the Byzantines to the Rashidun. They simply didn’t have the resources to put up much of a fight after the blowout at Yarmouk.

    Peace.

  80. @Truth3

    A little over two weeks ago:

    Israeli settlers torch Palestinian school in latest ‘price tag’ attack
    https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israeli-settlers-torch-fifth-grade-classroom-palestinian-village-south-nablus

    Palestinian mosque torched in Israeli settler ‘price tag’ attack
    https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/east-jerusalem-mosque-burned-israeli-settlers-price-tag-attack

    • Replies: @bjondo
    , @Rurik
  81. bjondo says:
    @AnonStarter

    Israeli settlers torch Palestinian school in latest ‘price tag’ attack

    Palestinian mosque torched in Israeli settler ‘price tag’ attack

    Jew killed all olive trees.

    But,

    Jew must be Jew.

    5ds

  82. Rurik says:
    @AnonStarter

    The more relevant question is this: If God is The Creator of all that is, why wouldn’t He take an interest in us? Even the smallest blade of grass usually gets everything it needs to grow and flourish for its typical lifespan. Same is true with insects, birds, and other two and four-legged critters. So God takes an interest in His creatures far lower on the food chain, but not the one at the top?

    The problem, as I see it, is that even for humans, for a God, (or God, Himself) their antics really must seem painfully mundane. What act of significance has any human accomplished in a thousand years? Yes, we have spaceships in orbit, but they’re used more as weapons or spying, than for anything else. Where are our great spiritual epiphanies, that uplift mankind from the primitive sludge, of war and hate?

    Civilizations ebb and flow. The Zeitgeist seems more circular, than linear.

    As far as I can see, the most critical event of the last millennium is the looming destruction of the Earth’s ecology. Due to the blind greed and fecundity of God’s ‘special creature’.

    Why is it, almost none of the world’s religious or spiritual leaders seem to have any concern for the world’s oceans or myriad species, on the verge of extinction, for all time. What does that bode for us as a moral beings, when we’re indifferent to handing this formerly lush planet to the next generations, bereft of many of its miracles, because it suited the current stewards of this planet to stand by idly as they’re wiped out. With more shekels clinking in their pockets, who has time to care about sea turtles?

    The Islamic perspective is profoundly different. Adam’s sin is not the cataclysmic event that shoulders the entirety of humankind with the burden of “original sin” and precludes him from return to the garden barring a patently idolatrous declaration.

    I know I’m blending things a bit, but for me, mankind’s original sin, is his willful destruction of the planet. (and I’m not talking about the ‘Climate Change’ idiocy). Humans have been slaughtering other humans since the beginning of time, but now we’re on the verge of taking our infinite greed and bloodlust planetary, and not just slaughtering each other, but driving thousands of species extinct, in our damnable, solipsistic megalomania. One day soon, children will be born into a world with poisoned oceans, (already, you don’t eat too much fish, because of the ubiquitous mercury), and they’ll say, ‘did African elephants and mountain gorillas really share this world with us, as freely roaming fellow creatures of God? And we’ll have to answer, ‘why yes honey, but that was before we humans wiped out all their habitats, to make room for billions of more consumer units and tax payers and cannon fodder. What are a few elephants, when you can have a few more billion people buying Walmart plastic things made in China and eating McDonald’s Big Macs?!

    We do know, however, about the history of Israel in relation to God because we have a written record which, even in its corrupted form, provides evidence of it.

    Why is it so easy, (incredibly easy), for me to consider Israel’s written ‘relation to God’, as nothing more than the written word of men, trying their best to interpret a God. I suspect my Mohawk, at the edge of his realm, watching an eagle soar, would have been just as close to the Eternal One, as he was uplifted by God’s beauty and grace. As a Jew two thousands years ago, wrestling with the texts of his ancestors, trying to divine the will of God. That those words were written, while the Mohawks were not, is hardly more reason to assign them divine origin, at least as I see it.

    Truth is, we’re all entitled to the fruits of God’s Kingdom, without any need to demonstrate descent from an allegedly superior bloodline.

    Here, here!

  83. Miro23 says:
    @Rurik

    Why is it, almost none of the world’s religious or spiritual leaders seem to have any concern for the world’s oceans or myriad species, on the verge of extinction, for all time. What does that bode for us as a moral beings, when we’re indifferent to handing this formerly lush planet to the next generations, bereft of many of its miracles, because it suited the current stewards of this planet to stand by idly as they’re wiped out.

    This really is a question – empathy with the natural world seems to be very rare.

    Nature has always been something to exploit (kill, harvest, burn, mine, cut down etc.) so I agree that there’s room for “spiritual leaders” to care about the human – nature interaction – maybe not to sanctify it – but to care about it.

    Also , this is something that is easily personalized in an anonymous atomized society. The regular “consumer” turns into something else when he/she spends time with, and develops a feeling for plants and animals.

    • Replies: @Miro23
    , @Rurik
  84. @Rurik

    Prophetic scene from “The Graduate”…

    Especially when humans become plastic with a tissue endoskeleton.

    • Thanks: Rurik
  85. Miro23 says:

    Putin rejects same sex marriage in Russia and the adoption of children by homosexuals.

    https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/02/14/vladimir-putin-russia-same-sex-marriage-gender-specific-language-anti-lgbt-gay/

    Liberal outrage in the West but for my part congratulations to Putin. I’ve got nothing at all against homosexuals but it’s a minority thing and it should basically be ignored – not fetishized by the media/state and given special rights.

    • Agree: Rurik
    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  86. @Miro23

    How unWoke! Time to drag Putin before the Hague.

  87. Miro23 says:
    @Miro23

    Chris Maser wrote an interesting book, “Harmonizing Culture and Nature”

    This is a review that I wrote in 2016:

    “Firstly, Chris Maser has written a very valuable book about the natural world and its problems which are worse now (2016) than when the book was published in 1992.

    “He’s concerned with habitats and species and says (P33), ‘… the notion is that species continue to evolve until they at last occupy all available habitat niches in the biosphere, which keeps changing, so that species must continue adapting.’

    “Some habitats offer more possibilities than others and he highlights the extraordinary richness of the world’s tropical rain forests quoting biologist Louise Emmons, with regard to the Gabon African rainforest; ‘You can stand anywhere and be surrounded by hundreds of organisms that are all ‘doing something’, going about their living in countless interactions—ants carrying leaves, birds dancing, bats singing, giant blue wasps wrestling with giant tarantulas, caterpillars pretending that they are bird droppings, and so on.’

    “Then he shows how humans are destroying natural habitats at an accelerating rate, becoming the principal cause of extinctions and evolutionary leaps. Like he says (1992), ‘Each year, an area 80% the size of the State of Oregon burns in the Brazilian Amazon alone’, and this is a lot, considering that tropical rainforests are one of the world’s oldest ecosystems, occupying only 7% of the Earth’s surface but home to more than 50% of all the Earth’s species.

    “His point is that human beings approach nature in a manner formed by their past. For most of their history they were an insignificant part in its vastness, and actually threatened by it—hence the memes of ‘carving out the new frontier’, ‘taming nature’ etc. which are all wrong now that the tables have turned.

    “Maser shows that intensive chemical based agriculture is seriously removing fertility from soil around the world as green cover is removed along with he natural cycle of dead organic matter returning to the earth (also covered in Peter Andrew’s excellent book ‘Beyond the Brink’).

    “He does show a growing awareness of the problem and engages in a very interesting argument (P186) contrasting Ethos with Law. Ethos is something that puts down deep roots into society and moulds it from the bottom up (in other words it IS society). In contrast Law is much more superficial concept that without Ethos it is easily circumvented, as for example with dead letter Environmental Laws routinely ignored by special interests. Like he says, ‘This is not the doing of the scientists, foresters, rangers, and others at working levels the agencies.’ It reflects decisions made by higher authorities in the executive branch of government i.e. They know they can get away with it because most of the population don’t care.

    “Maser could have suggested how to internalize (build an Ethos) of sustainability in the general population, but it’s a difficult problem and this is still a great book. Five stars so far and I have decided to ignore the negatives.”

  88. @Rurik

    The problem, as I see it, is that even for humans, for a God, (or God, Himself) their antics really must seem painfully mundane.

    This is but a projection of your imagination, and God tells us that He is to us as we regard Him, so that is what God is to you: someone for whom the antics of human beings must seem painfully mundane.

    But this is not what God is. Nor is God what I think of Him, He transcends my imagination. Yet He is knowable, the Necessarily Existent One. This is an apparent conundrum, but only if we suppose that imagination and knowledge are one and the same.

    They are not.

    What act of significance has any human accomplished in a thousand years?

    Why stop at one millennium? What act of significance has any human ever accomplished?

    Without acting to prove otherwise, the ultimate destination of such query is despair — not an ingredient conducive to acts of significance.

    Where are our great spiritual epiphanies, that uplift mankind from the primitive sludge, of war and hate?

    I’ve found mine. I’m not exactly sure what you’re looking for, but if you’re doing your best to refrain from war and hate, I’d say that’s a good start.

    The crimes that others more powerful than us have committed in our name are far too numerous to list here. We’re not accountable for them, no matter what some folks might say. It’s enough to know that the perpetrators will be compensated for what their hands have brought forth sooner or later. Just be grateful you’re not them. That, of itself, is a tremendous blessing.

    Civilizations ebb and flow. The Zeitgeist seems more circular, than linear.

    “Seems” is the operative word because fundamental aspects of human nature have not changed since the dawn of man; as such, it appears that history repeats while, in truth, familiar patterns of human behavior manifest themselves in novel circumstances.

    As far as I can see, the most critical event of the last millennium is the looming destruction of the Earth’s ecology.

    A significant problem, no doubt.

    Why is it, almost none of the world’s religious or spiritual leaders seem to have any concern for the world’s oceans or myriad species, on the verge of extinction, for all time.

    You’re being a bit presumptuous, expecting documentary proof or evidence in hyperlinks and sound bites while the vast majority of the world doesn’t even have a web connection.

    We could easily discuss what Islam says about “The Trust” that God gave to man, which includes proper care for the earth and everything in it — flora to fauna to mineral. I neither hunt nor fish solely for sport, nor do I raze woodland for any but the most practical purpose, and despoiling the environment at the cost of my humanity is simply not an option.

    One of my brother Muslims insists on a holistic, organic diet. He is exceedingly conscientious about his own habits as they effect the larger environment. Given his circumstances, his way is ideal.

    But there are many subject to circumstances in which such practice is essentially impractical, be they limited in their options as a consequence of poverty, their environment, or a combination of both. If we can afford organics and avoid plastic waste and reliance upon toxic chemicals, that’s great. Unfortunately, the vast majority of humankind cannot.

    Want to join Greenpeace? Go for it. The average world salary is ~ $42/day. Sure, you can stretch it out longer in many parts of the world, but try it on for size and see how it fits with a wife and children to boot. You’d be surprised how easily you’d forget those concerns you once had the luxury to entertain.

    I can’t blame religious leaders for these problems because most of them would, at the very least, be no worse than others, and furthermore, they’re more likely to find reason somewhere in their faith tradition to be better in their own practices and habits.

    It’s those who lack any manner of moral or ethical guidance that produce such problems.

    Why is it so easy, (incredibly easy), for me to consider Israel’s written ‘relation to God’, as nothing more than the written word of men, trying their best to interpret a God.

    Even if you perceive it as such, it does nothing to diminish the scope of its influence.

    I agree in part with what you write, but not because I regard the record as a pastiche of ancient fairy tales; rather, I agree with it because, as a whole, the record was provided by men who weren’t “trying their best to interpret a God” so much as presenting an account of history that served to present Israel as the terminus of salvation. To say that the sum of it is fictive is to miss the point. That record made one of the most significant impacts on human history — and particularly that of western civilization — than any other. This fact is undeniable and until it is acknowledged and understood for what it’s worth, not a single individual delving into the “Jewish Question” will ever be able to answer it satisfactorily.

    I suspect my Mohawk, at the edge of his realm, watching an eagle soar, would have been just as close to the Eternal One, as he was uplifted by God’s beauty and grace. As a Jew two thousands years ago, wrestling with the texts of his ancestors, trying to divine the will of God. That those words were written, while the Mohawks were not, is hardly more reason to assign them divine origin, at least as I see it.

    You’re entirely correct, of course.

    But where is the influence of the Mohawk now? And where is that of Israel?

    Here, here!

    You’re halfway home.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  89. Rurik says:
    @Miro23

    Thank you Miro23,

    This really is a question – empathy with the natural world seems to be very rare.

    Sadly, it’s by design.

    I remember growing up with Jacques Cousteau’s videos, and his heartfelt campaign to protect the oceans from man’s blind greed. At some point, man’s blind greed simply decided that such videos and sentiments didn’t suit their agenda, and so all the profound longing of so many people, to protect our natural world from the ravages of greed, were swept under the rug, and replaced with Global Warming! And Climate Change! They took the movement, and perverted it into a scheme to make them richer than their wildest dreams.

    We didn’t have to worry about species or habitats, or exploding numbers of humans in the Third World, no! All we have to do it tax the fuck out of Bubba the redneck in his F150, and the people of N. America and Europe and Australia! That was the solution. Don’t worry about China and India and Indonesia and Africa and Brazil, they can breed and burn their forests and pump gargantuan levels of carbon into the atmosphere and all will be wonderful, so long as we castrate whitey with carbon taxes.

    That’s the whole motivation for the Yellow Vests in France. They were told they had to pay massively higher taxes, to save the planet, as France became flooded with super-prolific people from the Third World. (Oh, and they had to pay taxes to pay for that, as well). It’s a wonder they didn’t bring back the guillotine for Macron. (who deserves it, if anyone ever did ; ).

    So they squashed Jacques Cousteau’s earnest and sublime message, and profaned it into an abomination so serve their eternal agenda.

    And I say God damn them for it.

    The regular “consumer” turns into something else when he/she spends time with, and develops a feeling for plants and animals.

    The depths of our souls, are like the depth of the oceans, full of wonder and possibilities and infinite mysteries. When children are exposed to nature, you’re so right, it changes them. And not just children, but adults too.

    Often it’s hunters, who start out wanting to kill magnificent beasts, but who learn to love and respect those beasts, who then become some of the most passionate defenders of our natural treasures, the unspoiled wild places on earth.

    This is a review that I wrote in 2016:

    “Firstly, Chris Maser has written a very valuable book about the natural world and its problems which are worse now (2016) than when the book was published in 1992.

    Doesn’t it sort of ripe your heart out, that this critical issue has been coopted by the scumfucks of the world, as an excuse for them to have unlimited power to tax every breath, while encouraging billions more people (to tax), as the “solution” to it all?

    There seems to be literally no depth to the depraved, sinister, literally infinite greed in the blackened and putrid human heart. They would sell out Earth itself, for a few shekels more.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  90. Adûnâi says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    “Our leaders in business and government have brought us to a point at which a plague in China will destroy our livlihood in America — even if Americans don’t get sick. If the coronavirus, or some other illness in the future, becomes serious, the globalist system of which we are a part will suffer.”

    This has been the case at least twice throughout history – in the Bronze Age collapse of the 12th ct. BCE, and during the fall of the degenerated and Christianized Roman Empire in the 3d-5th ct. CE. Our turn seems to be up, especially considering the failure of Hitlerism.

  91. Rurik says:
    @AnonStarter

    This is but a projection of your imagination, and God tells us that He is to us as we regard Him, so that is what God is to you: someone for whom the antics of human beings must seem painfully mundane.

    I can understand how you could interpret it that way, but I don’t agree.

    A man, (or woman) could live the most explosive life, full of wonders and experiences to fill tomes. Marco Polo meets Thomas Aquinas. And yet, their lives and aspirations, would be all known, down to the last whizzing atom of their DNA – to God Himself, for who there are no mysteries, or curiosities. Just His creation, as He created it. No more, and no less.

    I don’t engage in the vanity that I have the power to upset or surprise God. He (It, Whatever) knows all. And as profound and intriguing as some human’s lives no doubt are (to other humans), I still imagine that everything going on in the vast universe, is rather more wonderous and encompassing (taken on the whole) than the (occasionally enigmatic) antics of humans, on planet Earth.

    I’m not pooh-poohing our lives and the depth of our experiences, just doubting that God would consider them as profoundly significant as we do.

    But this is not what God is. Nor is God what I think of Him, He transcends my imagination. Yet He is knowable, the Necessarily Existent One. This is an apparent conundrum, but only if we suppose that imagination and knowledge are one and the same.

    They are not.

    But there’s a potential logical fallacy there. Since I consider what’s ‘knowable’, as far more elusive than what’ ‘imaginable’. I appreciate your eloquence, but would simply prefer to consider God as far more ‘imaginable’, than ‘knowable’. The latter being as aspiration, whereas the former is perhaps mortally achieved.

    Why stop at one millennium? What act of significance has any human ever accomplished?

    Exactly!

    From the perspective of God.

    Humans accomplish wonders daily, hourly. From the perspective of other humans.

    From a human perspective, Jeff Bezos or Richard Branson, flying around in outer space, must seem significant. But do you imagine that God thinks so?

    Without acting to prove otherwise, the ultimate destination of such query is despair — not an ingredient conducive to acts of significance.

    Oh, but I disagree. It’s because we’re not expected to rise to the expectations of a God, that our antics are all the more magnificent. We don’t have to impress God, with our humble efforts, we only have to impress ourselves, and hopefully our loved ones, to feel perfect happiness and fulfillment. Richard Branson may have always wanted to go to space as a little boy. And now that he’s on the cusp of his dreams, it isn’t because he’ll impress God, by doing so, but just that he’ll impress himself.

    By setting our goals to things that are earthly, and human, we avoid the despair we might otherwise feel when we fall short of God’s demands (as interpreted by men) for our lives.

    Where are our great spiritual epiphanies, that uplift mankind from the primitive sludge, of war and hate?

    I’ve found mine. I’m not exactly sure what you’re looking for, but if you’re doing your best to refrain from war and hate, I’d say that’s a good start

    Right back at you, Sir!

    Why is it, almost none of the world’s religious or spiritual leaders seem to have any concern for the world’s oceans or myriad species, on the verge of extinction, for all time.

    You’re being a bit presumptuous, expecting documentary proof or evidence in hyperlinks and sound bites while the vast majority of the world doesn’t even have a web connection.

    I’m not talking about the vast majority, I’m talking about those who’re so obsessed with their narrow agendas, that even as they know, that Brazil’s rainforests (for instance) will not survive the unsustainable growth of human numbers in Brazil, that they DON”T CARE.

    The important thing for them, is to exploit the rainforests for the maximum benefit to themselves, right now! And damn all the millions of people, current and future, (with or without web access), in order to use the natural ecology and their teeming poor, as a means of exulting themselves and getting richer and more powerful – with ever more millions of the teeming poor, who’s suffering is exploited for the benefit of the elites. And that’s true from Brazil to N. America to Europe and Africa and South America to Asia and the Middle East, and everywhere in between.

    Human greed. For lucre and power.

    I’m not always sure there’s a God, but I am sure there’s a devil. And he resides in that damnable, intractable, human imperative for domination of his fellow humans. Power. At all costs.

    despoiling the environment at the cost of my humanity is simply not an option.

    If humanity could learn what you’ve learned, then perhaps I’d wonder if there’s isn’t a God out there somewhere. Failing that, all I see is a baboon-like ape, consumed with an insane greed for more and more and more power, (over other humans). And I can’t bring myself to imagine that a God would create such a species. (not on purpose, at least ; ).

    If we can afford organics and avoid plastic waste and reliance upon toxic chemicals, that’s great. Unfortunately, the vast majority of humankind cannot.

    It’s not the vast majority that are the problem. It’s the demonic elites, that are the problem. The ones who simply WILL NOT mention over-population, because from the Catholic Church, to Third World governments, to greedy cocksuckers like the Koch brothers, [one down…], our elites LOVE masses and masses of poor people to exploit, for their own nefarious agendas.

    The average world salary is ~ $42/day. Sure, you can stretch it out longer in many parts of the world, but try it on for size and see how it fits with a wife and children to boot.

    I’ve lived on less. I’ve lived on the streets dude, and out of my car, and come up from the bottom of society, so I know what it’s like. I know what it’s like to arrive at the day labor spot, and you arrive at 5:00 am, and then at about 6:00 am, maybe some guy arrives and says he needs three or five guys, and you work all day at some menial task, and you’re given (back then) $20.00 for your trouble.

    Still, a hell of a lot better than most of the poor people in the world, but hardly a trust-fund person’s lifestyle. (that was a few decades ago, but you don’t have to lecture me on hardship ; ).

    I can’t blame religious leaders for these problems because most of them would, at the very least, be no worse than others,

    I can. All day long. Because for one, spiritual leaders are supposed to be better than the rest. But more to the point, my problem with ‘spiritual leaders’, is that it seems to me, that their all-consuming obsession, is always, always, ALWAYS to want and demand a bigger flock.

    How many spiritual leaders, are fine with the relative size of their flock?

    How many spiritual leaders, are not interested in the ascendancy of their particular bent on spirituality?

    How many of them would tell the poor and desperate women of their devout, that they need not bring more poor and desperate children into the world, when they can’t feed the ones they have?

    How many spiritual leaders are out there, that recognize what it’s like to try to raise a family on $42.oo a day? (or less, in many, many cases).

    Where are the world’s spiritual leaders, who understand what crushing poverty is like? And how the despair (you want despair, try living on nothing, but an empty belly, and no prospects for work, with children to feed. That is despair, and it is felt by billions of desperately impoverished people the world over. And what do their spiritual leaders tell them? Do they say, here’s access to family planning, or we spiritual leaders, will not eat one bit more than the poorest among our flock?

    Or do they say be ‘fruitful, and multiply’! For that is God’s prescription for all poor women of the faithful.

    nothing more than the written word of men, trying their best to interpret a God.

    Even if you perceive it as such, it does nothing to diminish the scope of its influence.

    .. in the realm of man.

    That record made one of the most significant impacts on human history — and particularly that of western civilization — than any other. This fact is undeniable and until it is acknowledged and understood for what it’s worth, not a single individual delving into the “Jewish Question” will ever be able to answer it satisfactorily.

    Well, I have to acknowledge the truth of what you’re saying.

    The Abrahamic religions are a reality, both historic and current. And I’m not even opposed to them, per se. Except insofar as I consider them destructive, and counter-productive to human (and beyond) happiness and posterity.

    Insofar as Islam and Christianity, and Judaism are conducive to peace and general prosperity and happiness, and the future there of, then I’m a proponent. Insofar as they’re not, then neither am I.

    I measure my spirituality against real world results. If it brings suffering and despair, then I find it wanting. If it brings fulfillment and a soul, ebullient with truths and a longing for higher understanding, then it’s on to something.

    We each have to follow our own paths, and as they intersect, we learn and grow, and are occasionally edified, and enlightened.

    Thank you for taking the time to enlighten my path, with your deep knowledge of Islam (and humanity), and beyond.

    Salaam.

  92. Adûnâi says:
    @Rurik

    “That’s the whole motivation for the Yellow Vests in France. They were told they had to pay massively higher taxes, to save the planet, as France became flooded with super-prolific people from the Third World. (Oh, and they had to pay taxes to pay for that, as well). It’s a wonder they didn’t bring back the guillotine for Macron. (who deserves it, if anyone ever did ; ).”

    Then why are they not murdering the immigrant Negroes? Why are they letting the swarthy-skinned inhabit their sacred temples? I believe you to be sorely mistaken. No Aryan in his right mind wants to exterminate the Neanderthals of this world, or to preserve Nature. All he wants is lower taxes, higher pay, and peaceful death when his daughters mingle with foreigners.

    • Troll: Rurik
  93. Adûnâi says:
    @Rurik

    I don’t engage in the vanity that I have the power to upset or surprise God. He (It, Whatever) knows all. And as profound and intriguing as some human’s lives no doubt are (to other humans), I still imagine that everything going on in the vast universe, is rather more wonderous and encompassing (taken on the whole) than the (occasionally enigmatic) antics of humans, on planet Earth.

    Is this logical, however? How do you infer that big JEW cares little for every human life from the dogma that he knows everything? In our society, there are people that devote their lives to ants (and those are even less relevant to us than microbes). I would posit the opposite – if big JEW outside & above Nature exists, he would care for every little life even more than the living themselves.

    I’m not always sure there’s a God, but I am sure there’s a devil. And he resides in that damnable, intractable, human imperative for domination of his fellow humans. Power. At all costs.

    If Aryans of America had been greedy for power enough, they would have long since nuked the Third World, and thus there would have been no overpopulation. But of course, that’s a blind spot of yours. Meanwhile, Zuckerberg has mixed his precious Jewish blood with a Chinese… They are destroying themselves just like the USSR right in front of our eyes, and you are still afraid of White man’s [suicidally ever weaker] desire for power!

    P.S. “The important thing for them, is to exploit the rainforests” – Could you stop putting commas between the subject and the predicate?

  94. Miro23 says:

    The current Munich Security Conference (Feb 14-16th ) shows that the globalist NWO feels an internal threat.

    https://www.defensenews.com/smr/munich-security-conference/2020/02/10/munich-report-nato-funding-quarrels-mask-a-more-sinister-threat-to-the-alliance/

    COLOGNE, Germany – As Western leaders continue to squabble over military contributions to NATO, a new report warns that the true threat to the Alliance lies in the rise of anti-democratic leanings in its own ranks.

    According to the authors, the threat inside comes in the form of “illiberalism” that prizes ethnic, cultural and religious unity over the rules-based order that has guided the West for decades.

    Such tendencies are on the rise in Europe, with far-right parties gaining steam or having secured some power already.

    The smear is the term “far-right” – a catch-all term for anyone who doesn’t want open frontiers, uncontrolled outsourcing, multiculturalism and the whole “Progressive” package.

    • Replies: @Anon
  95. Kali says:
    @Rurik

    Excellent comment Rurik (as is the vast majority of your input on this website – I’d give you a gold star in a heartbeat if it were up to me).

    I’ve just, a few minutes ago, posed a question on Rons’ MOSSAD Assassinations thread, which I’d have posted here had I read through these latest exchanges first…

    Yesterday I asked AaronB why it is wrong to condemn someone’s religion.

    It’s a serious question for me.
    Though I was brought up in a Christian family, and remained a Christian myself until the age of 18, I never did understand why societies protect religious beliefs.

    Of course, now I see more clearly that organised, dogma-based religions are an intrinsic tool for maintaining social control and cohesion. So from a purely political perspective, I can answer my own question.

    But I fail to understand why religious individuals feel their beliefs should be respected and protected. – Particularly given the bloody battles for religious domination which have characterised human history under the predominant “big three”. And given that the words “I believe” literally mean “I din’the know”.

    I’m not an atheist by any means. My own spiritual practices [edit to add: meditation, not taking anything, real or imagined, personally, coming to know “god” by coming to know myself – specifically coming to know what I am not (I am not my ego, my ideas, my feelings, my thoughts, my body, my reactions, my beliefs…] are the foundation of my being. – And freed from religious dogmas, I can explore further and deeper than I ever could as a practising Christian.

    But I’d like to (at the risk of going off topic) pose that same question to others here, to anyone who feels religious beliefs and ideologies should be protected and held as sacrosanct.

    I really would appreciate some of your thoughts and insights on this question.

    Thanks,
    Kali.

    [Just retrieved from the moderation queue.]

    • Replies: @Rurik
  96. Tusk says:

    Of course, now I see more clearly that organised, dogma-based religions are an intrinsic tool for maintaining social control

    Horse in front of the cart. People religiously fast because it follows from their beliefs, not because any religious institution says so. People who recognise certain truths live in certain ways. A doctor might say “don’t rub poison ivy all over your body or you’ll get sick” to protect your health, in the same way religious leaders may say “don’t commit murder or your soul will get sick”, but yet is the medical industry a tool of social control? No, it is recommending to you what is good for you based on their accepted truths, you can rub it on your body, just as you can murder someone else.

    If religions were tools for social control, how did you escape from them? They let you leave and apostatize so very clearly they’re not exerting control.

    I never did understand why societies protect religious beliefs.

    Why does society protect any beliefs, religious or otherwise? Your political, economic, and social views are all protected too. If you think people should not be protected based on their religious beliefs then what’s the difference to people not being protected due to their political? Your line of thinking leads straight to tyranny and despotism.

    I’m not an atheist by any means. My own spiritual practices…meditation

    If you’re focusing on yourself (“my ego, my ideas, my thoughts, my body”) that’s not spiritual at all. You’re purely humanist and profane, there can be no spirituality without something Divine to focus on.

    There is also plenty of evidence of religion being true, because many people have attested to miracles and other acts of God. As G. K Chesterson writes:

    If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favour of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things. You reject the [Christian’s] story about the [supernatural] either because the man is a [Christian] or because the story is a [supernatural] story. That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy [trusting testimony], or you affirm the main principle of materialism– the abstract impossibility of miracle.

    You have a perfect right to do so; but in that case you are the dogmatist. It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence–it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed. But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of mediaeval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred. All argument against these plain facts is always argument in a circle.

    If I say, “Mediaeval documents attest certain miracles as much as they attest certain battles,” they answer, “But mediaevals were superstitious”; if I want to know in what they were superstitious, the only ultimate answer is that they believed in the miracles.

    Though Chesterson was writing on Christianity I believe he was right about other religions tool.

    And the effects of this skeptical materialism as plain to see, which sagely, these two understood:

    Only in the West did a philosophy develop that was not only no longer the love of wisdom but went so far as to deny the category of wisdom as a legitimate form of knowledge. The result was a hatred of wisdom that should more appropriately be called ‘misosophy’ (literarily hatred of Sophia, Wisdom) rather than philosophy.
    – Seyyed Hossein Nasr

    “When people want to be rid of Heaven it is logical to start by creating an atmosphere in which spiritual things appear out of place; in order to be able to declare successfully that God is unreal they have to construct around man a false reality, a reality that is inevitably inhuman because only the inhuman can exclude God. What is involved is a falsification of the imagination and so its destruction.”
    ― Frithjof Schuon

    • Thanks: Talha, SeekerofthePresence
    • Replies: @Kali
    , @Rurik
    , @Kali
  97. Kali says:
    @Tusk

    Thanks for your reply Tusk. I do appreciate the opportunity to flesh-out my own perspective and, hopefully, reach some conclusions together.

    I don’t have time to give a considered response just now, but hopefully will have either later today or tomorrow.

    Ate ja (until soon)
    Kali.

    • Replies: @Tusk
  98. Tusk says:
    @Kali

    No worries. If you ever have the time G. K. Chesterson’s book Orthodoxy, which I referenced in my previous comment, is available to read here on Unz through the HTML books section. It’s a pretty light read but I think he makes some good points fairly outside mainstream religious perspectives so it may be worth a look if you are interested.

    Looking forward to your response whenever it is.

  99. Rurik says:
    @Kali

    Thank you Kali,

    You’re very kind and very generous. I’m honored that you’d consider me worthy of a star, but I’m not cut out for that kind of respectability. And being more on the fringe, kind of suits me.

    Of course, now I see more clearly that organised, dogma-based religions are an intrinsic tool for maintaining social control and cohesion.

    Yes, they are.

    But I fail to understand why religious individuals feel their beliefs should be respected and protected

    Because all people’s beliefs should be respected and protected. Unless they’re advocating harm to others. If people’s religion or philosophy is ‘live and let live’, then I for one respect that. If, on the other hand, their religion or philosophy states that others- of a different religion or philosophy; have no right to self-determination, and that they must be subjugated, then all bets are off.

    to anyone who feels religious beliefs and ideologies should be protected and held as sacrosanct.

    I think I just answered that.

    People’s beliefs, (just as their lack there of), should be considered sacrosanct, so long as they’re not hurting anyone. But I suppose a lot of nuanced arguments could be made about the potential harm to a child when you fill his little head with erroneous notions of his place in the world, intended to keep him subordinate and obedient to the PTB.

    There’s a fine line between Jim Jones, and John Hagee.

    • Thanks: Kali
  100. Rurik says:
    @Tusk

    A doctor might say “don’t rub poison ivy all over your body or you’ll get sick” to protect your health, in the same way religious leaders may say “don’t commit murder or your soul will get sick”,

    Where are these religious leaders saying ‘don’t commit murder, or your soul will get sick’ ?

    Are they in the Christian churches of America? Where mass-murder is the order of the day, and America has murdered over a million innocent souls, since 9/11. Where are the religious leaders exhorting their flocks to repudiate all this murder?

    Are they, perchance in the synagogues?

    Even in the Mosques, it seems to me that Saudis are murdering Yeminis. And Turks are murdering Syrians. And rogue Muslims in Morocco are hacking the heads off of Norwegian girls, apparently to please Allah.

    So I wonder if a little more self-reflection might be in order, before we get a little too smug about our religious proscriptions against murder, when few are more bloodthirsty than those caught up in the fanatical religious zealotry of our times.

    Iceland is generally secular, (and even has a nascent paganism movement), and yet to my knowledge, not one Icelandic man has ever hacked the head off an Icelandic, (or any other) girl.

    And I can promise you, that it’s not because a religious leader had to tell them not to.

    They simply don’t do so, because it’s not in their hearts to do so. No religion or religious leader had to scare them away from the daily desire to hack girls heads off. The motivation simply does not exist. Quite the contrary; they love their womenfolk, and want to see them proper, and no religion or religious leaders were in the slightest way necessary for that state of affairs.

    Some religious proponents would have us believe that were it not for religious proscriptions against murder and rape and theft, that people would be running around hacking and raping and stealing wholesale.

    This is pure balderdash.

    • Replies: @Tusk
  101. @Rurik

    I don’t engage in the vanity that I have the power to upset or surprise God.

    No, but you do engage in the vanity that your imagination of God is somehow more reasonable than that of others without any certainty that this is so. ; )

    I’m not pooh-poohing our lives and the depth of our experiences, just doubting that God would consider them as profoundly significant as we do.

    A father knows that his baby son will soon take his first steps. It’s a profoundly significant milestone to the father, but hardly surprising to dad that this will inevitably happen. Dad also delights at his first words, but it’s not an earth-shattering phenomeon. It’s something the father expects.

    Of course, there are a few fathers who find these events to be mundane, anodyne, and trivial — those who lack the requisite love.

    God’s relationship to man is not less intimate than that of a father to his son. After all, God created him. It follows that, in so doing, God will take an interest in him.

    I appreciate your eloquence, but would simply prefer to consider God as far more ‘imaginable’, than ‘knowable’. The latter being as aspiration, whereas the former is perhaps mortally achieved.

    Well, to the extent you insist on this presupposition, it will always be so for you.

    Knowledge is by degrees, but the latter degrees are unattainable without reaching the first, which is affirmation. You don’t reach it because, by your own admission, you remain in doubt concerning Him.

    From a human perspective, Jeff Bezos or Richard Branson, flying around in outer space, must seem significant. But do you imagine that God thinks so?

    It depends on how we define significance.

    God has knowledge of even a leaf falling in the forest. Is it significant to Him? In a sense, it is. Everything is because He willed everything to be, but nothing is significant to Him in the sense that it surprises Him because He already has knowledge of it.

    If you affirm God’s omniscience and omnipotence, you also have to affirm that everything is as He has willed it, which means that nothing is without higher purpose. This is the conclusion we arrive at applying fundamental logic.

    By setting our goals to things that are earthly, and human, we avoid the despair we might otherwise feel when we fall short of God’s demands (as interpreted by men) for our lives.

    You’re presuming that God demands we shoulder a burden that is too great to bear, which is evident in your reference to “the expectations of a God.”

    God doesn’t expect us to be like Him. The very notion is absurd on its face. Nor does He even compel us to keep faith with Him (regardless of what the priests among us may decree).

    But He has created us in such a way that our action invariably yields consequence. Setting one’s goals to “things that are earthly and human” includes far too subjective a range of action that could easily incorporate what is essentially detrimental to us.

    It is earthly and human to pursue one’s desires, but what distinguishes the good desire from the bad? Without an objective criterion, you can’t draw the distinction.

    The faithful with God understand both His prescriptions and proscriptions as beneficial to their well being in this life and the next, and not a one of them constitutes a burden too great to bear. They certainly don’t necessitate being like God, since nothing and nobody can be like Him.

    you don’t have to lecture me on hardship ; )

    Not my intention, Rurik. Just keeping things in perspective.

    Insofar as the hypocrisy of religious leaders is concerned, I won’t contest its existence, but it’s enough for me to be vigilant where my own actions are concerned. I needn’t decry others’ hypocrisy while the potential for my own is all too proximate. Such is the nature of any effort to do what is good in the eyes of God.

    You might be interested to know that there are such leaders who understand crushing poverty and hunger and do their best to alleviate it among others. You’re not going to see a lot of news about them, but they certainly exist, thank God.

    Even if you perceive it as such, it does nothing to diminish the scope of its influence.
    .. in the realm of man.

    Where else would we be? ; )

    Insofar as Islam and Christianity, and Judaism are conducive to peace and general prosperity and happiness, and the future there of, then I’m a proponent. Insofar as they’re not, then neither am I.

    Would you be an opponent of fire simply because it can be used for destructive purposes while the weight of its benefit far outweighs those?

    We each have to follow our own paths, and as they intersect, we learn and grow, and are occasionally edified, and enlightened.

    Thank you for taking the time to enlighten my path, with your deep knowledge of Islam (and humanity), and beyond.

    You’re welcome, and I thank you for your patience, empathy, and willingness to receive me with an open mind and open heart.

    Ma’as-salaamah.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  102. Tusk says:
    @Rurik

    I’m not American Rurik so unfortunately I cannot adequately speak on American religious life, though I will say it seems quite the anomaly. I would say any issues of American religion come down to Protestantism simply because Americans are free to interpret the Bible themselves instead of through the Tradition of the Church. This ultimately leads to people cherry picking quotes to back up their inane and material choices, exactly the same way an open borders advocate may pick a quote about Jesus saying let there be no neighbours in order to push their position. This is purely a humanist interpretation and ultimately is incorrect because without the divinity of the Church and the knowledge of the priests you are easily led astray by earthly thoughts.

    But once again I’m not American so I don’t really know, those are just some random thoughts on the matter.

    Where are these religious leaders saying ‘don’t commit murder, or your soul will get sick’ ?

    I don’t know why you think this isn’t the case. Go to any Church (or perhaps any religious institution but I won’t speak for others) and ask them ‘Can I murder someone?’ and see what their response is. I guarantee you it won’t be “go for it”.

    You also confuse church and state. Despite their being wars and murder they aren’t directed by the Pope or the Church for instance (at least currently) so I don’t see what the church has to apologise for post 9/11. I certainly believe you have a point, and it is true, that the fanatical pro-Zionist Evangelicals have certainly enabled this behaviour, but once again it’s entirely profane and their humanist Jew loving that allows the state a willing mass of support.

    Even in the Mosques, it seems to me that Saudis are murdering Yeminis. And Turks are murdering Syrians. And rogue Muslims in Morocco are hacking the heads off of Norwegian girls, apparently to please Allah.

    Well I can’t speak for the Islamic world so I’ll leave that to Talha or anyone else to cover if they wish to, though I’m sure it is probably the same thing that generally Islam doesn’t sponsor those activities. I think you should also note there is a racial component to religion as well. A White muslim is definitely preferable to an African one, and certainly I’d prefer an athiest White to an athiest African.

    And that ultimately leads into what you said about Iceland. I don’t think that it’s secular or pagan society necessarily has anything to do with their functional society largely, but instead the fact that they’re Icelandic does. It’s the same as the Japanese, it isn’t that Shinto caused a homogenous and safe society but instead the Japanese who created such a society found solace in the Shinto/Buddhist traditions. So by the same token I don’t think it is God that forms (or should form) our morality, but instead it is our morality that leads to God. All points on a circle when going inward reach the centre and that is the reason.

    I would certainly agree with you that those who say religion caused people to be well behaved are wrong. Religion can’t make a man not murder only guide them, that’s why they don’t have total control because we live (generally) in secular states that are separated from religion. The church doesn’t take part in the mundane aspects of this world but only the divine. This is pretty much what Locke argued for in his Two Treatises of Government and it is what we have received. So it makes little sense to praise secular states and then say religion didn’t help them, because of course that’s true, they’re necessarily separated. I do think it’s hard to tell the difference between effects though. How can you possibly tell when religion caused someone to rethink their actions and provided a good to the world? So I think overall it’s a bit ridiculous to blame religion for things it has nothing to do with (state affairs) while condemning them for not doing more, and at the same time denying they do any good at all.

    • Replies: @Kali
    , @Rurik
  103. If religion does not preach love, no point in having it.
    If it does not lead to God, might as well sleep for eternity.

    Life is void and cold nothingness without Him.
    With Him, coruscant sun and spring-scented bloom.

    • Agree: Tusk
    • Thanks: Talha
    • Replies: @Kali
  104. gsjackson says:
    @Rurik

    I’m not sure what an open thread is, but presumably it can accommodate points that might be tangential on another thread. In one you mention “experiments” that (by implication) undergird your belief in a vast universe. Can you name one such experiment, preferably replicable but not necessary. Two would be splendid.

    I have been under the impression that experiments in the actual physical realm have played no role in the formulation of this view. Rather, the entire area of inquiry has been entrusted to a clerisy of very smart people with magical telescopes kept under lock and key and incomprehensible mathematical equations that purport to describe reality. They do “thought experiments,” like Einstein’s theory of relativity, but not, to my knowledge, testing of anything that can be grasped with our senses.

    Anything come to mind?

    • Replies: @Rurik
  105. Rurik says:
    @AnonStarter

    No, but you do engage in the vanity that your imagination of God is somehow more reasonable than that of others without any certainty that this is so. ; )

    what irony.

    What you’re accusing me of, is exactly what I’d accuse the religiously devout of.

    A certainty that their respective take on God, is correct to the exclusion of other people’s beliefs, (or lack there of).

    I have no such certainties. All I can tell you for certain, is that I don’t know. I don’t know what God’s name is. I don’t know if He exists. He may, or perhaps, She may. I simply don’t know.

    I don’t think that is ‘engaging in the vanity that my imagination of God, is somehow more reasonable than others’, except insofar as I consider my beliefs far more humble, because I consider my faculties, for ‘knowing’ or ‘imagining’ the infinite, to be woefully lacking the capacity.

    I can’t know or even really imagine God, because for me, that would be a leap of arrogance that I simply would prefer to avoid. The difference between myself, and the devout, is one of humility. I’m far too humble, (when it comes to God), to presume to have the kind of mind that could connect to the infinite. My mind is very finite. I can contemplate God, or the Gods, but imagining that I can know of Him, or imagine what His designs or intentions for me are, (or anyone else) is beyond my mortal capabilities.

    God’s relationship to man is not less intimate than that of a father to his son. After all, God created him. It follows that, in so doing, God will take an interest in him.

    Well, this is of course the rote motivation people like Freud concluded that man created his Gods. As a kind of father figure- a protector and safe harbor from the exigencies of a tumultuous and foreboding world. I don’t say such a God exists, and I wouldn’t presume to say He doesn’t. It is for each of us, to figure that particular question out, for ourselves. (IMHO).

    If your God, has a father-like interest in our well-being, (considering the events of the 20th and 21st centuries), then I might point out that He sure works in mysterious ways.

    But what if you’re wrong? What if there isn’t a father-like God, benevolently watching over us all? What if the Eternal Wars and decimation of the environment, are all a direct consequence of man’s all too mortal appetites? And that if we’re going to find solutions, to things like the Eternal Wars, then we’re going to have to rely on our mortal selves, from which these problems arose.

    If it was man who created the conditions in Gaza, (and not God) then maybe it’s man, who must seek ways to redress those conditions. Yes? No?

    Well, to the extent you insist on this presupposition, it will always be so for you.

    Knowledge is by degrees, but the latter degrees are unattainable without reaching the first, which is affirmation. You don’t reach it because, by your own admission, you remain in doubt concerning Him.

    Sine qua non

    Yes, I know.

    God has knowledge of even a leaf falling in the forest. Is it significant to Him? In a sense, it is. Everything is because He willed everything to be, but nothing is significant to Him in the sense that it surprises Him because He already has knowledge of it.

    If you affirm God’s omniscience and omnipotence, you also have to affirm that everything is as He has willed it, which means that nothing is without higher purpose. This is the conclusion we arrive at applying fundamental logic.

    This is all fine, but I don’t see why we couldn’t replace God, with providence, (or fate, or ‘the universe’ or nature) and be in perfect agreement.

    IOW, why does there have to be a agent of the leaf falling? Why can’t it just have succumbed to the forces of gravity, having grown on the tree, and lived and died, all without even so much as a God to supervise it?

    You’re presuming that God demands we shoulder a burden that is too great to bear, which is evident in your reference to “the expectations of a God.”

    Yes, you’re right. Growing up in a religious household, I feel there were some burdens that came with being religious, that were too great to bear. Perhaps the most glairing one was the demands to suspend one’s reason, and accept that a man could live in the belly of a whale, for three days. Or that the dinosaurs existence was kind of an anomaly, that one shouldn’t contemplate too earnestly, vis-a-vis the account of earth’s history, as told by the Holy Bible.

    If God endowed me with anything more precious than my reason, I’m not aware of it. Creating me with reason, and then demanding that I stifle it, was for me, a burden too great to bear.

    God doesn’t expect us to be like Him. The very notion is absurd on its face.

    I guess you weren’t raised a Christian. Our whole raison d’être, was to conduct ourselves in the manner of living as demonstrated by God, when He assumed His mortal self as Jesus Christ, to show us all how to aspire to live. The point is to be as much like Him, as we are all capable.

    Nor does He even compel us to keep faith with Him (regardless of what the priests among us may decree).

    You have a very liberal understanding of the Abrahamic God(s), I would posit.

    It is earthly and human to pursue one’s desires, but what distinguishes the good desire from the bad? Without an objective criterion, you can’t draw the distinction.

    ‘Do no harm’.

    And if you want to go one farther, to sainthood, you can add ‘be kind’. They are their own reward.

    The faithful with God understand both His prescriptions and proscriptions as beneficial to their well being in this life and the next, and not a one of them constitutes a burden too great to bear.

    Well, I guess since we are splitting hairs here, when you mention ‘the faithful’, I couldn’t help think of our mutual friend on the other thread, for who- ‘keeping the faith’, means treating the people of Gaza as less than human. How do you reconcile that for one person, (Christian or Jewish Zionist) ‘keeping the faith’, is to another- genocide and death?

    How can members of the respective ‘faithful’, all be in God’s good graces, when the fanatically religious IDF bulldozer driver is destroying yet another mosque in Palestine?

    You seem loath to ever admit, that Judaism and Islam are at times, mutually exclusive. And that a Jewish God that demands the death and genocide of Arabs, can still be considered legitimate.

    I suffer no such contradictions. For me, a “Christian Zionist’, is a deluded fool, (and far worse).

    A Zionist, Jewish supremacist, is as close to God, as a crocodile’s droppings. I don’t even pretend, that they’re entitled to respect as a religion. Their religion (Zionism, as it’s practiced today) is the religion of jackals. So at least I’m not bound up in contradictions, where one person’s god demands the wholesale slaughter of the adherents of another people’s God. ‘But they’re both legitimate Gods- or even more perversely, (at least for me) one and the same God’.

    Insofar as the hypocrisy of religious leaders is concerned, I won’t contest its existence, but it’s enough for me to be vigilant where my own actions are concerned. I needn’t decry others’ hypocrisy while the potential for my own is all too proximate. Such is the nature of any effort to do what is good in the eyes of God.

    Well said.

    You might be interested to know that there are such leaders who understand crushing poverty and hunger and do their best to alleviate it among others. You’re not going to see a lot of news about them, but they certainly exist, thank God.

    That is true, and it’s also true for utterly non-religious people.

    Charity is not the sole purview of the religious.

    .. in the realm of man.

    Where else would we be? ; )

    Imagining that the heavens and earth, and entire universe were all created for our personal benefit?

    That God created earth and the heavens, so that He could inhabit it with His special project, to heap praise upon Him, and to worship Him?

    I find such a God as a bit vain, no?

    Where are the Gods that have no use for man’s homage and fealty? But are satisfied simply to have put it all in motion.

    Why are such Gods, (in need of supplicants and paeans to their greatness) so perfectly aligned with how I see the id of mortal man?

    Indeed, for much of recorded history, there wasn’t even a line drawn between the Pharos or Caesars and such/ and God Himself. They were considered virtually one and the same.

    Would you be an opponent of fire simply because it can be used for destructive purposes while the weight of its benefit far outweighs those?

    I would reject the use of fire for harmful purposes, and hail it for beneficial purposes.

    I would reject religious beliefs that I consider harmful, and hail those that I consider beneficial.

    I would reject the genocidal, murderous hatred of Zionism, and hail those parts of Judaism and Christianity that give hope and meaning to people’s lives.

    Much like I think most Muslims reject the murderous hatred of Daesh, while embracing the tenets of Islam that are sublime and beneficial.

    I thank you for your patience, empathy, and willingness to receive me with an open mind and open heart.

    It is my distinct pleasure. Thank you.

    Fii Amanillah

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    , @AnonStarter
  106. Kali says:
    @Tusk

    Hello Tusk,

    Allow me to re-invert the horse/cart positions, or try to…

    Horse in front of the cart. People religiously fast because it follows from their beliefs, not because any religious institution says so.

    Whilst there are definate spiritual and physical benefits to fasting, I do doubt that millions of people all around the planet would spontaneously decide to fast at exactly the same time every year if it weren’t for the religious institutions which guide/shape/determine this pattern of behaviour. It’s “the institution” which decides the holy days.

    (For the sake of clarity, I’m not suggesting here that the combined energy of millions of people engaged in a sacred, spiritual endeavor (be it prayer, meditation fasting or something else) is not a very powerful thing. I “believe” (I. E. I don’t know) it certainly could be.)

    People who recognise certain truths live in certain ways.

    I would suggest that the recognition of certain “Sacred Truths” is not the sole preserve of the Religious Practitioner, that is to say someone who seeks those Truths pimarily from the perspective of a given Authodoxy. – Again, that’s not to say that ‘Truths’ cannot be found there, but those Truths may be found in many unauthodox ways.

    A doctor might say “don’t rub poison ivy all over your body or you’ll get sick” to protect your health, in the same way religious leaders may say “don’t commit murder or your soul will get sick”, but yet is the medical industry a tool of social control? No, it is recommending to you what is good for you based on their accepted truths, you can rub it on your body, just as you can murder someone else.

    […]

    If you’re focusing on yourself (“my ego, my ideas, my thoughts, my body”) that’s not spiritual at all. You’re purely humanist and profane, there can be no spirituality without something Divine to focus on.

    I’m gonna take these two together and invert them if I may. Because it’s in addressing this second point that I answer the first.

    Your second point here, to me, is screaming of the profane. A profanity which is inherrent in “the big three” Religions. That is the externalisation of the Divine -“Religion” says “a universal God, Creater of all things exists, but exists as something wholly external to You. That You were born “sinful” in the eyes of this Almighty external “God”… You may have a relationship with this “God”, through His self-appointed priest class, if you behave the way they say He says you should.

    This is misdirection. Isn’t that one of the first rhings we learn when it comes to “the power-brokers” in the establishment media – What aren’t they telling you? – That the Divine is intrinsic to Your Being. There is No Separation between you and God.

    Of course the controllers of the universe don’the want You discovering this Existential Truth, so they point to the external only.
    And, surely, The Divine may be perceived in the external,
    It is the Divine in You that perceives the Divine in Creation.
    But until you know Yourself, until you perceive the Divinity which is your essence, you cannot fully know God. – Jesus knew God. St Francis of Assissi knew God. Rumi knew God. And so many others besides. But the priest class has interpreted the teaching of Jesus, called him Christ, nailed him to a cross because You are “sinful”… they have taken the Divine and used it to simultaneously psychologically torture you and offer you either real (St Francis) or imagined (absolution) relief from that torture.

    Crucially, and to come to your first point, quoted above, it is
    when I (and I/went come to explore my/our True Nature, the Essence of my/our Being, I/we discover the Divine Loving God which “Surpasses all understanding”, to be my essential nature, seated at the heart of my being. That which would not murder or harm anyone. (This refusal to harm another extends to the infant, whose genitals do not serve as any kind of “divine covenant” with some external “god”. I don’the say that to be shocking, or to provoke, but to illustrate the insanity which is committed under the “codes of conduct” devined by the priest class and disseminated through the generation after generation of Religious Practitioners. )

    I don’t require a “law” (be it “God” Given or “devined” by some proxy parliament – same thing really ) which tells me to behave according to my Nature.

    Conversely, I will not obey any “law” which requires me to act against my nature. Conscription, for example. – I’m sorry but “onward Christian soldiers” for God, Queen and … errr. .. nation state?
    Nor would I ever bring even potential harm to a child by having them vaccinated, regardless of what the “law” (handed down by the priest class) says.

    I realise that the idea of a “no-law” society (which is essentially what I’m talking about here) must sound quite outlandish to anyone who has never taken the time to examine their own nature. You’ve been told you were born “sinful”, and anyway, just look around at the way people behave, obviously we need “laws” … And certainly, in any society which externalises God, utterly divorced from our own Essential Divinity, divorced from the opportunity to “know thyself “… probably needs codes to tell them how to be.

    But removing the priest class (including politicians and judges) does not remove us from God, nor from our inbuilt yearning to know God. Nor does it remove the teachings, the books, the tomes, the scrivings of the wise (or the unwise) which may guide us on our way.

    The removal of the priest class (and its Religious and state institutions) does not mean the death of God, but it does mean the death of tyranny (whilst I also accept your answer, below) regarding my own thinking/questioning leading to tyranny).

    We are born seeking God, seeking Meaning, Understanding. That the priest class inserts itself in our culture and stands directly between You and the Divine does not make your own Divinity just stop. Remove the priest class in all its forms and the possibility opens up for a Direct knowing of the Divine as it exists at the center of our Being.

    (I do hope I’mel not getting preachy at all here! My intention is only to give an insight into my – not exactly “mainstream” – perspective.)

    If religions were tools for social control, how did you escape from them? They let you leave and apostatize so very clearly they’re not exerting control.

    This presupposes that all methods of social control are authoritarian.

    It also neglects the role of Religious Institutions in shaping societies, providing the basis of “Rule of Law” (specifically codes of “law” to be imposed on the masses) whilst diseminationg “codes of conduct” and various ‘behaviour modification” techniques, inculcating the people with various superstitions. -That the miraculous indeed does exists, notwithstanding.

    Why does society protect any beliefs, religious or otherwise? Your political, economic, and social views are all protected too. If you think people should not be protected based on their religious beliefs then what’s the difference to people not being protected due to their political? Your line of thinking leads straight to tyranny and despotism.

    Fair point. Well taken.

    As for Chesterton, I won’t argue with him until I’ve read him. – Thank you kindly for the recommendation. I’ve been at a loss to find something to read that isn’t JQ related … if I have to read one more account of the evil mascinations of the original (OK, not quite “original”, but you get the point) evil priest class, I think I might weep. I’ll gladly read Chesterton instead. 🙂

    Kind regards,
    Kali.

    • Thanks: Rurik
  107. bjondo says:

    The Fed doesn’t allow audits.

    What prevents the Chairman, others
    from enriching selves and friends.
    Blessed accounts hidden, of course.
    Billions go each day to who knows
    where and for what reason(s).

    5ds

  108. Kali says:
    @Tusk

    I think overall it’s a bit ridiculous to blame religion for things it has nothing to do with (state affairs)

    Hello again Tusk.

    I think you and I have a fundamental disagreement on the role of Religion within the state.

    I would suggest that, as one of the primary functions of the state is the codifying and enforcement of Law. To this end the state has adopted one of the primary functions of “the priest class” which is the recieving, interpreting and codifying of “God’s Law”.

    In times gone by these functions were performed jointly by priests and Kings, today “the state” inherits the mantle of the priest class in determining the acceptable behaviour of its population, but only within the framework of “rule of law” already institutionalised by the priest class. One (the state) is an extention of and a continuation of the other. – In the state called “UK”, offices of state are called “ministries, and members of government are called ministers. And though secularised now, the origins of the power of the state as it manifests today lies entirely within the relms of Religion and the assumed Divinity of the priest class.

    Queenie is the head of the state and the head of the Church of England. The Arch Bish of Canterbury, her director of all things ecleasiastical, makes it his business to lead the CoE, and his flock, to bend before the Chosenest of the chosen, whilst queenies government finds ways to codify that submission to Jewish Power into law for the rest of us to obey, as if commanded by “God”.

    Catholic states pay financial tribute to the Vatican. Because, I would argue, the state (not the nation or the people) derives it’s underlying authority, and quite possibly it’s very existence, from Religion.
    Secularised or not, Religion lies at the very heart of the state.

    Kali.

  109. Kali says:
    @SeekerofthePresence

    If religion does not preach love, no point in having it.
    If it does not lead to God, might as well sleep for eternity.

    Agree.

    Life is void and cold nothingness without Him.
    With Him, coruscant sun and spring-scented bloom.

    And here also, I agree, except that I would alter the terminology to not externalises God. “Him” is an unattainable “other”, not intrinsic to my being, unlike God or the Divine, which is always present.

    Boas noits gents,
    Kali

    • Agree: SeekerofthePresence
  110. Rurik says:
    @Tusk

    leads to people cherry picking quotes to back up their inane and material choices, exactly the same way an open borders advocate may pick a quote about Jesus saying let there be no neighbours in order to push their position. This is purely a humanist interpretation and ultimately is incorrect because without the divinity of the Church and the knowledge of the priests you are easily led astray by earthly thoughts.

    Few people I know of are more committed to open borders, (only for white Christendom) than the Pope. He seems more like Barbara Spectre on that issue, than Barbara Spectre.

    And as for going astray, there again, I think of ‘those priests’, and what was tolerated in the Catholic Church, for so long, going all the way up the hierarchy.

    Go to any Church (or perhaps any religious institution but I won’t speak for others) and ask them ‘Can I murder someone?’ and see what their response is. I guarantee you it won’t be “go for it”.

    No, not when you put it in those terms. But go to any church, and tell them that you’re joining up to fight the ‘war on terror’, and your assignment is going to be a CIA drone operator, and you’re going to be taking the fight to the bad guys, because if ‘we fight them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here’.

    And then check out the approval from all of those Christian faces. Beaming with pride at your bravery.

    You’re not stupid, so it should be pretty obvious that the Eternal Wars are all based on obvious lies.

    And, I suspect that most Christians, and certainly most ministers and pastors and priests, are not stupid either. So it should be monumentally obvious to even them, by now, that all of these wars, are all based on obvious lies. Duh. (I don’t mean that in a disrespectful way, but just that it’s all ‘duh’ obvious).

    So, what that means to me, is that every single Christian minister or priest, who knows that America (and France and England and others), have been engaged in illegal wars against innocent nations, (Libya, for instance, or Syria today), but refuse to speak out about it, are just as guilty as the men pulling the trigger on the Hellfire missile, and ‘bug-splatting’ another village.

    They’re just as guilty as Bush and Blair and Clinton and Obama, because it is cowardly silence, that is the main catalyst for all these wars.

    Nothing betrays the soul of a man (or Church) than the sound of crickets, at the sight of evil doings.

    I just heard that the Boy Scouts of America is declaring bankruptcy, because thousands of little boys were raped, by a pedophile scandal that went on for decades.

    And all to the thunderous sound of crickets, from the leadership ranks.

    Just like Jerry Sandusky, and the entire athletic Dept of Penn State, they all knew, this monster was raping little boys, and they said nothing.

    They’re just as guilty.

    And it’s the same with the Eternal Wars for Israel. These wars are an abomination upon our nation’s souls. And not just America, but France too. And many others.

    And yet where are the voices of Christian leadership, demanding in the most strident terms available to them, that illegal and immoral wars of aggression fought against innocent nations and people, (that have harmed no one), MUST STOP!!! In the name of Jesus Christ, we must stand up as one, and demand ‘not one more child’s innocent life is going be laid at the ledger of America’s soul.

    But instead, I hear the Pope talking about ‘Climate Change’, and I cringe.

    What the &^%$ does the Pope think adding millions more super-prolific people are going to do to help Climate Change in Europe?

    so I don’t see what the church has to apologise for post 9/11.

    How many quotes are there out there, about ‘for evil to prevail, all it takes is the silence of cowards’.

    A Church does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in a society. And if that society is engaged in wholesale evil, then for that Church to be other than evil itself, it MUST speak out against the evil.

    When the NYT sent a ‘journalist’ to the Ukraine in the 1930s, to report on the famine, it was his job as a journalist and human being, to point out that there was a deliberate campaign of genocide underway, and the state was systematically starving to death millions of men, women and children.

    But instead, he didn’t mention the state-sponsored starvation, because doing so would have been inconvenient to his career. The result was millions murdered horrifically, and a ‘journalist’ that won a Pulitzer Prize.

    Some people would like to delude themselves, that if they stay silent about things like murder or rape, or contrived aggressive wars, based on lies, that they’ll be immune from any guilt, so long as they simply stay silent, and cower in a corner, and don’t mention a word about it.

    They’re wrong. And their silence, (and therefor guilt), should and will damn them.

    fanatical pro-Zionist Evangelicals have certainly enabled this behaviour, but once again it’s entirely profane and their humanist Jew loving that allows the state a willing mass of support.

    Can’t argue with that.

    A White muslim is definitely preferable to an African one, and certainly I’d prefer an athiest White to an athiest African.

    Oh my goodness. This is a breach of decorum, for many here at the Unz. The ultimate faux pas.

    But I think being white, you’re entitled to prefer your own kind, just as an African is free to prefer his own kind, as well. (not that there aren’t plenty who would disagree with that simple truth).

    So by the same token I don’t think it is God that forms (or should form) our morality, but instead it is our morality that leads to God

    I’m good with that.

    But I’d take it one farther, and suggest that our morality (or lack there of), is a consequence of our DNA. A mother does not need to be told to love her babies, she simply does. Men treat the extended members of their tribe, with devotion as a rule. And, he treats his rivals and enemies as he should, depending on what is prudent for his and his posterity’s survival.

    It is this survival that is at the heart of our moral codes, and hopefully, the spirituality that guides them. If your religion or morality does not result in your survival, then it is a failed and destructive religion and/or morality.

    So I think overall it’s a bit ridiculous to blame religion for things it has nothing to do with (state affairs) while condemning them for not doing more, and at the same time denying they do any good at all.

    Well, I certainly would never deny that religion has done, and continues to do some very good things. Giving people a meaning to their lives, that is critical for their happiness, for instance.

    Providing parameters, in many cases, as people require them for a harmonious society.

    But since our religions, also are the fount of our spiritual truths, I do demand that for a religious leader, to be worthy of the name, he is bound to repudiate evil when it’s widely practiced by his society.

    Maybe too many people are so bludgeoned by the tropes of ‘wokeness’, these days, that they can’t recognize that telling a six year old that they might be a different gender, than they were born, is a moral atrocity. OK, fine. They’re in a daze.

    But when it comes to Eternal Wars, based on obvious lies, slaughtering and maiming and displacing millions upon millions of innocent people world wide, as it mortgages the future of America’s children, to the tune of untold trillions of unpayable debt, plus interest, then I can’t abide the cowardly silence of our spiritual leaders. As the Pope rails about open borders, (for all white nations, and only white nations), and blubbers about ‘Climate Change’ idiocy, I tend to get a bit cynical.

    Cheers.

    • Agree: Kali
  111. Rurik says:
    @gsjackson

    Hello gsjackson,

    Glad I finally have time to respond to your comment.

    you mention “experiments” that (by implication) undergird your belief in a vast universe. Can you name one such experiment, preferably replicable but not necessary. Two would be splendid.

    Well, it wasn’t an experiment (or two) in particular, but (unlike religious beliefs), my beliefs tend to be based on what science considers established, (until it can be un-established by a better theory and more experiments).

    The reason I think (for instance) that the DNA molecule is the building-block of all life on planet Earth, (at least that we know about), is because the molecule (in its many miraculous forms) can be found in the nucleus of every living cell on earth.

    By subjecting every theory to experiment, and re-experiment, I’m convinced that science is the best metric we have for determining how things work. Take for instance Climate Change. You can be absolutely certain that the Climate Change “scientists” are charlatans to a man and women, because they tell us the ‘science is settled’, while any true scientist knows damn well that the ‘science is never settled’. Especially with something as convoluted and debatable as ‘human-caused Climate Change. If you look closely at the Climate Change proponents, they are exactly like religious devotees. They believe. And they expect you to, or else you’re a bad person.

    Science is incredibly useful, but alas, science can only take us so far. It’s can’t answer the ‘why’ of the universe. It can’t tell us what there was before the universe, it can’t tell us what’s outside of the universe, it can’t tell us if there is a purpose to the universe, or none at all. All it can tell us is the nuts and bolts, and how the universe works.

    So for the ‘why’, we need something more than science, and that’s where spirituality and religion come in. At least in my humble opinion.

    And so as people seek the ‘why’; they look to the respective answers, and find the one that resonates with their soul. (again, that’s how I see it in my opinion ; )

    We can crunch the numbers, and see that the universe is expanding, and we can pull the double helix of the DNA molecule apart, and manipulate it in a thousand different ways. Science can tell us much. But it can’t tell us if there’s a line we should not cross, as humans are treating DNA like so many little ‘mad scientists’, creating all manner of life forms, some of which perhaps we have no business meddling with. This is why science should not be the end-all for philosophical debate. It has no soul.

    I’d like to see science and spirituality find common ground, as guides to the human species on how (and how not) to conduct ourselves. ‘Don’t exploit the environment to the point that you’re greed is creating a polluted, poisoned dead rock for the next generations.

    Don’t use drones to splatter wedding parties in Third World nations, just because you can.

    (Can’t we at least all agree on that?!)

    You know who I think I’d have a hard time getting to sign up on a ban for using assassination drones in poor countries? Openly declared Christians like Pompeo or Pence.

    Imagine if we could subject The Rapture to experimentation. Imagine if The Rapture could be put under the microscope of scholarly and theological scrutiny, bringing to bear our collective experimental wherewithal. Particle colliders, and AI, to find out if the idea has any merit whatsoever. Imagine the kind of world we would have, if it could be conclusively determined that human beings can not force the return of Jesus, by slaughtering all His modern day relatives in Palestine, and replacing them all with East European Khazars, who call themselves ‘Jews”.

    Just that one simple little change in the way millions of religious people believe, would be huge, on the geopolitical stage today.

    (I’m getting carried away, I know ; )

    They do “thought experiments,” like Einstein’s theory of relativity, but not, to my knowledge, testing of anything that can be grasped with our senses.

    Of course I have to go all the way back to Galileo here, since with our senses, it does seem like the sun rises in the east, and sets in the west, of a stable and unmoving Earth. That’s how it feels to us, with our senses and perceptions, but we all know today, that such is not the case.

    And you’re right about those telescopes all being tightly kept under lock and key. They’re far more interested in keeping us all in the dark, than illuminating things that might be inconvenient to their positions of power. So they carefully trickle the information out, so long as it comports with everything that keeps themselves in power.

    We may think we’ve come a long way since the time of Galileo, but we really haven’t.

    Cheers.

    • Replies: @gsjackson
  112. FLgeezer says:

    “But since our religions, also are the fount of our spiritual truths, I do demand that for a religious leader, to be worthy of the name, he is bound to repudiate evil when it’s widely practiced by his society.

    Maybe too many people are so bludgeoned by the tropes of ‘wokeness’, these days, that they can’t recognize that telling a six year old that they might be a different gender, than they were born, is a moral atrocity. OK, fine. They’re in a daze.

    But when it comes to Eternal Wars, based on obvious lies, slaughtering and maiming and displacing millions upon millions of innocent people world wide, as it mortgages the future of America’s children, to the tune of untold trillions of unpayable debt, plus interest, then I can’t abide the cowardly silence of our spiritual leaders. As the Pope rails about open borders, (for all white nations, and only white nations), and blubbers about ‘Climate Change’ idiocy, I tend to get a bit cynical.”

    Great synopsis Rurik. You are at the top of your game and Mr. Unz should award you stars!

    • Replies: @Rurik
  113. gsjackson says:
    @Rurik

    I’m just wondering how “we all know today” that the heliocentric model is correct. Einstein and Stephen Hawking have said that both the Ptolemaic and Copernican models account equally well for all observable data. Hawking acknowledged that he preferred the Copernican system simply because the math worked out better by assuming that the sun is stationary. Einstein was in the business of pulling the heliocentric model’s chestnuts out of the fire after experiments in the 19th century (e.g., Michaelson-Morley) failed to prove the earth’s motion. He was a dedicated partisan who won the brass ring by coming up with a theory — relativity — that explained how it is conceivably possible that the earth could be in motion that is completely undetected.

    What “we all know today” appears to be, of course, utterly absurd on its face: The earth is a spinning ball revolving 1,000 mph at the equator, while traveling around the sun at 67,000 mph, while the solar system is traveling hundreds of thousands mph around the galaxy, all of which is beating feet at a million or so mph away from a big bang that happened 14 billion years ago and led to the creation of everything. The sun, which appears to be a couple hundred miles away, is actually 93 million miles away, because it has to be for the heliocentric model to work. If you watch someone walk half a mile down the road he will all but disappear, yet we are able to see stars that are quadrillions of miles away.

    You seem to be making a distinction between “what science considers to be established” — presumably including the current understanding of astrophysics — and what it has deemed “settled,” e.g., climate change. Not sure I see a difference. In both cases we are asked to accept the argument from authority, and make profound assumptions about the nature of the world we live in strictly on the basis of what we are told by a secretive clerisy of self-replicating credentialism (accept the prevailing paradigm or get lost). Sounds like blind religious faith to me.

    Make mine a tall glass of skepticism.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  114. Rurik says:
    @FLgeezer

    Thank you FLgeezer,

    But no stars for moi.

    I’m given to off-color language. My grammar is atrocious. I’m occasionally intemperate and even ‘excitable’.

    I don’t even aspire to respectability, because I consider it overrated.

    Would you want to exalt the comments of someone like that?!

    I’ve even admitted to Mr. Unz himself, that I’m occasionally guilty of a deliberate kind of hyperbole and sensationalism, from time to time, when I cynically think it might bolster my arguments, (or at least, get people to read them ; )

    That is not the kind of commenter that you want others to think has earned a star, I’d posit Sir.

    But thank you FLgeezer, for your generous words of support. That is the kind of thing that is far more rewarding for me, than a star next to my name, (that I would find burdensome, in trying to be worthy of it ; )

    Cheers.

  115. Rurik says:
    @gsjackson

    Make mine a tall glass of skepticism.

    I’m with you on that!

    I knew a guy once, (very smart fellow), and I remember him telling me that he was told in school, (in Germany) that the concrete he was standing on, wasn’t really a solid surface, but rather was mostly empty space, filled by whizzing atoms, with neutrons and protons and electrons all spinning around like crazy, to create the illusion of a solid surface.

    I remember his telling me he considered all those teachers full of shit, because he knew that what he was standing on, was solid.

    The earth is a spinning ball revolving 1,000 mph at the equator, while traveling around the sun at 67,000 mph, while the solar system is traveling hundreds of thousands mph around the galaxy, all of which is beating feet at a million or so mph away from a big bang that happened 14 billion years ago and led to the creation of everything.

    Pretty good synopsis, even if you don’t believe a word of it.

    I have no problem with the Copernican model, if someone thinks it’s a sound theory. God bless, if so.

    My problems are with people who believe things that cause them to murder other people in order to steal their stuff.

    Zionists, for instance, and how that particular belief system is leading the world to yet another global conflagration.

    No one I’ve ever heard of, who holds with the Copernican model of the sun and solar system, also advocates for torture and drone assassination and genocide.

    So I’m personally all good with Copernicus. Perhaps if it were more widely prevalent, over the motivating narratives of the day, there’d be far less horrors and mayhem and misery in the world.

    Cheers.

    • Replies: @gsjackson
  116. gsjackson says:
    @Rurik

    I think you could profitably bring a sharper sociological lens to bear on all this, since that’s the context you want to address it in (I was hoping to get a science education so I can rid myself of this socially inexpedient skepticism). Far as I know, there isn’t a significant overlap between Christian Zionists and people questioning the Copernican model, which I assume is the correlation you want to make. The latter often fix their attention on the Jesuit and Freemason origins of the model, postulate that both are front organizations for Zion, and wind up speculating about the nefarious purposes of ((elites)) imposing incorrect beliefs on the general public through control of the media and academia. Just like in the climate change debate.

    This sentence is positively baffling:

    “No one I’ve heard of, who holds with the Copernican model of the sun and solar system, also advocates for torture and drone assassination and genocide.”

    While I’m not prepared to name names, I’d wager that every neocon living and dead (or have any of them died yet; are Irving Kristol and Poddy still with us?), and every other dutiful servant of Zion holds with (or at least holds forth) the Copernican model.

    The notion is out there that the model was a stalking horse for an agenda of control that involved first destroying religious faith. If that’s the case, I’m not all good with Copernicus.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  117. Rurik says:
    @gsjackson

    every other dutiful servant of Zion holds with (or at least holds forth) the Copernican model.

    Perhaps I’m the one that can get a science education.

    From what I understand, (not being an astronomer or even a scientist), is that the Copernican model is more correct than the Ptolemy model, that had the Earth at the center of the Universe.

    But revisions to the Copernican model have been made since then, that shows that even the sun, is not the center of the universe.

    How have I gone off the rails here?

    Which is the correct model?

    destroying religious faith. If that’s the case, I’m not all good with Copernicus.

    Well, I’m hoping that you don’t consider something as fundamental to human nature, as ‘religious faith’, can be destroyed by pointing out some obscure error with their astronomical models of the universe.

    Does God care if the earth revolves around the sun, or vice versa?

    I’d say that which ever is the case, then that’s how God wants it.

    As for ‘destroying religious faith’, and my own skepticism vis-a-vis organized religion..

    If the religions that are practiced in my society, give people happiness and a sense of well-being, while providing them with the spiritual truths necessary to get them though hard times, while allowing for an un-hobbled search for the eternal truths, come what may, then I’d be all for such a religion.

    My problem is with the religions today, whose leaders advocate for the destruction of their faithful’s way of life, down to their very DNA.

    If your religious leader is exhorting his flock, to fund an invasion of their lands, by hoards of non-Westerners and non-Christians, with a massive chip on their shoulders, for all the ‘oppression’ that whitey has forced the rest of the world’s people to suffer for millenniums, all so that whitey can make amends, by handing over all he has, and going gently into that goodnight~ well then I have very little use for such religions and, particularly, such religious leaders.

    As I’ve said, the first and foremost test of a good religion, is that your faithful survive its tenets, so that there is another generation to pass on the religious truths.

    But mostly what I see today, is a Christianity in full-blown suicide mode, advocating homo-‘marriage” and replacing Christmas as the main celebration, with celebrating ‘diversity’ and Multiculturalism’ as its holy catechisms. With the Holocaust replacing the Crucifix as its most precious religious sacrament.

    The God who was murdered on the cross, has been supplanted as the object of worship, with a genuflecting homage to the descendants of the people who murdered Him.

    Christians will stand by idly, as an “artist” who put a crucifix in a bucket of piss, is heralded as a superlative genius, as the “art” is sent around the act circuits, for people to ‘ooh’ and ‘ahh’.

    But imagine those same Christians, if someone put a little oven, full of soap, in a bucket of piss, to mock the lies we’ve all been bludgeoned with for generations.

    Christians would be demanding a modern-day crucifixion of such an artist, for his effrontery to everything holy and sacred in their lives.

    Piss Christ- no problem for Christians that I’m aware of.

    ‘Piss oven’ – they’d be pulling their hair out.

    • Replies: @gsjackson
  118. gsjackson says:
    @Rurik

    No disagreement with all of that. There is the view, though, that the same people who are laying waste to Christianity today began the project centuries ago by dethroning God’s and man’s place in the universe. By putting the sun at the center of the cosmos, and constructing a procrustean, gerrybuilt system requiring a spinning ball earth, a mysterious force called gravity unobservable anywhere else in nature, incomprehensibly vast distances and relativity, all to keep the ungainly, absurd-on-its-face beast propped up.

    The payoff is people who come to regard themselves as meaningless specks in a meaningless cosmos. Hurled into lives of purposeless, despairing, self-serving hedonism, they become all the easier to control.

    There is supposed to be a letter from one Freemason to another in the 19th century discussing the ease with which this project of undermining religious belief is carried out, in this case with respect to evolution. The silly intellectuals, it was said, would serve as a vanguard because their vanity and desire to position themselves as superior to the masses makes them readily accept any theory that undercuts popular beliefs.

    All of that sounds very familiar. I look around at the society that gets deconstructed in the UR every day and see exactly the same sort of things going on. It doesn’t seem too far-fetched to think that it didn’t begin just yesterday.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Prajna
  119. bjondo says:

    I like these two paragraphs from John Chuckman:

    Apart from the ugly lies before wars, remember that America’s most weighty contribution to world culture is exceedingly refined techniques of marketing, a smarmy art developed in the course of the nation’s historic, headlong rush to get rich. So many things in American life – goods, services, religion, and even elections – have more marketing in them than content. Much of American life has about it the quality of “Have a nice day!” from a computerized phone system.

    Orwell was wrong in 1984 putting forward the idea of the Party’s gradually eliminating words to control people’s ability to think and speak critically. He was of course parodying the Soviet Union which to some extent did follow the practice. But the repressive old Soviet Union is gone while America thrives, constantly inventing new words – marketing gibberish, psycho-babble, political rubbish, science-fiction religion – which strives to puff up nothing into something. In America, you can literally fill a small library with books and magazines on any number of subjects from education to health that contain nothing genuinely furthering human understanding.

    http://dissidentvoice.org/June05/Chuckman0615.htm

    5ds

    One day I’ll figure out how to get my first
    fake handle (5 dancing shlomos) to work.

    • Replies: @gsjackson
  120. gsjackson says:
    @bjondo

    “Much of American life has about it the quality of “Have a nice day!” from a computerized phone system.”

    I spend a lot of time in Europe and in just about every commercial transaction I have there, purchasing food or whatever, the sales person, upon discerning that I’m an American, will conclude the interaction with “have a nice day.”

    I’m not sure whether they’re mocking Americans for our fatuousness or they think our marketing-saturated souls require continual doses of this pollyanna pabulum.

  121. @Rurik

    Rurik,

    Just dropping in to let you know I haven’t forgotten you. I’ll get to your latest response soon, Lord-willing and the creek don’t rise.

    In the meantime, may you be well.

    Ma’as-salaama.

  122. Rurik says:
    @gsjackson

    the same people who are laying waste to Christianity today began the project centuries ago by dethroning God’s and man’s place in the universe.

    Hmm..

    This is kind of heavy.

    By putting the sun at the center of the cosmos, and constructing a procrustean, gerrybuilt system requiring a spinning ball earth, a mysterious force called gravity unobservable anywhere else in nature,

    Alright, now I have to ask point blank. To your mind, is (a stationary) Earth the center of the universe?

    The payoff is people who come to regard themselves as meaningless specks in a meaningless cosmos. Hurled into lives of purposeless, despairing, self-serving hedonism, they become all the easier to control.

    At what time in history, would you consider ideal for religious truths to have brought the most blessings to their human adherents?

    Was the Age of Enlightenment, and the Renaissance, all folly?

    with respect to evolution. The silly intellectuals, it was said, would serve as a vanguard because their vanity and desire to position themselves as superior to the masses makes them readily accept any theory that undercuts popular beliefs.

    I have no problem ‘undercutting popular beliefs’. But only if those popular beliefs are in error, and more to the point, are destructive.

    If believing that the earth is the center of the universe, will lead to world peace, end poverty, bolster human happiness and prosperity, and engender a culture of respect for nature and the environment, while creating a global resolve to end pointless suffering, then I suspect I’d eagerly become an adherent. Even it the founding principles were suspect, on some levels.

    I’m just not sure religion is any more of a guarantee of those things, than science would be.

    Both are subject to the foibles of man. The most immediate threat to all life and happiness and prosperity, that I can see today, is Zionism. A doctrine of genocidal madness, foisted upon the planet by Jewish and Christian religious zealots (and their bought and paid-for political whores). Can a belief in evolution be any worse than ‘we must destroy seven nations in five years’ ? Not to mention the resolve to import the teeming billions of the Third World into the West.

    .. I look around at the society that gets deconstructed in the UR every day and see exactly the same sort of things going on. It doesn’t seem too far-fetched to think that it didn’t begin just yesterday.

    I enjoy your eloquence very much. And I’m convinced you participate here in good faith. That is more important to me than 100% agreement on every issue.

    If a general well-being, and hope for the future, are our intentions and goals, then I don’t suppose it matters too much which religion we adhere to, so long as the results are healthy and happy people, children laughing and playing, and a future that looks bright.

    Right now I’m not too convinced of that bright future, and I’m not sure if science (Monsanto and Big Pharma and the MIC, et al) is more to blame, or the religious fanatics at the Vatican/Zionism/SJW ‘wokeness’- are our more serious common threats. Massive migrations of millions of humans, from widely disparate backgrounds and incompatible ethnicities, all descending upon the West, in a human tidal wave of genocidal rage, are what concerns me. And the Endless Wars designed to ultimately enslave us all to a Total surveillance, Orwellian global, dystopian police state.

    Ever since Rhodesia was ‘guilted’ into ethno-suicide, I’ve sort of paid a kind of peripheral attention to the white denizens of Zimbabwe, as I consider them a sort of ‘canary in the coal mine’, for the general prospects for the people of the West. Recently South Africa descended into suicidal madness, and the tenor of the leadership of the dying (((murdered))) West, has been to cut them loose. Putin’s Russia alone offers them succor.

    So it’s the prospects of Western civilization, and it’s people, that are my motivating principle.

    And if a nascent rebirth of Christian spirituality, is the solution to a global genocide, then I’m all for it.

    But alas, I must confess, that the state of the Christian Church today, leaves me feeling very gloomy about any prospects of civilizational rebirth, coming from that lot.

  123. “One nation under God”…

    Apologies to the woke crowd for whom any mention of God is blasphemy.

    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  124. gsjackson says:

    I have no idea what the center of the universe is, and I don’t think anybody else living does either. I’m not sure why you equate skepticism about things that are taken on faith, such as speculative science (i.e., science that has not proved its mettle by resulting in TV’s and computers that turn on, buildings and bridges that stand up, etc.) with simple-minded religious faith. Well yes, actually I am sure, of course — that’s how the culture and the rulers of our discourses have taught us to frame these matters.

    Do you deny that your acceptance of the official story about astrophysics is based on anything other than the fact that it’s what you’ve always been told, and a savvy surmise that if you express skepticism your smart card will be revoked and you’ll be called stupid? My own religious views are far from fully formed, and I consider them irrelevant to the discussion I began on another thread about being skeptical of “knowledge,” however it might package itself, be it “science,” “religion” or whatever. As LaPlace said: there’s no need of the God hypothesis. Of course, until there is.

    I do believe that Jewish supremacism is not something new under the sun, and it has always regarded Christianity as its mortal enemy. Like Trump, whatever its shortcomings Christianity does have all the right enemies. And while I’m no historian of the Middle Ages, I also believe that the bountiful cultural fruits of the West that you seem to have an appreiciation for owe much if not everything to Christendom. You’ll find planty on that combing through the works of Joe Sobran and the people he read. I’m quite certain Joe saw himself as doing history, not apologetics.

    Our rulers are skilled propagandists, and I suspect that didn’t just begin in the 18th or 19th century with the age of mass communication. Call something “science” and the intellectuals will roll over to have their bellies scratched, then go home with you completely domesticated.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Kali
  125. Rurik says:
    @gsjackson

    I have no idea what the center of the universe is, and I don’t think anybody else living does either.

    well, if there’s anything to relativity, it’s right here, sitting in this chair. I suspect that’s true in a metaphysical way, for all of us.

    why you equate skepticism about things that are taken on faith, such as speculative science (i.e., …) with simple-minded religious faith.

    I hope I didn’t come across that way. Some people would claim that many things I think, amount to little more than simple-minded faith in science. And some of them are no doubt true.

    Do you deny that your acceptance of the official story about astrophysics is based on anything other than the fact that it’s what you’ve always been told, and a savvy surmise that if you express skepticism your smart card will be revoked and you’ll be called stupid?

    I get your point, and you’re right, I take it on a kind of faith, that the earth is spinning around, doing what all those astronomers and astrophysicists tell me it’s doing.

    ..being skeptical of “knowledge,”

    Well, you’re not the first. That’s why the man came up with ‘I think, therefor I am’, as a good starting point. Beyond that, it tends to get speculative.

    Like Trump, whatever its shortcomings Christianity does have all the right enemies

    In its unadulterated forms, (Russian orthodox today) I agree. But too often for me, it’s a religion of passive surrender, at least in the West.

    the West that you seem to have an appreiciation for owe much if not everything to Christendom

    Well, there was Greece, and Rome after that. But even more so, I sort of consider many of the underlying strengths of the West, as residing in the DNA of Western man. Not that Christianity didn’t (and still does) play a powerful role in the West’s accomplishments, heritage and collective virtues.

    Those cathedrals are not for nothing. And without Christians like Charles Martel, the West would not even exist today.

    I’m quite certain Joe saw himself as doing history, not apologetics.

    Where is his equal today?

    Call something “science” and the intellectuals will roll over to have their bellies scratched, then go home with you completely domesticated.

    Well, it certainly must seem like that, at times.

    Let’s just figure out a way to give Christianity its vigor back.

    I was just posting something on the Boy Scouts, and how they decided to allow openly homosexual troop leaders take the boys out camping, (with expected results).

    If a Christian organization for the development of Christian boys, into solid Christian leaders of the community.. is rampant with flaming homosexuals, all vying to act as role models for these young boys, then what’s left of the Christian spirit of such an organization?

    To me, it’s dead.

    • Replies: @gsjackson
  126. gsjackson says:
    @Rurik

    It’s not like the BSA didn’t have ample reason to think they were letting the fox into the chicken coop. My father was an Air Force lawyer and back in the ’50s he prosecuted a major who had molested just about all the boys in his scout troop. The old man was a WWII vet proud to wear the uniform, had the Rurik gift of empassioned, outraged rhetoric and really let the scumbag have it, so much so that the pederast threatened in court to kill him.

    I’ve taken a lot of pleasure in the BSA predicament, because it was so predictable and provides a tiny bit of evidence of a morally ordered universe. A big tip of the cap to the Mormons, who have a huge scouting presence and cut off all relations with the mother ship when homo scoutmasters were approved. They can probably take full credit for bringing down the rotting edifice.

    By all means reinvigorate Christianity, but I’m afraid it’s going to take a bunch of truth-telling pastors like the one Geokat is always puffing, Chuck Baldwin. They’re in very short supply in the current rendition of these United States.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  127. @Rurik

    What you’re accusing me of, is exactly what I’d accuse the religiously devout of.

    To be fair, you casually implied that having the capacity to upset or surprise God is “vanity.” I agree insofar as surprising Him is concerned, but not with regard to upsetting Him. Your statement suggests that you possess knowledge of God sufficient to determine that such conviction is vain.

    But this is impossible if you “have no such certainties” about God, which is the only reason I responded as I did (with a smile and a wink, I might add).

    I appreciate your humility. There is much truth in what you say concerning God insofar as His transcendent magnificence is concerned. He is The Sublime, far beyond what the imagination may comprehend, neither created nor ephemeral, having no need of anything, be it location, direction or dimension.

    But it’s a mistake to confuse affirming knowledge of God with arrogance. It is a quite natural, instinctive human impulse to perceive that the cosmos and its comprehensively ornate and orderly composition is the handiwork of a Creator — an impulse that has remained with man since his beginnings. There is nothing arrogant about such conviction. In fact, it is rather the opposite. Knowing God breeds humility before Him.

    Yes, I’m well aware of the myriad cliched arguments against this. You may point to examples that appear to prove the opposite, but these typically demonstrate either expropriation of God’s Name or motive that remains obscure. Humility isn’t necessarily easily understood until we examine the facts closely, and even then motive may remain unknown.

    What if there isn’t a father-like God, benevolently watching over us all? What if the Eternal Wars and decimation of the environment, are all a direct consequence of man’s all too mortal appetites? And that if we’re going to find solutions, to things like the Eternal Wars, then we’re going to have to rely on our mortal selves, from which these problems arose.

    The questions lean upon a false dichotomy which can be demonstrated by asking the following:

    “What if there is a Omniscient, Ominpotent, and Benevolent God who endows man with great agency to determine his worth (much as one entrusted with great power), yet man all too often inclines toward his all too mortal appetites, making life on earth more miserable for himself and others than need be?”

    If it was man who created the conditions in Gaza, (and not God) then maybe it’s man, who must seek ways to redress those conditions. Yes? No?

    Yes.

    IOW, why does there have to be a agent of the leaf falling? Why can’t it just have succumbed to the forces of gravity, having grown on the tree, and lived and died, all without even so much as a God to supervise it?

    Because the inevitable consequence of such denial is to entertain the possibility that everything which exists, in all of its terrifying yet intoxicating majesty, bears no higher purpose beyond ephemeral existence; that it is but the mathematically highly improbable, random byproduct of deaf, dumb, blind, lifeless, and unconscious particles’ perpetual collision, union, and dissolution; that the offenses and injustices too numerous to list in this vale of tears would remain invidiously unrequited; that the sufferance of good folk against the relentlessly oppressive currents of licentiousness, avarice, and inequity would draw to a heart-rendingly soul-crushing conclusion — unrecompensed and unsung.

    The soul instinctively pleads for justice in the wake of the world’s many inhumanities. You yourself manifest this very instinct throughout your posts. And you are right to say that it is man’s responsibility to bring about a better day to the extent he is able to do so. In this abode of examination, this dar al-imtihan, we distinguish ourselves from others to the extent we do so, joining the good company of God.

    But our hands can only reach so far, and there is much injustice we will never be able to resolve, no matter our effort. God, however, is more than capable of settling such matters, and He will — with absolute equity and finality.

    Speaking for myself, it is far too difficult to perceive our existence alternatively.

    If God endowed me with anything more precious than my reason, I’m not aware of it. Creating me with reason, and then demanding that I stifle it, was for me, a burden too great to bear.

    Reason is the root of my faith: a hadith attributed to the Prophet sallALLAHU ‘alaihi wa sallam.

    Reason, however, is not merely a product of the intellect. Of itself, the intellect is a labyrinth replete with cul de sacs. It can’t attain answers to every question, especially the greatest ones we’ll ever ask, the first being “Why everything?”

    At the end of the day, those answers are inescapably a matter of faith, which is a conclusion that the sharpened intellect will never be able to avoid.

    Perhaps one could apply scientific method, making himself the subject of his own experiment in which he tests a religion much as he would a hypothesis, beginning with the affirmation of God and the Hereafter, adopting the perspective of the faithful and their concomitant practices. That would be the fairest means of testing its validity, though it would prove quite demanding if potentially corrupting variables weren’t eliminated as well.

    I began my own journey to Islam by applying its mandate against backbiting, nothing more. You’d be surprised just how much this singular, simple-seeming principle transformed my outlook on people.

    I guess you weren’t raised a Christian.

    Oh, but I was.

    Which is how I know exactly what you’re talking about. It’s impossible to meet those standards, I agree, though the Beatitudes are, among other lessons of Jesus ‘alaihis-salaam, a wonderful source of guidance.

    You have a very liberal understanding of the Abrahamic God(s), I would posit.

    Not really.

    Look at this way: even if someone is forced throughout his life to declare a faith he does not actually possess, is God effectively compelling him to keep faith in his heart?

    God Himself does not reach this far. Man may coerce action, but he can’t reach the core of another’s heart, however much he may try.

    ‘Do no harm’.

    That works, to an extent.

    Many would say that murderers don’t deserve capital punishment — that of itself, it is cruel and inhumane, the worst variety of harm. They contend that two wrongs don’t make a right. Those who disagree assert that allowing the crime of murder to go unpunished results in greater harm to society. Both have fair-seeming arguments, so which is correct according to the principle of “do no harm”?

    I ask rhetorically, because if you attempt to use the intellect alone in order to answer the question, there is no clear answer. It remains, and always will remain, a matter of faith. “Be kind” may be similarly dissected and understood.

    You seem loath to ever admit, that Judaism and Islam are at times, mutually exclusive. And that a Jewish God that demands the death and genocide of Arabs, can still be considered legitimate.

    You would have to be quite unfamiliar with my posts here to draw a conclusion like this.

    First of all, I don’t imagine any such thing as a “Jewish God.” The very notion is absurd on its face. I have always asserted that the God of Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad is one and the same God.

    In the latest American Pravda thread, my first reply was in response to Mr. Unz’s poignant statement concerning the effect of the Jewish faith tradition upon its adherents for well over two millennia. As you may recall, I quoted from Douglas Reed’s Controversy of Zion, wherein Reed, in summarizing the history of the Children of Israel, draws a distinction between original Israel and Israel following the ascent of Judah.

    In Islam, we affirm that God sent prophets to the Children of Israel. Because those prophets submitted to God, they and their followers were, by definition, Muslim. These individuals are clearly not the same as the renegades of Israel sharing a common bloodline with them.

    Indeed, renegades who were entrusted with the preservation of God’s Word corrupted the record of it in order to procure worldly advantage for themselves and their progeny, which is why one gathers the impression that a “Jewish God” manifests himself throughout.

    I have never held that Judaism and Islam are identical. Rather, I affirm that, historically, God has sent unto the House of Israel many Prophets and Messengers who were definitively Muslim. That contemporary Israel has deviated a considerable distance from this legacy is unquestionably beyond doubt.

    I find such a God as a bit vain, no?

    Here we have to pause in order to fathom what we mean by “worship.”

    Worship is not expressed merely in ritual prayer, nor solely by fasting, nor by charity alone. It is not restricted to the incantation or recitation of God’s Words.

    One hour of reflection upon God is worth one year of worship.

    Another haddith attributed to the Prophet, one intended to emphasize that worship is less bound to specific ritual than it is to consciousness. Essentially, all worship lies in the effort to keep good company with God. It is the protracted, sustained remembrance of Him as the Causer of Causes, the very reason for the existence of all that is, was, and shall be; the vigilant reliance upon Him in all matters, however apparently trivial or grave.

    Again, it is the logical conclusion of knowing He is God, without whom we simply would not be.

    No, He doesn’t need us to remember Him or rely upon Him, but He is pleased when we prove ourselves worthy of His company, and He rewards the faithful accordingly.

    This is an abode of examination. It cannot be otherwise.

    Indeed, for much of recorded history, there wasn’t even a line drawn between the Pharos or Caesars and such/ and God Himself. They were considered virtually one and the same.

    Two continua throughout human history: those who hold that God is One and Uncreated, and those who hold otherwise.

    In this respect, humankind has not changed since Adam.

    Fii Amanillah

    Wa eeyakum.

    • Thanks: Tusk
    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Rurik
  128. Kali says:
    @gsjackson

    Do you deny that your acceptance of the official story about astrophysics is based on anything other than the fact that it’s what you’ve always been told, and a savvy surmise that if you express skepticism your smart card will be revoked and you’ll be called stupid?

    Hi gsjackson,
    I hope you din’t mind me butting in to address this point as it is something I have taken an interest in over recent years.

    First a very brief personal history: In 2015 I came to live in Portugal from England, and for the first couple of years had extremely limited, spariodic Internet access. I also had, for the first time in my life, a spectacular, unpolluted view of “the heavens (night sky).
    During my first winter here I tracked the paths of Venus and Mars as they raced across the sky, changing their relative positions. Obviously these planets held different orbits tof each other, and to the Earth.

    On those occasions I connected to the Internet I saw that an increasing, and surprisingly large number of people posting on social media were supporting (and preaching) “Flat Earth Theory”.
    My initial reaction was much as you describe above – That is, predominantly based on received wisdom, rather than any specific observations of my own, my observations of Mars and Venus notwithstanding.

    In the meantime a very close friend had devised a calendar (the Universal Celestial Calendar) which actually shows our (Earths) possition in space and time. Shortly my husband began writing an app to demonstrate that calendar. (Link bellow.)

    For my own part, this (astrology) was an entirely new subject and I had many questions. And so I began to observe more closely and more deliberately with a view to understanding how we “know” that the Earth is a moving sphere and how we “know” that the earth orbits the Sun.

    I noted the changing possition of the sunrise and sunset throughout the course of the year, moving south in the wintertime and North in the summer time.
    Just this observation alone demonstrated that the Earth isn’t stationary and that, alongside the other planets in the solar system, it seemed that the Earth really does orbit the sun.
    This tentative observation was confirmed for me during a total lunar eclipse in the summer of 2018. – The Earth had somehow got in between the sun and the moon to cast a shadow over the moon.

    In the meantime hubbie was literally “doing rocket science” in order to calculate elliptical orbits for the Great Year – the 24000 year cycle [the time-scale IS disputed, but careful calculation on hubbies part along with careful reading of available literature, etc, meant that he basically nailed it, and everything lined up as it should] of our sun with its “hypothetical” twin.

    And as my Internet access gradually improved I learned more about what the “Flat Earthers” were arguing, including that gravity isn’t a real force, and that “boyancy” accounted for what we atribute to gravity.
    And so I wondered, if this were true, why do the more buoyant objects around us still cling to the Earth. Why, as a leaf decomposes, for example, does it not begin to gain boyancy and float above the ground.
    And whilst I realise there is a lot more to the theory of gravity than this simple “pull factor”, surely this simple observation is enough to demonstrate that something other than buoyancy is at work? Why not call it gravity?

    I also learned that Flat Earth Theory suggests that, rather than rising and setting as the Earth spins on its axis, the sun “simply” moves very far away and returns, accounting for “night and day”.
    Yet, as I observed, I did not see the sun growing larger and smaller throughout the course of the day as it would if it were moving further away and closer. I also noted that the top of this mountain I live on remains in shadow for most of the morning until the sun is high enough in the sky to light it up, whilst the lower slopes reflect bright sunshine (Portugal! Sunny Portugal!). If the sun remained at the same hight, this wouldn’t be the case.

    My point is that simple, basic observations which any one of us can make for ourselves can reveal the veracity of the “spinning ball” heliocentric model of our solar system. –
    Ah, I almost forgot – a couple of years ago we scored a telescope through which we, naturally, view our surrounding planets, each of which, like our moon, is obviously spherical. So by extrapolation, and knowing that the sphere is the most efficient shape possible, I conclude that the Earth is very probably spherical.

    Respectfully,
    Kali.

    UCC website – https://www.universalcelestialcalendar.com

    UCC app (writen by my hubby! 🙂 Fully interactive, but still a work in progress, as the planets of our solar system need to be included ) –
    https://ucc.zone/apps/calclock/

    • Replies: @gsjackson
  129. Prajna says: • Website
    @gsjackson

    GS, how is your familiarity with Foucault’s Pendulum? It appears, so far as my ability to reason is concerned, to not only demonstrate a spinning earth but a spinning ball earth. Certainly it seems very different to reconcile with a fixed and flat earth.

    It appears to me that there is an extraordinary effort to prevent knowledge of our place in the universe and that effort has been going on for some considerable period, millennia at minimum. That effort appears to employ the promotion of belief over reason and the use of logical falicies to attack reason and science. Just I do not accept that we (at least in the last several millennia) recognised any enthroned god or had even the merest inkling of our place in the universe to begin with. The very idea of an enthroned god is a contradiction in terms.

    Kali’s comment, that a belief is a demonstration of ignorance, is key. Is ignorance really something that should be sanctified as a right?

    • Replies: @gsjackson
  130. Rurik says:
    @gsjackson

    gift of empassioned, outraged rhetoric

    really let the scumbag have it

    God bless your dad!

    I’ve taken a lot of pleasure in the BSA predicament, because it was so predictable and provides a tiny bit of evidence of a morally ordered universe. A big tip of the cap to the Mormons, who have a huge scouting presence and cut off all relations with the mother ship when homo scoutmasters were approved. They can probably take full credit for bringing down the rotting edifice.

    I agree. I’d only hope that it wasn’t just the Mormons, but that there’s still something of human decency left alive in the greater American populace, that sees homosexual men, wanting to cavort with Boy Scouts, as something from Sodom and Gomorra, which should be burned to the ground (metaphorically) with all due haste.

    By all means reinvigorate Christianity, but I’m afraid it’s going to take a bunch of truth-telling pastors like the one Geokat is always puffing, Chuck Baldwin. They’re in very short supply in the current rendition of these United States.

    Chuck is OK, but as Geo (Geokat) often links to, the guy that really tells the truth is Rick Wiles, at https://www.trunews.com/

    • Replies: @gsjackson
  131. gsjackson says:
    @Kali

    Thanks for weighing in. I’ve followed with interest the same online discussions for about three years, and there are some standard responses to some of your points.

    On eclipses — there have been over 50 of them recorded where both the sun and moon were visible above the horizon and the earth could not have been between the two. Eclipses occur with exact regularity and have been accurately predicted for thousands of years by geocentrists, including Ptolemy. In those days it was thought that an entity called the black sun was the cause.

    I’m not sure what your point about the sun’s trajectory (assuming it were in motion) proves. It suggests the earth’s movement if you assume the sun is stationary, but that is the question at issue. If the sun is in motion, it can go in any direction it wants to.

    I read the point about the sun not appearing smaller as it rises and sets a while back, and made a point of observing it. It did look a little smaller to me, though not much (to my eye it looks a little bigger and closer when I’m 35,000 feet up in an airplane, which, of course, would be ridiculous if it’s 93 million miles away).

    That is the thing I cannot believe about the sun — that it is 93 million miles away. But for heliocentrists it has to be, because otherwise how would the stars be in the exact same positions when you have traveled six months to the other side of the sun at the speed of 67,000 mph? The distances have to be unfathomable for there to appear to be no repositioning. All the motion that’s supposed to be going on continuously with the earth, the solar system and the galaxy, at supersonic speeds, and there the stars are, always in the same place.

    And if the sun is 93 million miles away, how can there be such a dramatic difference in climate over a distance of a few hundred miles, like between North Dakota and southern Texas, or the UK and Portugal?

    As for why a withering leaf doesn’t float upwards, well maybe Newton got the law of motion right even if he did invent gravity out of whole cloth (to save heliocentrism, which requires a spinning ball earth, otherwise how explain night and day; but how do the ocean water and unattached objects keep from falling off the ball, ergo gravity). An object at rest tends to stay at rest, maybe? It seems to me the more pertinent question is how can gravity hold quintillions of tons of ocean water yet is overcome by the flap of a butterfly’s wings and my feeble little finger.

    Your telescope shows the planets to be spheres? Photos I’ve seen make them look like roundish, glowing entities that don’t appear to be terra firma. Guess I’ll have to get my own.

    What I have been able to observe personally suggests no evidence of earth’s curvature, which is generally accepted by heliocentrists to be eight inches per mile squared. Flying on a normal clear day here in Arizona (I scoff at your Portugal sunshine) I can see for about 100 miles in either direction. No curvature. The horizon really does continuously rise to eye level the higher you go. I have been to an overlook in the Sierras where I could see Mt Lassen, Mt Shasta and everything in between — a distance of over 120 miles. There’s supposed to be over a mile and a half of curvature between the two points. None was visible.

    FYI (or maybe for mine), we are talking about astronomy here, right, not astrology? Not that I know squat about either.

  132. gsjackson says:
    @Prajna

    I would find Foucault’s pendulum to be extremely underwhelming evidence, even if some correlation were demonstrated between the table’s movement and the alleged earth’s rotation.

    Einstein supposedly said that the earth’s movement cannot be proven. Do you doubt him? Do you dare to doubt the highest priest of the Higher Learning, a member of that clerisy whose pronouncements we must accept or risk displaying “ignorance,” which you seem to be implying should be suppressed? I hope the recommended suppression isn’t too severe — like the Inquisition or some such.

    • Replies: @Prajna
  133. gsjackson says:
    @Rurik

    Oh OK, I was confusing the two. Wiles is the one I was thinking of.

  134. Rurik says:
    @AnonStarter

    OK AnonStarter,

    This time it’s I that will have to defer my reply, as I’ll be traveling this weekend.

    Peace and God bless.

  135. Prajna says: • Website
    @gsjackson

    GS, are you suggesting I should accept Appeal to Authority (and from a (((tribe))) plagiarist at that)? Do you have an alternative explanation for the observations of the behaviour of a Foucalt’s Pendulum?

    • Replies: @gsjackson
  136. gsjackson says:
    @Prajna

    No, quite the opposite, via sarcasm. But if you don’t accept Einstein’s relativity you’ve got the same problems he was addressing that were presented by the 19th century experiments that failed to detect any motion of the earth.

    If the video is to be believed, the results of Foucault’s pendulum have been all over the map and don’t prove anything.

    • Replies: @Prajna
  137. Prajna says: • Website
    @gsjackson

    Don’t have spare data to watch videos. Typical FE response though, “I don’t know fuck-all about it but the FE god Eric Dubay made a confusing u-toob about it.” Seems the FE attitude is “some folks did the experiment and got inconsistant results, therefore those who demontrated it consistently must be frauds.” Oh, not to overlook the following from a FE site about the experiment: “Mach’s Principle explains that if the earth was still and the all the stars went around the Earth then the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulum.”, what? gravity? Are Dubay and Co now admitting gravity. Eloquent you may be GS, but what value is that if you are also a FE cultist? Reply if you like but don’t anticipate a response.

    • Replies: @gsjackson
  138. gsjackson says:
    @Prajna

    Why the hostility? Is something getting lost in translation into a second language, like the sarcasm? Do you think my scoffing at your Portugal sunshine was anything other than a good-natured jibe? You know — like we have far more than we want in Arizona, ha, ha, ha. Your wife did mistkenly call astronomy astrology, but I’m sure I’ve made that mistake in the past, and it’s always good to be clear on the difference.

    So sorry if I offended you, but if my cultish ignorance is offending your rigorously scientific sensibilities then you’ve got a problem. I may not have been trained in a sicentific discipline, but I’ve been trained to know a strong argument from a weak one, and I do.

    • Replies: @Prajna
  139. Prajna says: • Website
    @gsjackson

    GS, I think you are mistaking disgust for hostility and anger. What disgusts me is how disingenuous responses from FE proponents are. They have a stink about them, similar to the stench of hasbara disinfo. What suggests that I would be disturbed in the slightest about your comparison between the sunniness in Portugal and Arizona?

    A strong argument is one that is pertinent, logical, rational and corresponds with the facts. I don’t see that you have presented any strong argument.

    • Troll: gsjackson
  140. Ron, have you considered a column or similar to collect the myriad of Deep State ( Is Peter Dale Scott still around, or underground?) exposes that seem to crop up every day?
    This piece on the Assange abomination for example should get more attention,
    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/chief-magistrate-assange-extradition-received-financial-benefits-shadowy-groups

    The Epstein affair probably deserves one of it’s own, but a place to collect all the evidence that the scales of justice are heavily weighted. always and everywhere, toward societies most evil.

  141. Defender of the Motherland Day, Russia, February 23 2020

    Спаси и сохрани.

    https://tass.com/defense/1123223

  142. Israel hangs dead Palestinian from bulldozer

    https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200224-israel-hangs-palestinian-martyr-from-bulldozer/

    The bulldozer approached the body as Palestinians tried to recover Al-Naem’s corpse to avoid it being detained by occupation forces.

    They were forced to flee as the vehicle approached them at speed, picked up Al-Naem’s body by his clothing and carried him away, he lifeless body is clearly visible as a tank nears to protect the Israeli machinery.

    A number of Palestinians were injured in the attack, with one seen hopping away after he was shot in the leg by occupation forces.

    Israeli Defence Minister Naftali Bennett defended the military action stating that the military was trying to retrieve the body of “a terrorist”.

    “This is how it should be done, and this is how it will be done,” he wrote.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  143. Kali says:

    Dear Abby,

    I read so much worrying news and commentary these days that it’s difficult not to sink into despair sometimes.

    It transpires that all of our lives we’ve been lied to and manipulated by ‘our’ governments and by the establishment media. These days we actually write in terms of (((‘our’ governments))) and (((the media))) because it’s said to be “anti-sham-itic” to mention the powerful kabal of (((jews))) who shape (((narratives))) for our consumption, even as they shape the geo-political landscape for our enslavement.

    These days we have the Internet and, with it, access to all kinds of accurate information. We try to share and to alert our loved ones to the fact that we’re being lied to, and have been all our lives, but (((they))) do all they can to marginalise and discredit us, so that it often seems that no one listens.

    It’s very upsetting because we know that it is only through awareness that we the people can stop our current trajectory, which will result in our enslavement to a globalised (((corporate empire))) and/or massive environmental devastation, (((they))) even lie about the causes of that!

    And when it seems that the truth may be finally getting out, we are threatened with global, geothermal nuclear armagedon, ffs! I guess this would be ((their))) final solution for us uppity goyim.

    Whilst I realise that there is not a great deal you can do about any of this, Dear Abby, I hope that you can at least offer a little distraction and maybe even a little levity, whimsy or lightheartedness.

    Thanks in advance,
    Heavy-hearted.

    P. S. @GSJackson, please accept my apologies for not responding to your latest comments/replies. I ought to have known better than to say anything at all really – I find the whole flat-Earth thing to be a pointless distraction (and not even of the good kind I’m in need of!). I will offer just one word more to you in relation to our brief exchange – astromonology. 😉 No hard feelings I hope.

    • Replies: @gsjackson
    , @geokat62
  144. gsjackson says:
    @Kali

    Hard feelings? Toward you, none of course. You were perfectly civil and made solid points. Toward the person who jumped in pointlessly just to call me ignorant, a cult member and disgusting — well, we have a one-word button that sums up such people nicely, and there’s no need for further response.

  145. @AnonStarter

    Another flat out lie AS. I am going to continue to point them out. I know it is hard for you to believe ut the IDF and Israelis do not wish to harm Palestinians.

    The Islamic Jihad terrorist wasn’t hanged from a bulldozer like the title implies. The IDF used a bulldozer to move his body because he could have had an explosive vest. He was killed trying to plant explosives along the border.

    • Replies: @bjondo
  146. geokat62 says:
    @Kali

    Dear Abby,

    Whilst I realise that there is not a great deal you can do about any of this, Dear Abby,

    I hate to break this to you, Heavy-hearted, but your pleas to Dear Abby will have fallen on deaf ears:

    Pauline Esther “Popo” Phillips (née Friedman) … was an American advice columnist and radio show host who began the Dear Abby column in 1956…

    Pauline Friedman, nicknamed “Popo”, was born in Sioux City, Iowa to Russian Jewish immigrants Rebecca (née Rushall) and Abraham B. Friedman, owner of a chain of movie theaters.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Phillips

    • LOL: Kali
    • Replies: @Kali
  147. bjondo says:
    @Fran Taubman

    … IDF and Israelis do not wish to harm Palestinians.

    Neither harm nor theft nor meanness do Yid wish.

    Israeli settlers on Monday morning destroyed Palestinian wheat fields with poisonous chemicals near al-Sakout village in the northern Jordan Valley.

    A Palestinian bakery in the heart of Old Jerusalem has been forced to close by Israeli authorities after 60 years in business. The reason provided for the forced closure was that the bakery had been providing baked goods to Palestinian worshipers headed to Al-Aqsa Mosque to pray.

    Israeli settlers, on Sunday, continued fencing large tracts of land in the northern Jordan Valley as they chased Palestinian herders out of pastures in the area, according to local sources.

    The Qalandia airport has been closed by Israeli authorities since the outbreak of the second Intifada, in the year 2000. The Israeli Ministry of Construction and Housing is planning to build a new settlement there, to be larger than “Ma’aleh Adumim” settlement in occupied East Jerusalem.

    Israeli soldiers shot and killed, on Sunday morning, a young Palestinian man, and injured four, on Palestinian lands, in Khan Younis, in the southern part of the Gaza Strip.
    An Israeli armored bulldozer was filmed repeatedly crushing the body of the slain Palestinian with its blade, then grabbing the corpse with the blade and swinging the body back and forth in the air.
    The Israeli army claimed that its soldiers observed two Palestinians approaching the perimeter fence, before placing an explosive device. It alleged that the soldiers then rushed to the scene and fired live ammunition at the two Palestinians, causing the explosive device to explode.
    The Al-Quds Brigades, the armed wing of the Islamic Jihad, has reported that the slain Palestinian was one of its members.
    The Brigades stated that the Palestinian has been identified as Mohammad Ali Hasan an-Na’em, 27, from Khan Younis. The slain Palestinian was unarmed and wasn’t even in military attire when the soldiers attacked him, along with many residents, with their bulldozer, and live rounds.
    Israeli officials frequently make outrageous claims about Palestinians they kill, which are often proven later to be false.
    Media sources in Gaza said several Palestinians tried to reach the two Palestinians to provide them with the needed medical care and move them to a hospital, but a military bulldozer sped towards them and drove over the corpse of the slain Palestinian, before scooping it using the bulldozer’s plow.
    The second Palestinian was injured with a live round in his leg and was rushed to a hospital in Khan Younis after the Palestinians managed to evacuate him before the soldiers could reach him.
    The Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza has reported that two other Palestinians were shot and injured by Israeli army fire while attempting to help evacuate the wounded.
    Israeli sources initially quoted the army claiming its soldiers killed two Palestinians in the incident.
    Despite the military claims, a video from the scene shows the corpse of the young man on Palestinian land in an area quite a distance away from the fence.

    Eight-year-old Malek Issa on Sunday underwent a surgery in which doctors removed his left eye which was hit by an Israeli rubber-coated steel bullet about a week ago.

    Many fanatic illegal Israeli colonists attacked several Palestinian shepherds in the at-Tiwana village, near Yatta, south of the southern West Bank city of Hebron on Saturday.
    The Israeli assailants came from Havat Ma’on illegal colony, which was built on private Palestinian lands, and started hurling rocks at the shepherds.
    Israeli soldiers came to the scene but did not intervene, and instead were trying to force the Palestinian shepherds away.

    Two young men suffered injuries when a horde of Jewish settlers physically assaulted them in Ras Ein al-Auja hamlet, north of Jericho city.
    Lawyer Mahmoud al-Ghawanmeh, a resident of the hamlet, said that dozens of settlers escorted by dogs stormed the hamlet and tried to steal some sheep from local residents and beat two young men as they tried to fend them off.

    All this Yid entertainment before Yid breakfast.
    Food and drink stolen.
    Same with tables, chairs and utensils.

    For dessert Yid murders more olive trees
    and urinates into well water not yet stolen.

    5ds

  148. Kali says:
    @geokat62

    I should have guessed! LOL

    In the yUK we had our own equivalent. Trouble is I couldn’t remember how to spell her name (Deirdree or something). I went with Abby because I could spell it.

    Actually it occurred to me that UR could carry a ‘problem page’, with someone like CJ Hopkins, or even you, Geikat (!) to respond to our real or imagined issues. Something like that could bring a little levity to our daily reading.

    Thanks for your response to my silly post. 😉

    Love,
    Kali.

    • Thanks: geokat62
  149. Rurik says:
    @AnonStarter

    Hello again, AnonStarter,

    To be fair, you casually implied that having the capacity to upset or surprise God is “vanity.” I agree insofar as surprising Him is concerned, but not with regard to upsetting Him. Your statement suggests that you possess knowledge of God sufficient to determine that such conviction is vain.

    I was raised to believe that God cared very much indeed whether or not I stole a cookie out of the cookie jar, or said my prayers before bed, or a hundred other petty observances of piety that God Himself would pay very close attention to, lest He be angry with me.

    This while God didn’t seem to be interested enough in wars, where His children were flayed alive by napalm bombs, or riddled with bullet holes, all while He was paying very close attention if I ignored a chore, and played instead.

    Perhaps it was His priorities that I considered so skewed, that I wondered at His wisdom.

    Does He care if I believe in Him? Didn’t you suggest earlier, that He didn’t. And if He doesn’t, then what pray, might it be that I could do to anger Him?

    But it’s a mistake to confuse affirming knowledge of God with arrogance. It is a quite natural, instinctive human impulse to perceive that the cosmos and its comprehensively ornate and orderly composition is the handiwork of a Creator — an impulse that has remained with man since his beginnings. There is nothing arrogant about such conviction. In fact, it is rather the opposite. Knowing God breeds humility before Him.

    Perhaps the distinction is between knowing of God, vs. knowing Him by name and personal relationship.

    Wouldn’t you agree that John Hagee is an arrogant buffoon? (at best).

    Ditto the rest of these arrogant scoundrels and hucksters…

    “What if there is a Omniscient, Ominpotent, and Benevolent God who endows man with great agency to determine his worth (much as one entrusted with great power), yet man all too often inclines toward his all too mortal appetites, making life on earth more miserable for himself and others than need be?”

    Well then, doesn’t it logically follow, that His creation is flawed?

    Because the inevitable consequence of such denial is to entertain the possibility that everything which exists, in all of its terrifying yet intoxicating majesty, bears no higher purpose beyond ephemeral existence; that it is but the mathematically highly improbable, random byproduct of deaf, dumb, blind, lifeless, and unconscious particles’ perpetual collision, union, and dissolution; that the offenses and injustices too numerous to list in this vale of tears would remain invidiously unrequited; that the sufferance of good folk against the relentlessly oppressive currents of licentiousness, avarice, and inequity would draw to a heart-rendingly soul-crushing conclusion — unrecompensed and unsung.

    OK, I’m with you that such sounds terribly pointless, from that (very eloquent) perspective.

    But if we take a different tack, then life, sans a creator, is the most unlikely blessing imaginable.

    If we were put here by a God, with instructions on how to live, and why we’re here, then where’s the mystery?

    But if we simply arrived, by dint of chance, then our potentials and possibilities are as infinite, as our existence is unlikely.

    If you tell a child, ‘you were created by God, to do such and such’, then you’re perhaps circumscribing his potential, no?

    If he’s told that he was put here by God, to live his life according to the tenets of God’s proscriptions, written down by His prophets, then isn’t that sort of a boundary on that child’s imagination, for his possibilities, and his purpose on this earth?

    Just ruminating here..

    dar al-imtihan

    ‘this world is Dar al-Imtihan (a place of test or trial –

    For the others like me, who had to check it out..

    The soul instinctively pleads for justice in the wake of the world’s many inhumanities. … are right to say that it is man’s responsibility to bring about a better day to the extent he is able to do so. In this abode of examination, this dar al-imtihan, we distinguish ourselves from others to the extent we do so, joining the good company of God.

    Well, I’d like to be in that kind of God’s good graces. I also think, it’s its own reward.

    But our hands can only reach so far, and there is much injustice we will never be able to resolve, no matter our effort. God, however, is more than capable of settling such matters, and He will — with absolute equity and finality.

    I pray you are right, Sir.

    “Why everything?”

    At the end of the day, those answers are inescapably a matter of faith, which is a conclusion that the sharpened intellect will never be able to avoid.

    Or answer…

    I began my own journey to Islam by applying its mandate against backbiting, nothing more. You’d be surprised just how much this singular, simple-seeming principle transformed my outlook on people.

    As noble a reason to seek answers to human folly, as I can think of.

    though the Beatitudes are, among other lessons of Jesus ‘alaihis-salaam, a wonderful source of guidance.

    Most assuredly.

    Many would say that murderers don’t deserve capital punishment — that of itself, it is cruel and inhumane, the worst variety of harm. They contend that two wrongs don’t make a right. Those who disagree assert that allowing the crime of murder to go unpunished results in greater harm to society. Both have fair-seeming arguments, so which is correct according to the principle of “do no harm”?

    Shooting a rabid dog, isn’t ‘doing harm’. It’s doing the dog a favor. But I get how the mantra can get a bit subjective. I suppose it’s meant ‘in the first place’ sense, so that we do no harm, to others- in the first place. But if we’re harmed, then that mantra goes straight out the window.

    I ask rhetorically, because if you attempt to use the intellect alone in order to answer the question, there is no clear answer.

    Well, I thought I did a halfway decent job.

    I have always asserted that the God of Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad is one and the same God.

    The only God?

    Is Lord Rama, a God? (I heard something about Kashmir today on the radio).

    One hour of reflection upon God is worth one year of worship.

    Another haddith attributed to the Prophet, one intended to emphasize that worship is less bound to specific ritual than it is to consciousness. Essentially, all worship lies in the effort to keep good company with God. It is the protracted, sustained remembrance of Him as the Causer of Causes, the very reason for the existence of all that is, was, and shall be; the vigilant reliance upon Him in all matters, however apparently trivial or grave.

    Thank you for taking the time to edify me with your knowledge and eloquence vis-a-vis Islam, and its teachings. (I owe a debt to Talha, for his efforts along the same lines).

    There is a depth to Islam, and a earnestness, that I find compelling, when its adherents are sincere. I suppose like Christianity, on those rare occasions when its adherents, are actually sincere.

    In any case, it’s been a pleasure.

    Alhamdulillah

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  150. @Rurik

    Greetings, Rurik.

    I was raised to believe that God cared very much indeed whether or not I stole a cookie out of the cookie jar, or said my prayers before bed, or a hundred other petty observances of piety that God Himself would pay very close attention to, lest He be angry with me.

    Well, I can’t vouch for the quality of your upbringing. Some approaches to understanding God simply aren’t comprehensible to young children and they may, in fact, breed resentment if the adults raising them aren’t modeling the very piety they expect of others.

    From what you tell me, it appears as if you were reminded of God’s wrath more often than you were of His mercy, which might help to explain your current perspective.

    This while God didn’t seem to be interested enough in wars, where His children were flayed alive by napalm bombs, or riddled with bullet holes, all while He was paying very close attention if I ignored a chore, and played instead.

    But it wasn’t God who was upset at you for ignoring that chore and playing instead, was it? I’m sure you can think of at least one thing you were able to do that was supposed to “anger God” which had no apparent effect of so doing, something that your parents never discovered, right?

    Perhaps it was His priorities that I considered so skewed, that I wondered at His wisdom.

    Consider two things: your parents’ perspective isn’t necessarily representative of God’s and God’s judgment isn’t manifest completely in this worldly life.

    Does He care if I believe in Him? Didn’t you suggest earlier, that He didn’t. And if He doesn’t, then what pray, might it be that I could do to anger Him?

    We have the agency to keep faith with Him, but He doesn’t compel us to do so. The world is rife with too many examples of ambivalence toward God to require any need for proof of it.

    Does He care about it?

    If someone designs and manufactures a computer just for you, it’s fairly certain he’ll put a lot of care into the process and he’ll probably take an interest in how that machine is functioning for the duration of your ownership, even offering to maintain its efficient functionality at your request. Of course, there’s no guarantee you’ll use it in such a way that won’t infect it with viruses or cause another variety of damage to it.

    He’d probably tell you what to avoid in order to forestall the potential for such damage, but ultimately, it’s your machine. You can not care about him as you please. He’ll probably even tell you so, but, of course, the consequences are yours to bear. It’s likely you’d return to him for help if you need it, though.

    When care isn’t reciprocal, it’s the ungrateful party who suffers, not the one who cares. God gives us ourselves and everything we need to be content and expects little in return for it. If we’re unable to reciprocate even that much, we’re bound to suffer for it.

    Such is the nature of our reality.

    Perhaps the distinction is between knowing of God, vs. knowing Him by name and personal relationship.

    Absolutely.

    The former is easy. Even the polytheists of Mecca knew of God while they remained ignorant of the latter. The vast majority of Americans “believe in God,” which simply means they affirm His existence, but much of the American landscape does not evince a knowledge of God.

    Wouldn’t you agree that John Hagee is an arrogant buffoon? (at best).

    Hagee is one among many preachers who, in effect, have abandoned Christianity after being convinced of its falsity and persuaded to pledge himself to the Noahide Covenant as set forth by rabbinical authorities. He’s a zionist dupe, as are so many charlatans like him.

    Well then, doesn’t it logically follow, that His creation is flawed?

    No more than to say that any given sport is “flawed” because the potential for fouls or penalties inhere to its participants.

    God created man with the potential to forget Him. The angels complained about this before the superiority of God’s knowledge became evident to them. From our perspective, there is confusion, but only when we refuse to perceive the world as an abode of examination.

    If we were put here by a God, with instructions on how to live, and why we’re here, then where’s the mystery?

    Has humankind ceased to discover new realms and information by dint of empirical scientific endeavor? Is the perpetual phenomenon of such discovery insufficiently intriguing to you?

    Perhaps your former religion was less accommodating, but Islam doesn’t prohibit such inquiry, investigation, and discovery.

    But if we simply arrived, by dint of chance, then our potentials and possibilities are as infinite, as our existence is unlikely.

    It isn’t our potentials and possibilites that would be infinite, but rather, our ruminations about the cause of existence, which might be good fodder for science fiction, but terribly impractical as a means of personal and social administration.

    We’re currently inundated with every variety of fiction genre, from new age fantasy to dystopic speculation, awash and bloated in an ocean of imagination. It’s a natural and inevitable consequence of what you mention, a nation of daydreamers, unmoored from the realities with which most of the world concerns itself daily.

    Small wonder, then, that the electorate is as manipulated by the wonderful promises of an election season as it is …

    If you tell a child, ‘you were created by God, to do such and such’, then you’re perhaps circumscribing his potential, no?

    Only if your impression of God is a terribly onerous one for him to accept. Even I would have a problem if taking an extra cookie from the jar warranted consignment to hellfire.

    If he’s told that he was put here by God, to live his life according to the tenets of God’s proscriptions, written down by His prophets, then isn’t that sort of a boundary on that child’s imagination, for his possibilities, and his purpose on this earth?

    Sure, but you’ll find that even non-religious parents establish strict boundaries for their children, not because they want to restrict them, but because they want to protect them from potential harm. This is only natural.

    Imagination needn’t be restricted where it serves a beneficial purpose, and the scientific insurgency of the medieval Muslim world provides wonderful historical evidence of this. Yet where it yields nothing more than a nation of daydreamers, well … see my earlier example for manifest proof of its detriment.

    The hard truth is there simply isn’t that broad a range of possible vocations in our brief worldly sojourn. That’s not the way things have been since Adam and it’s not likely to change no matter how many generations pass from now until Judgment Day. There may be some professions which a devoted Muslim would steer clear of — pornographer, interest-charging moneylender, or liquor store proprietor, to name a few — but I’d say most non-Muslim parents would rather their children find alternatives to these.

    In any event, most professions are acceptable in Islam.

    I also think, it’s its own reward.

    It bears a taste of the garden’s fruit. This is what you savor. Now imagine it intensified exponentially …

    I pray you are right, Sir.

    As surely as you are reading this passage.

    At the end of the day, those answers are inescapably a matter of faith, which is a conclusion that the sharpened intellect will never be able to avoid.
    Or answer…

    Not so, since the intellect’s acknowledgement of faith’s necessity may lead one to keep faith, which is effectively an answer.

    As noble a reason to seek answers to human folly, as I can think of.

    I had learned that, with some limited exceptions, Islam proscribes backbiting irrespective of its truth. When I tried applying this, refusing to speak ill of a roommate in the presence of another, it resulted in a profound change in the dynamics of our household. The backbiting individual began warming up to his erstwhile target and it appeared that I was the new topic of discussion when absent from them.

    No good deed goes unpunished, at least among most men.

    Well, I thought I did a halfway decent job.

    It isn’t bad, though there’s also great potential for interpreting perceived “harm” as adversity which affects oneself first and foremost; in which case, it’s not conducive to the benefit that one derives from fasting or other kinds of self-abnegation, for example.

    The only God?

    Yes.

    Can’t vouch for any others. The meta-god hypothesis (an endless concatenation of successively greater “gods” creating subordinates) requires a minimum of one to be true. That’s all we need. Just one.

    Any more would be superfluous when one has all the power and knowledge.

    Thank you for taking the time to edify me with your knowledge and eloquence vis-a-vis Islam, and its teachings. (I owe a debt to Talha, for his efforts along the same lines).

    There is a depth to Islam, and a earnestness, that I find compelling, when its adherents are sincere. I suppose like Christianity, on those rare occasions when its adherents, are actually sincere.

    In any case, it’s been a pleasure.

    You’ve been very patient with me and I appreciate your willingness to discuss such matters as most folks avoid like the plague. I also enjoy your candor immensely. You’ve got a whale of a heart, Rurik. May it remain so.

    Alhamdulillah

    Ameen!

    One more thing: I want you to raid the cookie jar tonight. Take whatever you want.

    Oh, and don’t forget the milk.

    • Replies: @Kali
  151. Cuddliest Love Ever…

    • Thanks: Talha
  152. So…so much for the Milwaukee Brewery shooting.

    Shooter’s been identified. American black — move along.

  153. Miro23 says:

    US Marine Corps leadership bans the Confederate Flag February 2020 at all bases worldwide.

    What if USMC troops don’t continue to bend to the Progressive agenda?

    From the article:

    Top Marine official bans Confederate-era paraphernalia at all Corps bases worldwide

    Prohibiting Confederate symbols is just one part of Berger’s forward-moving agenda. The Commander General also ordered leaders to find more combat roles for women, extend parental leave policies to same-sex couples, and consider year-long maternity leave for new mothers, according to Military.com.

    Richard Kohn, a history professor who studies peace, war and defense at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill told Military.com that modernizing the Marine Corps is long overdue, but necessary.

    “We have the need within the country to try and create as much unity as possible and to suppress white nationalism and racism within the ranks of the military because, every once in a while, it crops up and causes an issue,” Kohn said.

    https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/militarykind/2020/02/27/confederate-flag-banned-marine-bases-worldwide/4897206002/

    • Replies: @bjondo
    , @Anon
  154. bjondo says:
    @Miro23

    Understandable ban.
    Who from the South joins the Marines?

    Acceptable flag – Star and Bars.
    Old Glory OK if going into actual battle.

    5ds

    • Replies: @bjondo
  155. Anon[147] • Disclaimer says:
    @Miro23

    Names check out.

  156. bjondo says:
    @bjondo

    Commandant Berger also indicated
    metal battlefield helmets out.

    New battle headgear: kippers.
    Battle colors: olive drab, Iraqi-sand brown.

    Parade dress head wear: Light blue kipper with ringlets.

    5ds

    • Replies: @bjondo
  157. Anon[165] • Disclaimer says:
    @Miro23

    NATO knew that the communist style extreme social liberalism would lead to Right wing incubation and backlash.

    In fact, the institutional globalist extremism was so irrational that its primary role can only be seen as instigation of reaction.

    Don’t allow their pearl clutching and faux shock to dictate perspective.

    What they want to is frame a controlled process as organic and unpredictable, with an unpredictable outcome.

    Its similar to how the American press tries to control national political sentiment, via the creation and control of scandal, in the two years leading up to any presidential election. It wants use to see such scandal as organic, and that they are just reporting on it, when the fact is that they actively and purposefully create the scandal to effect their desired political outcomes.

    Similarly, the outcomes of liberal social extremism are planned by institutional globalism and are therefore predicted by them and predictable by anyone else. Especially the outcome of Right Wing growth and backlash.

    See the Jewish books (I recommend the Zohar) for the initial stages of that planned outcome, and the Christian books for the later stages. The initial stages outline a worldwide genocide, and the later stages the resolve that event into a post-technological New Eden.

    2,500+ years of zealous belief and agenda did not dissipate with either of the Martin Luthers nor Marx.

    That history was baked in and the locusts have been arising from the pit for some time now as a result. They are being given power, as scorpions of the Earth have power.

    None of what will continue to occur is organic nor the least bit unpredictable.

    Calling out their theater is perhaps what will annoy them the most.

    As this silly show is religious belief for them and, above all else, they require it to continue as a believable organic process (their planned actions being seen as a naturally occurring fulfillment of prophecy).

    So I recommend calling out this clumsy theater as the best tactic above all others.

    For example, the official narrative is that somehow Europe lacks the capability to stop primitive peoples from flooding into it. This is obvious nonsense. However, the fulfillment of prophecy dictates that such a catastrophe not be seen as planned but is organic and inevitable. So this obvious lie is forced upon the public, who is made to swallow a widely known lie if they are not to be outcast from society.

    If everyone were to stop believing that rapeugee influx into Europe were anything but an actively facilitated attempt to fulfill Jewish religious prophecy, which is in essence pulling back the curtain, then they would no longer be able to ascribe what is occurring to prophecy fulfillment and the entire mechanism loses its desired effect.

    Again, that effect being the impression of an unstoppable force that will lead to mass genocide followed by false salvation via a false (Jewish) Messiah followed by real salvation by a Real One.

  158. bjondo says:
    @bjondo

    Commandant Berger continued:
    “Humvees, jeep-type vehicles no longer to be used.”

    “Marines will now ride
    reddish heifers for transport.”

    New-type marines will be
    allowed to mount rainbow heifers.

    Such is the new life.

    5ds

  159. RWS says:
    @anonymous

    Why not simply guard the borders? That could in time result in a stable population, which itself would negate need for additional housing (beyond replacement of damaged stock, of course).

    It’s not a complete solution, but I see nothing in keeping with current American law that is.

  160. Nu?

    ‘In the Qatari capital of Doha, America’s top diplomat will stand with leaders of the Taliban, Afghanistan’s former rulers who harbored Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network as they plotted, and then celebrated, the hijackings of four airliners that were crashed into lower Manhattan, the Pentagon and a field in western Pennsylvania, killing almost 3,000 people.’

    We’re still good friends with Israel as well. What’s the problem?

  161. bjondo says:

    Article last year.
    Not mentioned: Excellent Nazi camp healthcare and reduced stress for inmates.

    Holocaust Paradox: Long Lives for Those Who Survived

    My elementary school teacher taught that those who emerged from the horrors of the camps would die young. A reasonable assumption, but wrong.
    By Peter R. Orszag January 28, 2019 (bloomberg opinion. pay for article if you want)
    The strong survived.

    Sunday was Holocaust Remembrance Day, causing me to think about an assertion I heard from an elementary school teacher. She said that even those who survived the Holocaust were so debilitated that the rest of their lives would be short. As with many things I learned in elementary school, the reality is more complicated, and my 10-year-old self would be glad to know that my teacher was probably more wrong than right.

    Living through a horrendous event, like confinement in a concentration camp or prisoner-of-war camp, does create health problems serious enough to shorten most people’s lives. But those who survive also seem to have other characteristics — perhaps a stronger immune system and a more optimistic outlook than the general population — that tend to make people live longer.

    Longer lives and so many lived. In fact, more survived than were imprisoned, so it seems.

    5ds

  162. Jetman Vince Reffet Takes off over Dubai, Feb 14…

    People have wings. They just don’t know it.

    Vive la France! Vive l’Esprit!

  163. bjondo says:

    Just heard a POS has died.

    POS destroyed a great corporation.
    Unemployed thousands when he was the worst employee.
    A smug, arrogant, ignorant, intensely greedy, evil, shit.
    A traitor to America who belonged in Guantanamo.
    Send his carcass to China to be fed to pigs.
    He sent jobs there. We send his rotted corpse.

    Jack Welch, who seriously harmed America,died 60 years too late.

    5 dancing shlomos

    • Agree: Miro23
  164. That dilemma’s solved, anyway.

    Amazon has reversed its ‘free shipping for Jews only’ policy for the West Bank.

  165. Presidents Putin and Lukashenko (Belarus) Tour Transfiguration Monastery, Valaam Island

    Спаси и сохрани.

  166. I have a request for any memers out there:

    I want a meme replacing “fake and gay” with “that’s so Jewish”- this approach was used inadvertently on “Gingers” and they’ve never recovered. The Jews who aren’t subversive, underhanded, meddling, dishonest, and spiteful should be ashamed of those that are in their ranks, just as IKAGO blacks should of theirs (if they plan on associating positively with white people on a daily basis).

    “In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

    -MLK jr.

    “Our lives are fashioned by our choices. First we make our choices. Then our choices make us.”

    -“Anne Frank”, a girl who became a first rate writer with little formal training/schooling after receiving “her” diary at the age of thirteen. I wonder why people downplay her prodigy.

    All of the Jewish/Marxist meddling comes down to being astroturf fake to the 10th power combined with a sinister and covert agenda against the white race at large. Hence the label, “fake and gay”.

    “That’s so Jewish” doesn’t use any pejoratives, it just (rightly) frames the word Jewish as one.

    It could easily be used to cover the following descriptors: manipulative, phony, underhanded, spiteful, mean-spirited, Bloombergish, f*cked up, lame, contrived, PC, etc. Generally it would describe sh*tty behavior that isn’t approved of.

    I can easily see the black and brown hordes that they have led against us picking up and happily using this new slang, as all other races could sympathize with the joke.

  167. Kali says:
    @AnonStarter

    Hello AnonStarter.

    Finally I have time, space and Internet connection (the three together being a rare thing for me these days) to communicate my response to your comments on the nature of God and faith. I hope you don’t mind my butting in!

    First let me say that I very much appreciate the time you take and efforts you go to on this platform to describe your own perspective and to share your religious interpretations of life and God with us.

    Personally I know far too little about the Muslim perspective/religion so am very grateful that you, Talya and others take time and care to explain it. Thank you.

    Does He care about it?

    If someone designs and manufactures a computer just for you, it’s fairly certain he’ll put a lot of care into the process and he’ll probably take an interest in how that machine is functioning for the duration of your ownership, even offering to maintain its efficient functionality at your request. Of course, there’s no guarantee you’ll use it in such a way that won’t infect it with viruses or cause another variety of damage to it.

    Sadly, this analogy flies in the face of my own personal experience.
    God gave me life, and certainly made me perfect, including ensuring that I had the strength and courage I would later need to overcome the “viruses” which, not my misuse, but misuse by others brought to bare on my perfect soul.

    The “god” of the world’s religions, though I was told “he” loved me and wanted me for a sunbeam, by all of the standards of love that I now know, did not love me. “He” in fact, created a living hell, and a hell in the afterlife for me and all who do not manage to overcome the “original sin” with which “he” afflicted us.

    He’d probably tell you what to avoid in order to forestall the potential for such damage, but ultimately, it’s your machine.

    When damage is inflicted by external sources, and when God itself is presented as some external “other” requiring obedience, the child, or man or woman, may have caused to reject, or even hate, such a “god”.

    And though, in my experience, God does exist and holds nothing but infinite love for all creation, this religious “god” falls short of either honouring or explaining such infinite love.

    I grew up with a church-going, Christian mother (and thank God for her) which meant that I was a church-going child.
    I will not recount my childhood experiences here. Suffice it to say that because of those experiences I was plagued by nightmares. It was these nightmares which brought me, by some miracle, to an understanding/recognition of a God which is unbound by the religious dogma which anthropromorphesises and maculinises It.

    One night, when I was around 8 years old I woke from a nightmare so bad I can still remember the details. There was no way I was going back to sleep after that, so I sat up in bed, leaned on the windowsill and gazed at the moon, which happened to be almost full that night.

    I have no idea how long I sat there. But that night I felt, for the first time in my life, that I was, though a tiny spec in the universe, and integral part of the whole. Suddenly, for the first time, I KNEW GOD, and I knew that I mattered, that I was loved.

    I think, knowing what I do now, that that was my first experience of meditation, of “no-mind”. And that one single experience sustained me until the age of 13. I knew, at least until I was 13, that God loved me and that, somehow I mattered.

    Of course, with my childlike understanding, I morphed the God I knew with the “god” of the church until I became old enough to distinguish one from the other.

    But it was not the God of the religions who saved me, it was the infinite God of my own soul, and of yours.

    And though my certainty of God’s love was shattered a few years later, that profound glimps of God, or my remembrance of it, was enough to ensure my later healing from viruses which I did not bring on myself.

    The external god of rules and judgements, concocted by the levites, and accepted in good faith by jews, Muslims and Christians, is not the God that I know, even though this notion of God does bring peace to many a disturbed mind.

    As a very wise man once said, the Tao that can be writen (the God that can be reduced?) is not the Tao.

    It is through meditation, a practice of silencing the mind, that I find and experience the endless, infinite love which is the centre of my being.

    The external god of the levites is the one I rage against whenever I loose my way.

    With much love and gratitude,
    Kali.

    • Replies: @Kali
  168. Kali says:
    @Kali

    I cut that comment a little short when the world came home to disturb my contemplations .

    Next time I may expound on the practice of meditation. 😉

  169. anon[305] • Disclaimer says:

    Israeli Professor Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian revealed yesterday that the Israeli occupation authorities issues permits to large pharmaceutical firms to carry out tests on Palestinian and Arab prisoners, Felesteen.ps reported.

    The Hebrew University lecturer also revealed that the Israeli military firms are testing weapons on Palestinian children and carry out these tests in the Palestinian neighbourhoods of occupied Jerusalem.

    Speaking in Columbia University in New York City, Shalhoub-Kevorkian said that she collected the data while carrying out a research project for the Hebrew University.

    “Palestinian spaces are laboratories,” she said. “The invention of products and services of state-sponsored security corporations are fueled by long-term curfews and Palestinian oppression by the Israeli army.”

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-pharmaceutical-firms-test-medicines-on-palestinian-prisoners/5669606

    • Thanks: Art
    • Replies: @BDS Always
  170. [Continued from “Why does Netanyahu Keep Winning?”]

    I appreciate the admonition to avoid vain contention.

    To those who prefer good manners, it is easy to determine when the tone of a conversation becomes less than civil. Sometimes it’s glaringly obvious; on other occasions, we find it between the lines. Because the manner of our discourse matters, I discontinued the exchange with Assad.

    That said, had he been able to keep it civil, I don’t see that most contributors here would have much of an argument against our dialogue, since there are far too many examples of far less edifying and more contentious off-topic banter across most discussion threads. I suppose I could strive to redirect every one of my own conversations to this thread, which has been made available for such purposes, but I’m not sure that’s necessary.

    Perhaps Mr. Unz could provide us with some counsel in this respect, though I don’t want to burden him with the obligation of producing too many guidelines. The free flow of commentary appears to be an integral feature of the forum rather than a bug, so it appears that self-regulation will continue to be the means by which we maintain good conversation, however off-topic it may be.

    was-salaam.

    • Replies: @Talha
  171. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    Because the manner of our discourse matters, I discontinued the exchange with Assad. That said, had he been able to keep it civil

    Well, herein lies the rub. The issue is not that there shouldn’t be a civil discussion exploring these things, but I’ve seen how these things get when you converse with certain types of personalities. In the end, there is nothing gained except the names of Companions (ra) being dragged through the mud on these forums and it just creates useless noise for everyone else.

    there are far too many examples of far less edifying and more contentious off-topic banter across most discussion threads.

    Sure, but just because others are flinging poo at each other in some other room, doesn’t necessarily mean it is of any benefit to do the same in the room you’re in.

    Wa salaam.

    • Replies: @BDS Always
  172. The issue is not that there shouldn’t be a civil discussion exploring these things, but I’ve seen how these things get when you converse with certain types of personalities.

    Those things are just an indication that civil discussion with these individuals is not possible.

    Setting aside Assad, I’ve used the posts of some contentious individuals as a foil by which to inform the readership. You’ve done this on countless occasions as well, and rather effectively at that, alhamdulillah. Insofar as “flinging poo” is concerned, I simply don’t reciprocate in kind, and I’d certainly appreciate it if anyone here could demonstrate otherwise.

    The point is that off-topic conversation is de rigueur here. If we want to establish some kind of personal guideline for discussing what is manifestly off-topic, perhaps we could simply move the conversation here — the potential for it to become significantly protracted might warrant this.

    Still, I don’t see that it matters too much whether it moves here or not, so long as a thread doesn’t get too cluttered by such dialogue and the discussion remains civil.

    was-salaam.

    • Replies: @Talha
  173. @anon

    Why my does that not suprise me.
    Those evil parasites squatting on stolen Palestinian land are a bunch of evil feckers!

  174. @Talha

    Thank you for the useful information.
    I have experienced good interactions with Muslims both living in England and the differant countries that I have visited.
    To be frank I have my doubts about Asad. Just a feeling I have that he might not be who he claims to be. He gets on too well with Fran and says some things that do not sit well with me

    • Agree: Assad al-islam
  175. Talha says:
    @BDS Always

    Thank you for the useful information.

    Most welcome – any time.

    Both of them (Fran, Assad) are on my ignore list to be honest. I see part of their comments when others quote them, like AnonStarter did.

    Just a feeling I have that he might not be who he claims to be.

    “Assad” is a guy who has returned under multiple identities (Tammy, Akbar Ali, Hercule Poirot, Jeffery Cohen) ; always trying to start a fight with me in particular about Sunni/Shiah debating points. As per the advice of my teachers, I have ignored it. And then I started ignoring him because it was just getting on my nerves and he has a right to his opinions, but not my time.

    He has been kicked off by the moderators multiple times and warned many, many times for diverting threads int Sunni/Shiah debates.

    Do with that info what you will.

    Peace.

    • LOL: Assad al-islam
    • Replies: @Assad al-islam
  176. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    Insofar as “flinging poo” is concerned, I simply don’t reciprocate in kind

    Solid policy to abide by. It only reflects poorly on the person flinging it and their hands get dirty.

    Still, I don’t see that it matters too much whether it moves here or not, so long as a thread doesn’t get too cluttered by such dialogue and the discussion remains civil.

    Yeah, it’s not really a hard and fast rule I want to establish. I was just personally doing it out of respect for others because I felt I came in very late into the conversation and didn’t feel it was right to steer it off topic as the first thing I did. Which is why I made use of the MORE tag – which is quite useful to be honest and saves others time. And the people actually interested in what you have to say (when it is so off topic) can simply click/tap and see what it is.

    Wa salaam.

    • Thanks: AnonStarter
  177. @BDS Always

    To be frank I have my doubts about Asad. Just a feeling I have that he might not be who he claims to be. He gets on too well with Fran and says some things that do not sit well with me

    fYI. It took a while for me to recall, but I have encountered Assad before, on UR. He is a phony. With his blessed Hashem and blessed sister. If you catch him in a lie and confront him the blessed talk stops. He is all Ali all the time. At the end of my conversation he was calling me girly not sister.
    I watched the Sheikh Imran Hosein video. He sounded very devoutly Jewish. Devout religious Muslims and devout religious Jews sound similar, a little nutty (just the religious guys) Islam has evil monarchs and are socialist. The Jews have no leaders and are capitalist. I think Muslims hate capitalism not Zionist.
    I am sure if the Jews had evil monarchs, wore robes and hung out in the dessert on the poor side of the track, and stoped dealing in the world of finance we would all get along just fine. On the religious side I see no difference. It seems Islam needs a structure to take care of their people the Umah), at least the Arab Muslims. The Jews are just free floating.

    Well it is about time for Colin to show up so I bid you a good night.

    • Agree: Assad al-islam
    • Replies: @Assad al-islam
  178. @Fran Taubman

    He is all Ali all the time. At the end of my conversation he was calling me girly not sister.

    Very true! I have seen you evolve and became a God fearing good Jew. Yes, Shalom sister as you have become a very moral person by separating the damned State of Israel from Judaism.

    Even if we leave “B” in the Brahma and the Brahman. We get “with Mercy” and “with Merciful”! Check out both Hebrew and Arabic. The 3 letters root, “RMH” is womb where the life takes place and from where God’s Mercy initiates. Check out the name Rahm Emanuel and what does it means?

    There is only One Creator, and we approach the same Creator differently. In Islam, both Moses and Jesus are vessels to Elohim for their adherents!

    I have few more question for you, as my learning quest continues. According the Jewish Moderator, he used to claim that, “Creator cannot be creation”. We didn’t get to around this as the forum shut down due to lack of funding. As Shia Muslims we also believe that the Creator cannot be creation. And, everything one sees around is creation including the Quran (Scripture). Of course, this include emotions too as these are creations too. What is the belief of Judaism regarding this. If emotions are not creation, is God fearful sometimes? Fear is one of the emotions!

    Blessed be HaShem! (Blessed be The Name)!

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  179. @BDS Always

    To be frank I have my doubts about Asad. Just a feeling I have that he might not be who he claims to be. He gets on too well with Fran and says some things that do not sit well with me

    Hi there,

    Can you please list those things that do not sit well with you? So, that I can learn and be careful in the future.

    Many thanks in advance!

  180. @Assad al-islam

    I am the same person that I was before. I have not separated from Israel. Many people in my family are engaged in Torah study in Israel which is a very holy place filled with Torah study, on every corner. Do you know how much Torah study is going on in Israel.
    Israel is involved with a Jihad agains Islam, they are fighting for sovereignty over it’s ancient homeland and holy sights. Muslims and Jews are engaged in a struggle over the homeland of the Jewish people as described in the OT, the NT and the Q’ran.

    • Agree: Assad al-islam
    • Replies: @Assad al-islam
  181. Art says:

    (BITCHon)

    Just heard the nauseating vulture, Chuck Schumer pick the bones of the virus sick for political gain. What a bastard!

    Leave it to a Jew, to cheer-lead negativity in America – he is a totally disgusting human being!

    (BITCHoff)

  182. @Fran Taubman

    I am the same person that I was before. I have not separated from Israel. Many people in my family are engaged in Torah study in Israel which is a very holy place filled with Torah study, on every corner. Do you know how much Torah study is going on in Israel.

    Shalom,

    Thank you sister for being so candid. No, I don’t want to separate you from Israel, and nice to know so much Torah study is going on in Israel. Hopefully, you separate Torah from Naviim, Ketuvim and Talmud as people say the problem lies in these books and not Torah, especially in Talmud.

    Israel and Jews are there to stay, so are the Palestinians. Since, Palestinians are the injured party, why don’t Israel offer them a peace plan in open which they cannot refuse. Why have secret negotiations and the same time keep on building settlements, thus devouring all the land! I am from Oman, and we have an Isreal Embassy in Oman which is shut, and I would like it to be opened. The property for the embassy belongs to the country of the embassy.

    Netanyahu with Sara recently visited Oman. Rabin visited Oman several times, and his last visit was six months before he was murdered. He chose the embassy plot and building. It was supposed to be opened when the peace agreement was signed, but alas he was murdered!

    Prince of Peace Jesus saying, “those who live with sword will perish with sword”.

    Blessed be haShem!

    P.S. Can you please answer the questions about Judaism, which I have raised in my post #185 to you, so to quench my thirst for knowledge!

    • Replies: @bjondo
    , @Fran Taubman
  183. bjondo says:
    @Assad al-islam

    Do you occupy same cubicle as FTaubman?

    Hopefully, you separate Torah from Naviim, Ketuvim and Talmud as people say the problem lies in these books and not Torah, especially in Talmud.

    Talmud is many volumes of hate and ugliness

    but,

    Torah is basis for Israel and hate and
    chosenness and the right to do every
    evil act desired by spawn of the devil.

    If you aren’t another Israeli BSer
    speaking from your ass and laughing,
    then you are a misguided, naive Omani
    embracing foolishness.

    5 dancing shlomos

    • Agree: BDS Always
    • Replies: @Assad al-islam
  184. @Assad al-islam

    I have few more question for you, as my learning quest continues. According the Jewish Moderator, he used to claim that, “Creator cannot be creation”. We didn’t get to around this as the forum shut down due to lack of funding. As Shia Muslims we also believe that the Creator cannot be creation. And, everything one sees around is creation including the Quran (Scripture). Of course, this include emotions too as these are creations too. What is the belief of Judaism regarding this. If emotions are not creation, is God fearful sometimes? Fear is one of the emotions!

    This is a complex question. The kind that books are written on and the quick answer is above my pay grade. Spiritually there is very little difference between Islam and Judaism, only in the implementation and management, and Judaism’s exclusivity problem.

    From my limited perspective the creator can not be the creation. Human emotions like love are part of the spiritual realm and not tangible material substance. In Judaism the soul is divided into the material and the spiritual. It is up to each individual to connect with the divine to lift the spiritual and provide substance like food, form the metaphysical. The metaphysical is the realm of emotions. And Judaism is built as a way to manage emotions. If we let our emotions rule us we would be reduced to rag dolls being pulled in any direction at momentary shifts in emotion. So the emotion of fear takes huge discipline and connection to the divine to overcome, as well as lust and other emotions. As you can see without Hashem and Allah people run pretty amok with their emotions and end up being quite depraved.

    As to weather Hashem feels fear. I have no idea. From what I can tell Hashem cannot control evil impulses. Like the plaques in Egypt. Why didn’t Hashem skip to the last plaque. Why all the build up. The answer given in the Midrash is that the Egyptians had to reach their full measure of evil.
    So apparently Hashem could not control the measurement of evil. How much he can control I do not understand.

    • Replies: @Assad al-islam
  185. Full Spectrum Exuberance by Roots Master Justin Johnson…

  186. bjondo says:

    We are the people of shit.
    We have a god-given right to be shit.

    Though our god is small, incomplete,
    some would say a carney huckster snake
    in the poison weeds, he gives his
    chosen the right to be shit:

    https://alethonews.com/2020/03/10/maiming-palestinians-for-sport-is-a-war-crime/

    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-42-knees-in-one-day-israeli-snipers-open-up-about-shooting-gaza-protesters-1.8632555

    Let’s hear it for the Torah-created shit.

    5 dancing shlomos

  187. @Fran Taubman

    Shalom Fran,

    Thanks for your reply. In Hebrew the definite article is Ha (ha) and in Arabic it is Al (al). Eloh and Ilah are same word and mean the same thing, meaning God. Therefore, when the definite article Al is added to Ilah it becomes Allah. Jews write Elohim for Eloh out of respect and Elohim is a Semitic plural meaning three or more. Without the vowels Eloh is written as Elo and El. Both Muslims and Jews believe that Elohim is the Creator of both Good and Evil.

    Shia believe that everything we see around is creation, including Emotions, Time, Space and so forth and the Creator cannot be creation. Als0, Allah has no body, shape, spirit, image and so forth. Thus, Elohim cannot have Emotions such as Love, Hate, Fear, Prejudice and so forth. So Allah didn’t choose Jews for choosiness. He chose them for the message, when others failed. Even the Jews failed, so he chose the Arabs to carry the message!

    Body, spirit, image, shape requires Space and the Space is creation like Time. Where was Elohim was before He Created the Space. Again Elohim (Allah) is the Creator of Time, therefore Allah is everywhere and for Him everywhere is NOW. No past nor future, only NOW everywhere. Thus due to this Shia believe in Freewill and the Sunni believe in Predestination. But the Freewill is subject to the Will of Elohim. I am thirsty and go to get water to quench my thirst, but on the way I have heart attack and die.

    If one says that, “From what I can tell Hashem cannot control evil impulses.”, then Elohim is not a God who doesn’t control everything. We get into dualism.

    Yes to Shia, it is Ali, Ali and the progeny of the Prophet through his only surviving daughter Fatima and his cousin Ali. The spirituality in Shia is called Irfan (Irfani) and in Sunni it is Sufi. The Sufi are Ali, Ali too. To them Ali is their spiritual leader and the caliphs are political leaders.

    God have Mercy on all His Creation as He is the Rabbi (Sustainer) of all His Creation!

  188. @bjondo

    If you aren’t another Israeli BSer
    speaking from your ass and laughing,
    then you are a misguided, naive Omani
    embracing foolishness.

    I am just showing Fran and others on this forum that we Muslims mean PEACE! You can Google that recently Netanyahu and Sara came to Oman to visit our Late Sultan Qaboos (God have Mercy on him) but unfortunately Israel don’t want Peace and keeps on building Settlements to devour all the land. Our Sultan recently died, you can Google this too. He was very benevolent ruler. Even India and Modi shut down everything for one day (24 hours) in his respect.

    Iran including all the Arabs have said that if the Palestinians except Peace, they will accept Peace too. If Iran doesn’t then what a good way to isolate Iran in front of the world! Iran is no threats to anyone, as they are very backward country under all those sanctions. They get all their technology from Russia, and from USA too through Russia!

  189. bjondo says:

    I am just showing Fran and others on this forum that we Muslims mean PEACE!

    Why?

    Jew/Israel wants Muslims dead.
    Jew wants all the land, water, oil.
    Jew wants you and your smile gone.
    Judaized West wants what Jew wants
    plus control of oil and seaways.

    Torah you forgot.

    Torah gives Judaizm gives diseased
    belief system gives diseased minds
    gives problems we have now.

    And you want to show them you are nice!

    Fran and her ilk want dogs.
    The idiot others are brainwashed by the likes of Fran.

    5ds

  190. @bjondo

    It is too bad you feel that way. I have found that all people are the same, and most religious text teach the same. It is individual people that corrupt and create problems, not one group in particular.
    There are good and bad Jews as Muslims.
    I enjoy conversing with Muslims and others on this site to find common ground and maybe eliminate misconceptions. Islam and Judaism are very similar. I find Islam does not recognize Judaism as equal to Islam which is a problem.
    There is nothing in our Torah or Talmud that evil. It is a history and story of humanities attempt to get close to a divine being.

    • Agree: Assad al-islam
    • Replies: @Assad al-islam
  191. Miro23 says:

    From Michael McCaffrey on RT and the other side of Hollywood –

    Hollywood movie peasants like me are the real victims as coronavirus time bomb ticks off film after film

    The reality is that people working in the entertainment industry ecosystem are just as poorly situated financially as the rest of Americans, 40 percent of whom do not have the savings to afford a $400 emergency.

    While Tom Cruise has a $100 million rainy day fund, Hollywood’s plebeians do not get sick days, rarely if ever get unemployment, and are perpetually saddled with financial and employment insecurity.

    They are also burdened not only by exorbitant L.A. housing costs but also by overpriced and under-performing health insurance when they are lucky enough to have any insurance at all.

    Coronavirus slowing down or stopping film and TV production is a cataclysm for Hollywood’s proletarian backbone. The desperation here is already palpable as the stark reality for those living paycheck-to-paycheck is starting to sink in. The 60,000 homeless people already living in filth on the streets of L.A. are a constant and stark reminder of how quickly things can go bad.

  192. @Fran Taubman

    Islam and Judaism are very similar. I find Islam does not recognize Judaism as equal to Islam which is a problem.

    Wrong! Islam consider all religions to be very similar and equal, not just Judaism and Islam. All religions are same including Hinduism and Buddhists. Terms like “Idol Worshipers” and “Pagans” are very derogatory.

    Shalom!

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  193. @Assad al-islam

    What does the word Infidel mean? Why does Islam bully Jews over our holy sites like the tomb of the patriarchs in Hebron, and the temple mount in Jerusalem.
    Islam’s holy sites are Mecca and Medina. Al Aqsa is Islam’s third holiest site. Jerusalem and the Temple mount are Judaism’s one and holy site. If you look at our Torah and bible, Israel and Jerusalem are every other word. Judaism’s spiritual substance is physical space of Jerusalem.

    You say Islam recognizes other religions and holy sites. Why not our holy sites? The tomb of the Patriarchs our patriarchs when managed by Islam would stop Jews at the steps of Mosque the Muslims built over the tomb? They will not allow Jews to enter the tomb?The temple mount where Mohammed flew to heaven. Mohammed never visited Jerusalem when alive. Jerusalem was the seat of two Jewish temples that each stood for 400 years.

    All you hear from Shia is Al Quds!!! Al Quds. Why the fight over our holy sites? Many many Muslims and religious leaders from Islam refuse to acknowledge that the temples lie under Al Aqsa. Why?

  194. @Fran Taubman

    What does the word Infidel mean?

    Shalom,

    Infidel is an English word and not Arabic. It is as derogatory as “idol worshiper” and “pagan”. Quran is discouraged to be translated. Most of the translations by the individuals are more than 100 years old and translated with Wahhabi agenda. The most selling English translated Quran in the USA is by N. J. Dawood. Again, a very old translation. He is also a Iraqi Jew with a greater agenda. All Qurans are translated verse by verse, his translations are four to five verses, running into each other.

    I believe you are internally battling between Judaism and the Evil State of Isreal, and the rest is smoke screen. The land belongs to Palestinians, and it is as paramount to Red (Native) Indians claiming the entire USA.

    The Jews were uprooted from Palestine by Byzantines. The second Caliph Omar had a Jew as his most trusted adviser who had converted to Islam. Omar didn’t make a move, without the Jew guiding him for Power and Mammon, he allowed the Jews to come back to Palestine for Dhimmi tax. He was the very first Caliph who spread Islam by SWORD for Power and Mammon.

    Though, there is good news on the horizon. Rivlin to tap Gantz to form next government, his office says: https://www.ynetnews.com/article/Hk0YeAoS8 as Gantz has 61 vote behind him to form the government. Lately, all the air is out of Netanyahu and he looks very, very scared!

    I am sure some of the Likudnik will abandon ship as the rats always abandon the sinking ship!

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  195. Art says:

    The liberal permanent state failed America – not the Trump administration.

    The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) took the wrong tact on testing for a pandemic – period. South Korea did pandemic testing right – NOT the CDC. What the CDC created was faulty. It had regulations that stopped the US health systems, from doing the right method of testing. The CDC is part of the permanent state, funded (with oversight) by congress.

    Chuck Schumer has been an elected member of congress for 22 years – Pelosi for 33 years — Trump for 3 years.

    Schumer and Pelosi had 55 years of oversight on the CDC – as leaders they have responsibility for the CDC screwups – NOT Trump!

    For Schumer and Pelosi to dump on Trump for CDC failures is total BS!

    The liberal elite and their permanent state have left the American people defenseless.

    • Agree: bjondo
  196. @Assad al-islam

    Well we can disagree about land ownership. For sure there were Arabs living there not known as Palestinians at that time. There were Jews living there as well albeit a smaller community.
    The land was divided between Arab and Jews. The Jews accepted it and the Arabs did not. There was a war. All the Arab Jews got thrown out of Muslim countries came to Israel. All the Arabs were but into refugee camps instead of making them citizens like in Lebanon etc. Finally they did in Jordan.
    The land was split with the larger portion going to the Arabs and the smaller portion to the Jews.
    What is unfair about that?
    No one is giving the native Americans back their land. The Arabs lost. The land was conquered by the Jews much the way Islam conquered its lands or the Ottomans their land. That is the way of the world conquer and divide
    All of Arabia is Muslim a tiny line on the map is Jewish. There is no more left in Israel their is only right and more right. I agree with you that Netanyahu has been in power too long.

    Peace will come brother when Islam accepts the sovereignty of Israel as a Jewish state, and abandons a Palestinian state which was a made up country from the beginning.

    • Replies: @Assad al-islam
  197. bjondo says:

    Israel, We Won’t Forget Rachel

    On March 16th, an Israeli soldier* driving a bulldozer two-stories high crushed to death 23-year-old Rachel Corrie, an American nonviolent human rights protestor. According to numerous witnesses and photographic documentation, she was killed intentionally.

    Israel has killed Americans before. (And thousands since.)

    https://ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/corrie.html

    https://ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/corrie-articles.html

    *Yid parasite

    5 dancing shlomos

  198. bjondo says:

    T-shirts, coffee mugs for sale.

    “I was here the day the earth stood still.”

    5ds

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  199. @bjondo

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers

    T-shirts, coffee mugs for sale.

    “I was here the day the earth stood still.”

    *1100 bs

    * 1100 Israeli’s blown to bits by suicide bombs in 2000. By all accounts intentionally.

    *Murderers every last one to the tunnels they build to Jewish schools to kill Jewish children.

  200. bjondo says:

    From a diseased belief system,
    diseased minds with lies and
    deceptions for brain cells.

    Humans may care for Gengis Khan,
    Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Lincoln

    but,

    humans do not care for
    diseased parasites determined
    to control, destroy, suck bloodless
    the human race.

    No one cares for these parasites, some 2500 years old.

    Other:

    any one know the fund raising methods
    of universities in countries not USA?

    Are they constantly fund raising, harassing
    grads for money, overcharging students?

    5 dancing shlomos

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  201. @Fran Taubman

    Peace will come brother when Islam accepts the sovereignty of Israel as a Jewish state, and abandons a Palestinian state which was a made up country from the beginning.

    I don’t think Islam and/or any Muslim and/or any Arab Country has ever objected for Israel being a Jewish state. Where did you get such a silly idea for another smoke screen!

    Yes, I have heard give other countries, such as Jordon or Egypt’s Desert to Palestinians for peace as we Jews want to devour the whole Palestinian land. We Jews don’t want two state solution, we are too busy devouring the whole of Palestine. Once, we have done that we will then devour Jordon, Lebanon and Syria with no sight in end with all those conquests.

    Fran I would like to chew on this very carefully as drums of war are heard stronger and stronger. Chew on this, when Putin walked over and took Crimea. At that time, I said that both Obama and Putin are in cahoots and Obama gave the Crimea to Putin on a Silver Platter. People thought that I being a dumb foreigner, I don’t know the meaning of cahoots. Chew on it Fran!

    Also chew on that Iran is at the borders of Israel, where Israel is very far, far away from Iran. Obama didn’t want to destroy Syria, just felicitate both Russia and Iran to be on the borders of Israel, in the fog of war!

    Corona is fake. All the passenger planes are being converted to cargo planes. KSA and Russia are smart to bring down the price of oil for less then $25. Wonder why?

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  202. @Assad al-islam

    I don’t think Islam and/or any Muslim and/or any Arab Country has ever objected for Israel being a Jewish state. Where did you get such a silly idea for another smoke screen

    Huh? The Palestinian leadership refuses to accept Israel as a Jewish state, and Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran refuse to accept any state with a Jewish majority and want all Jews to leave. Why don’t you listen to what they say?

    Assad this is the problem with these type of communications. Corona is not a fake. People have it here in Suffolk county where I live.
    Israel has no desire to take over other countries. If Arab Muslim counties believe that Israel is a Jewish state, why does the Palestinian leadership refuse to sign off on that. THEY REFUSE.
    Look to the Arab community to solve the problems of Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, not Israel.
    There are no more wars, only proxy wars. Iran is not strong enough to attack Israel, which has very advance weaponry.
    Israel is not the problem, it is the surrounding Arab countries that are dysfunctional.

    There are 1.7 million Arab citizens of Israel that can stay. All Palestinians can stay just not a state on the land of Israel.

    • Disagree: Assad al-islam
  203. @bjondo

    I hope you run into a Mexican drug lord and you choke on the evil parasite of opium. The drug money parasites in Islam keep drug lords booming.

    *1100 bs

  204. So much for this being a free society.

    ‘As you most likely have heard already, this afternoon the Health Officer of the City of Berkeley joined the Public Health Officers of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties to announce a legal order directing residents to shelter at home.

    This unprecedented action legally limits activity, travel and business functions to only the most essential needs for three weeks beginning March 17. For further information, please review the FAQs posted on the City of Berkeley’s website.

    It is imperative we all abide by the orders of the Public Health Officer and the Library must take additional actions beyond postponing programming and the closing of our facilities.’

    That this is utterly unnecessary and not even particularly useful doesn’t exactly help.

    …The sole consolation is that it’s unenforceable. ‘I’m homeless; no, I don’t have I.D.’

    • Agree: Kali, Miro23
  205. @bjondo

    ‘…The idiot others are brainwashed by the likes of Fran…’/i>

    Oh, I don’t think Fran’s brainwashing very many people — not in the direction she would like, anyway.

    …certainly she must be helping quite a few to make up their minds about Israel — but again, not in the way she would like.

    It is important to realize not all Jews are like Fran. One must try to keep that in mind.

    • Replies: @Assad al-islam
  206. @Colin Wright

    Oh, I don’t think Fran’s brainwashing very many people — not in the direction she would like, anyway.

    Please see the following thread for my two responses #379 and #380, to your post #376.

    Give proper credit to all Muslims, to Sunni Muslims, to Shia Muslims, to Arabs, to Iranians, and other Muslims.

    • Replies: @Assad al-islam
  207. @Assad al-islam

    Please see the following thread for my two responses #379 and #380, to your post #376.

    Forgot to quote to give the link for the thread. Here is the link:

    https://www.unz.com/gatzmon/why-does-netanyahu-keep-winning/

  208. @Fran Taubman

    ‘…All you hear from Shia is Al Quds!!! Al Quds. Why the fight over our holy sites? Many many Muslims and religious leaders from Islam refuse to acknowledge that the temples lie under Al Aqsa. Why?’

    There’s nothing to acknowledge. Al-Aqsa is the Temple. The Muslims, recipients of the restored Quran, made sure they had the right place, then rebuilt it.

    Happy to clear that up for you. No need to thank me.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  209. @Colin Wright

    Good one Colin, you hit the nail on the head. Jews and Israelis disagree with that assessment, but I am glad you pointed out the divide as Islam claims to be the owners of our holy sites.

    That is what wars are about, you fight over the disagreement over territory and there are winners and losers. Islam lost and the Jews won, so it is ours by force for now, just like Islam conquered their lands by force. You might as well be talking into a paper bag for all impact you and the people that think like you have. I guess you live in some fantasy land.

    Like trying to get the US to give Texas back to Mexico. I don’t think so, but it shows how comical and ignorant you do deny Jewish historical claims, which most enlightened Muslims agree on. I guess Talha has done a good job converting you.

    Wadaa’an

  210. @Fran Taubman

    ‘… Like trying to get the US to give Texas back to Mexico…’

    Actually, the pertinent point would be that we didn’t take Mexico proper — even though we’d conquered all of it.

    That’s what wise winners do.

  211. @Fran Taubman

    ‘Good one Colin, you hit the nail on the head. Jews and Israelis disagree with that assessment, but I am glad you pointed out the divide as Islam claims to be the owners of our holy sites…’

    You’re still missing the point. As far as Muslims are concerned, there never was a new religion; just the original.

    They got rid of the accumulated corruptions and restored the one true text — which is from God, and which is eternal, and immutable.

    Now, if you want to stick to your corrupted files, you do that, but they’ve got the restored version, and they put the Temple back up too.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Fran Taubman
    , @AaronB
  212. Talha says:
    @Colin Wright

    corrupted files…restored version

    The latest OS has all the bug fixes and cumulative patches…and is backwards compatible.

    Peace.

    • LOL: Fran Taubman
  213. @Colin Wright

    You go guy.

    You’re still missing the point. As far as Muslims are concerned, there never was a new religion; just the original.

    Can I quote you? Should I spread the word that we don’t get it? Thanks for clueing me in. I feel what is the word so so enlightened.

    Lol. We have been around a long time and heard a lot better chive then that. We just don’t get it? We got some big theological guns in are arsenal Colin.

    I am glad you get it Colin. Where would we all be without the retired mover telling it like it is?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  214. Colin is a lot like Wally. No one died in the German WW2 camps of anything other then natural causes. Why? Wally says so and he sent a memo out explaining how it went down. Those who think otherwise simply did not get Wally’s memo.

    Colin believes Israel is evil and Islam is the uncorrupted authentic version of Judaism restored!!! Why? Because Colin heard a Muslim say so and sent a memo out to explain. Colin has never been to Israel or actually studied theological arguments regarding Judaism and Islam by scholars. He has never spoken to an IDF soldier or a Palestinian. He knows because someone told him.

    And like Wally he sent a memos with a fact sheet.

    What kind of mind despite all signs of authenticity of two distinct versions of the truth, decides an argument based on likability. They “don’t like” the people who disagree with them. It is a popularity contest. Group think is a big deal here in UR. Gilad invented an entire philosophical argument to wind his Jew hatred around.

    Only on UR could someone with hate as their argument win a popularity contest.

    Only on UR could you pedal a bogus claim that Jews spread a virus to deliberately cause death and get 700 people to sign off and share the how and why. UR is the emotional comfort blanket for haters to stupid to reason for themselves. Questions? Just ask Colin or Wally.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  215. @Fran Taubman

    ‘Can I quote you?’

    Yes, you may.

  216. @Fran Taubman

    ‘…Questions? Just ask Colin or Wally.’

    It’s striking how you manage to insinuate, first, that I don’t think the Holocaust happened, and second, that I subscribe to the theory that Israel created the Corona Virus.

    I’ve underestimated you! However deficient you may be in human intelligence in its more commendable aspects, you are possessed of a sort of rudimentary, vicious cunning.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  217. @Colin Wright

    Pay attention: Below is what you have said a million times in a million different ways on a million posts. I never said anything about you not believing in the Holocaust or the Corona virus. I was using those arguments as analogy for comparison to your one track mind, when there are legitimate counter arguments. Funny you think I am vicious and cunning while you following me around on these threads calling me names and harassing me not to disseminate information but to humiliate me.

    There’s nothing to acknowledge. Al-Aqsa is the Temple. The Muslims, recipients of the restored Quran, made sure they had the right place, then rebuilt it.

    Happy to clear that up for you. No need to thank me.

    Harassing me with your pseudo pretentious language that makes no sense.
    Like: sort of rudimentary, vicious cunning.

    What does rudimentary, vicious cunning mean? Is the cunning like a fog of cunning. Or is the viciousness like a sort of mean but not fully mean because it is rudimentary.
    or my favorite Colin faux intellectual comment like this.

    human intelligence in its more commendable aspects,

    Is that actual english? Like what is human intelligence? What are the more commendable aspects of human intelligence?
    Ah Colin keep your thesaurus close by. Some day you will have some lingual breakthroughs, and maybe be able to reason ideas on your own.

  218. mikemikev says:

    The situation in Greece seems more important to me than this virus.

  219. AaronB says:
    @Colin Wright

    I gotta be honest, that seems pretty insecure, to need to take over another religions holy sites and insist that you’re the restored version.

    I find Islam a little less impressive for that, tbh.

    I’m beginning to find “replacement theology” fascinating, and I didn’t know it was such a big part of Islam too. It really explains a lot of the history.

    It’s really based on envy and as such is a backhanded compliment, but it may explain why Islam and Christianity had such a harsh and uncharitable attitude towards non-members and consigned them to hell – in such stark contrast to the liberal Jewish attitude, which sees other religions as potentially valid paths to God, and in contrast to the relaxed attitude of the Eastern faiths.

    It is because they are insecure – so lack the self confidence to accept that other paths may also be legitimate.

    I was talking to a an orthodox Jewish friend today, and he said that any religion that says non-members go to hell cannot be true, and that’s how you know it.

    I am also increasingly struck by how Islam also has a Devil, Dajjal, and sees evil as an I dependent force at war with God. It seems Islam is not as monotheistic as I thought, and shares shades of a dualistic theology with Christianity, which has Satan.

    Jews do not have a Dajjal or Satan figure in our theology, we have the “evil inclination” – I am beginning to think that Judaism should really be grouped more with the older Eastern faiths rather than the young and derivative Western faiths, since it seems to share more with them and to derive directly from a more ancient source, as do the Eastern faiths.

    Interesting discussions here, and new things come to light constantly. Thanks to all the Muslim contributors here and to their promoters like Colin Wright.

  220. @AaronB

    Yeah it has been a slog feast. I think Talha has almost fully converted Colin, with ego stroking. He executes the revisionist theme flawlessly. Our Temple is now the mosque with an upgrade. It also helps as I stated in earlier posts that hatred becomes the raison d’être backing their argument. Fascinating. You could promote Baal with child sacrifice and people on UR would buy it if couched in proper Jew hatred. Like the Jews made them sacrifice their children so they are the victims of the Jews.

    Also Islam seems to be dependent on the caliphate linage from the prophet which is confusing on who inherited the mantle. The internal struggle seems ripe for demonization of one over the other, so Jews become part of a larger plot. In Judaism the revelation was the beginning and the end. Nothing to fight over. I wonder why Mohammed could not seal it in his life time?

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Colin Wright
  221. AaronB says:
    @AaronB

    More ways in which Judaism is unlike its derivative religions and more like Eastern faiths –

    Judaism seeks to “unite” Earth and Heaven – we don’t reject physical things but seek to elevate them and make them sacred. The theme of uniting and making whole is a big part of many Jewish rituals. Uniting is also a theme of Eastern faiths, while Christianity and Islam seem more dualistic.

    There is no such thing as eternal damnation – at most, you get one year in hell according to Judaism, where you are refined so you can face God, not punished. The extremely harsh belief in eternal damnation, present in Islam and Christianity, is absent in Judaism and Eastern faiths, which have an ultimately optimistic view that in the end, everyone is saved.

    At the End of Time, both Christianity and Islam seem to envision a vengeful and destructive process that is very bloody, with Satan like figures and non believers being destroyed etc – in Judaism, when God redeems the Jewish people all the people in the world will rejoice and sing for joy, finally understanding that the process of Jewish redemption is for the whole world. Ultimately, the non Jews partake of the joy of the Jews – everyone is saved.

    Although I’m being critical of Christianity and Islam, I still think they are beautiful and valid in many, many ways. They too reflect the source.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  222. AaronB says:
    @Fran Taubman

    Colin Wright is temperementally Muslim – or at least, the bad version of Islam that dominates the religion today (but does not reflect what the religion could be at its best, after it matures). Angry, primal, and primarily motivated by hate, opposition, and envy.

    His taking his place alongside AnonStarter and Kevin Barrett is all but assured. I will attend his conversion ceremony 🙂

    I was watching that gil-shuster guy on YouTube interview Palestinians about whether they would let a non-Zionist Israeli – a Jew – live in Palestine. A few people were incredibly gracious and said sure, but I was shocked by the sheer racism of the many who said never – their voice seeething with hate. It was startling. And I thought – right there, is why this conflict continues. Right there.

    You know Fran, Christianity started out extremely insecure about Jews with its “replacement” theology and insisting no other paths are valid, etc – but ended up maturing. Islam seems much more insecure than I thought, and more dualistic, like Christianity – so I see a similar process of maturing at work likely here as well.

    The thing, you can’t base your identity on being “negative” permanently.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  223. @AaronB

    Yeah I get all that. But Christianity was top dog for a long time and successful in presenting itself as the face of the West. Clearly Islam is on the decline and the Jews have been very successful in merging separation of church and state with Capitalism into a pretty dynamic society in Israel. You would think that the Islamic countries and Muslims would seek a life line of compatibility with the Jews out of a desire for survival never mind advancement. They are just unable to function in Arabia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Europe anywhere. Yet inexplicably they are full of rage and irrationality towards us, like a death rattle of Jihadism. Lets throw bombs inside Israel. What good will that do?
    They are not adapting to life without a caliph to bind them together and tell them what to do like Umar. They need authoritarian direction, they do not do well with freedom.
    Christianity survived because it help direct democracy and capitalism along with the Jews to bring more prosperity to more people then any system in the world. Unfortunately Islam requires a totalitarian socialistic system of dictators.

  224. @Fran Taubman

    ‘… Unfortunately Islam requires a totalitarian socialistic system of dictators…’

    Not that you’re bigoted or anything.

    Would you say that Judaism requires shooting unarmed children?

  225. AaronB says:
    @Fran Taubman

    You would think that the Islamic countries and Muslims would seek a life line of compatibility with the Jews out of a desire for survival never mind advancement.

    Sure, but all declining cultures start acting in dysfunctional ways. No longer being able to successfully adapt – losing contact with reality – is a primary feature of being in decline. And declining cultures start lashing out and acting self-destructively, like Europe did in the early 20th century. Islam is in a similar place now.

    I am beginning to think that the dualistic tendencies in Christianity and Islam don’t give them staying power, because it creates imbalance and one sidedness. Each religion took a side of Judaism and overemphasized it – this led to a great burst of initial energy, but no staying power.

    While I think Islam will mature and mellow out, I don’t know if will ever again be a major force in the world.

    Clearly Islam is on the decline and the Jews have been very successful in merging separation of church and state with Capitalism into a pretty dynamic society in Israel. You would think that the Islamic countries and Muslims would seek a life line of compatibility with the Jews out of a desire for survival never mind advancement.

    Of course, but if the entire premise of your existence is that you “replace” Jews, then rational considerations take a back seat.

    If Muslims have to adapt to Jews, and not the other way around, then Islam is a lie. That’s the problem. Islam does not have an identity independent of Jews, I now see – if Islam is true, and replaces Jews and corrects and restores Judaism, then Muslims being equal to or under Jews invalidates Islam.

    By putting themselves in opposition to Reality, Muslims have created an unwinnnable situation for themselves. This is the problem when one opposes Reality.

    Christianity had the exact same problem with relation to Jews. Both religions have beauty and truth, but both committed an Original Sin of putting themselves in fundamental opposition to Reality.

    Christianity corrected course, because Reality cannot be ignored forever. It bites back. Islam will necessarily do so as well – or die. You cannot thrive if you are fundamentally at odds with Reality.

    They are not adapting to life without a caliph to bind them together and tell them what to do like Umar. They need authoritarian direction, they do not do well with freedom.
    Christianity survived because it help direct democracy and capitalism along with the Jews to bring more prosperity to more people then any system in the world. Unfortunately Islam requires a totalitarian socialistic system of dictators.

    This is true, at the moment.

  226. AaronB says:
    @AaronB

    To add –

    The major concept in Judaism is redemption of a broken world. One repairs a world that was originally perfect but got broken. One heals, unites opposites, elevates the physical, redeems, and repairs. Those are the Jewish themes.

    The major concept in Christianity and Islam appear to be battle – a battle between good and evil. A battle against one side of Gods creation. And a battle against all other spiritual paths.

    Judaism is clearly closer to Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. And Islam and Christianity have clear dualistic tendencies that they probably picked up from Zoroastrianism.

    Very interesting.

  227. @AaronB

    ‘I gotta be honest, that seems pretty insecure, to need to take over another religions holy sites and insist that you’re the restored version…’

    What’s ‘insecure’ about it? Were the Protestants ‘insecure’ because they insisted on correcting the errors they perceived as having crept into Catholic practice? For that matter, were the Maccabees ‘insecure’ because they insisted on purifying Judaism? Mohammed confronted what was no doubt a lot of confused Judaic and Christian gibberish and made sense of it — or got the true word from God, according to his followers.

    It’s okay with me. I don’t feel any need to somehow downgrade Islam and make it ‘insecure’ with respect to Judaism or imply that its claims are necessarily invalid. Maybe they’re right, and at least the text isn’t overtly genocidal or internally inconsistent.

    Not that, to be frank, I really have a dog in this fight. I can’t see any good reason to believe any of it — but abstractly, both Islam and Christianity are a lot more pleasing in their respective ways than that dreadful collection of ancient bigotries, murderous prescriptions, and outrageous superstitions that you’re pleased to subscribe to. I mean, believe in appeasing the volcano God by casting a plump young virgin into the fiery pit if you must — but don’t expect me to find the ideology appealing, or feel obliged to accord it some especial esteem.

    Really, what’s going on here is that you’re desperately clinging to some sense of objective superiority for Judaism — one that can in some way transcend the inherent egocentricity of any belief system. Given the rather obvious shortcomings of Judaism as a consistent, plausible, or even appealing belief system, that’s not too tenable.

    But insist on adhering to it. Whatever. I suppose your sense of loyalty is commendable.

    You do need to realize, however, that you’re never going to get anyone else to buy it. Worse, it’s not as if you even manage to more or less go off and mind your own business — as say, the Mennonites, the Mormons, or whatever Muslim sects I don’t know about do. No, you want us to put up with your crimes, fight wars to fulfill your pathological hostilities, and fund the whole ball of wax.

    …and you want us to agree it’s all a fine idea and like it, to boot.

    Fuck you.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  228. @Fran Taubman

    ‘Yeah it has been a slog feast. I think Talha has almost fully converted Colin, with ego stroking. He executes the revisionist theme flawlessly. Our Temple is now the mosque with an upgrade. ‘

    It always was the mosque. Talha didn’t introduce me to that concept; it’s Islam 1.

    Good class; you should take it.

  229. @AaronB

    Very interesting. At the end of our battles and exploits on this site Aaron we have cracked the code of Islamic /Jewish incompatibility. You have been able to clearly articulate it.
    It’s amazing to really understand it.
    Israelis and religious Jews have understood it for a while. That is why Israel has rolled up the peace plans. They figured out they are not dealing with rational people. Losers in Gaza hurling bombs into Israel. Or creating arson fires at the borders so children get maimed. Insanity. Israelis and Jews also figured out it was never about land that it was always about religious hegemony.
    The problem is the left still supports Muslims as anti colonist. Maybe they will figure it out.

    It is hard to understand that Islamist are so counter intuitive to life and happiness, most people believe they are oppressed by Israel. They cannot fathom that the Islamic leaders are oppressing their own people as authoritarian oppressors. What westerner could understand that? I always think why can’t these people stand up for themselves their leaders are so corrupt and awful. Look at the Assad’s father and son.
    I had hoped to talk straight up with the Muslims on this site. Look how that went. A small microcosm of the entire saga.
    Judaism and the eastern religions require personal
    prayer and partricipitation. It is an individual effort. Islam requires an Umah to unite around a common goal of converting and conquering with the goal of everyone eventually becoming Muslim and part of the Umah controlled by an Islamic religious leader. Islam cannot survive church and state separation.
    Attaturk tried but it lead to secularism and is viewed as a failure.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  230. AaronB says:
    @Colin Wright

    Needing to invalidate others to prop your self up seems very insecure to me. Its the same thing as the idea that all non-members of your religion go to hell – you’re not confident enough in your path to accept others may be good in their own way.

    All this is classic insecurity.

    You say that we don’t leave you alone…well, all we wanted in ancient times was one small piece of land in the middle of nowhere to practice our religion and way of life. We had no imperial vision. We just wanted a base to serve God in our own way. But first the Greeks, then the Romans, wouldn’t leave us alone, not to mention the Persians, Babylonians, etc.

    No one could leave us alone.

    Then Christians come along and create this new religion based on invalidating our religion and replacing it and tell us no path but theirs is valid and that our father is Satan. Is that leaving us alone? If you want yo create your own religion, fine – if you want to base it on ours and borrow from it, also fine. But why the unnecessary hostility right at the start?

    And you say we could have just been like Menonnites in Europe – but you know this is not true. Until the modern period, Europe was not tolerant of religious minorities. Peaceful inoffensive groups like the Cathars – whose crime was to actually live out Christian ideals like love and self-abasement – were viciously exterminated in a very bloody manner. The Wars of Religion in Europe were the most vicious and bloody wars Europe endured until the ideological wars of the 20th century – because Europeans would not let others peacefully practice their religion.

    Jews had no choice but to ally with the powerful nobility in order to survive – they had to make themselves useful to those in power or they would never have survived in intolerant Christian Europe and would have been exterminated like the Cathars. Even so, they were constantly attacked and expelled. All manner of healthy and good occupation was denied them, and they were not allowed to bear weapons. When they became good at making money anyways, they are hated.

    Then the Muslims create a new religion based on ours and borrowing from it, and right away also claim to invalidate us and replace us, claim.our holy sites as theirs and immediately build mosques on all of them, rather than, in brotherhood and peace, merely offering another path while respecting ours. And then they decide they have to subjugate us, and make us second class citizens to glorify their religion.

    Is that leaving us alone?

    And even today, how many simply cannot leave Israel alone and let it live…

    Now, I’m not particularly blaming Christians or Muslims or Europeans or whoever, because this is how humans act – life appears to be a struggle of all against all, man is wolf to man, and the way of mankind seems to be to conquer and subjugate and extend his power over whoever he can. Jewish redemption means an end to all this.

    But the idea that Jews could have survived as an inoffensive minority that retested into the hills, much less thrived, is refuted by every page in the history books.

  231. @Fran Taubman

    ‘… Christianity survived because it help direct democracy and capitalism along with the Jews to bring more prosperity to more people then any system in the world…’

    That statement is idiotic.

  232. @AaronB

    ‘And even today, how many simply cannot leave Israel alone and let it live…’

    …particularly those into whose faces you’re grinding your boot.

    Why, oh why, do your victims wiggle and squeak so? You poor, misunderstood conquerors of Palestine. All you want to do is torment your victims in peace, for all time, but will they just hold still?

    Oh, it’s a tough row you’ve got to hoe — and no one understands.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  233. @AaronB

    ‘…The major concept in Judaism is redemption of a broken world. One repairs a world that was originally perfect but got broken. One heals, unites opposites, elevates the physical, redeems, and repairs. Those are the Jewish themes.

    The major concept in Christianity and Islam appear to be battle – a battle between good and evil. A battle against one side of Gods creation. And a battle against all other spiritual paths…’

    This doesn’t seem to owe much to anything beyond your preferences. You describe Judaism not as it is, but as you apparently would prefer your reader to believe it is. Perhaps you would genuinely like it to be that way as well; that still doesn’t make it so.

    As to Christianity and Islam, my own impressions — which I think are balanced if not particularly well-informed — is that the emphasis in neither one is as you describe.

    Christianity focuses on a laudable if perhaps impractical renunciation of all sin. Islam’s emphasis seems to be more on a similar but somewhat distinct ideal of right living. Neither one is about ‘a battle against one side of God’s creation.’ That’s nonsense.

    As to a ‘battle against all other spiritual paths,’ well, Judaism’s hardly in a position to criticize there, is it? Let’s be honest, Aaron. I mean, we all know exactly what’s in the Torah. We also know what Jewish practice has been through the ages. Nope; spiritual pluralism hasn’t exactly been one of Judaism’s strong suites.

    Christianity isn’t tolerant either — no claims there — but it’s indisputable that Islam is the only one of the three that extends even conditional tolerance to the other two. If tolerance is a criteria, point to Islam. No question.

    So, if you want to go on and on about religions, that’s fine, but at least try not to lie, instead of endlessly distorting everything so as to exalt Judaism by deceit.

    Ironically, your very means of argumentation hardly does credit to Judaism. What are we to think of a faith that can only be defended by such distortions?

    • Replies: @AaronB
  234. Miro23 says:

    Goldman Sachs’ “Let Them Eat Cake”

    At least someone’s doing well: Goldman Sachs gives CEO 20% raise as it forecasts crash for America

    Even as the US stock market continued its free-fall due to the coronavirus pandemic, the top banker at Goldman Sachs got a pay raise of $2 million a year, a $7.65 million cash bonus, plus stock options worth $17.85 million.
    His compensation package is the biggest for a Goldman Sachs CEO since Lloyd Blankfein took home $41 million in 2007, right before the mortgage collapse.

    https://www.rt.com/business/483690-goldman-sachs-ceo-raise/

  235. @Colin Wright

    Oh, it’s a tough row you’ve got to hoe — and no one understands.

    Indeed. Such a tormented soul.

    I know you’re an atheist, Colin, and you may not believe me when I say I don’t do conversions, but all of this aside, there’s a reason I regularly cite the biblical record while most here think it isn’t worth the paper it’s penned on. We can rightfully question and reasonably reject a lot of what we find in it; and yet, if it ends there, we ignore a crucial narrative that helps to explain not only Israel’s conduct to date, but more importantly, prophecies they continue to rationalize as unfulfilled. I won’t speculate as to why Aaron assiduously avoids addressing the latter topic, but it’s clear that he fears it, which would explain his concerted effort to divert discussion in alternate directions every time it’s mentioned.

    We referenced Song of Songs 5: 16, in which the Hebrew equivalent of the name “Muhammad” explicitly appears, yet since a Semitic name always bears meaning beyond the name itself, it’s been disingenuously translated as “altogether lovely” in most bibles.

    At the following link, you’ll find a line-by-line comparison between Song of Songs 5: 10-16 and a physical description of Muhammad as provided by multiple biographical sources:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20010927130413/http://shibli.zaman.net/ss516/ss516-1b.htm

    There are others related to Song of Songs available here, Part 2 being the sole broken link:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20010815060544/http://shibli.zaman.net/etymology.htm

    Fully aware of my own bias, I would simply ask the following:

    How is it that an explicit reference to Muhammad, one providing an accurate physical description of him, could have been retrofitted by Muslims into a record of Scripture kept so closely under the guardianship of the most elite rabbinical authories?

    Something else to consider from The Interpreter’s Bible Encyclopedia:

    ..and the book itself [Song of Songs] as an allegory depicting in great detail the experiences of the nation in its relations with its God from the Exodus down to the coming of the Messiah and the building of the Third Temple. This in general is also the interpretation of the Midrash Rabbah and such famous scholars as Saadia ben Joseph, Rashi, and Ibn Ezra, although they differ considerably among themselves in details.

    Rabbinical authorities far more proximate to the original appearance of Song of Songs saw it as allegorical, a reference to the terminus of prophethood following the Messiah, including construction of the Third Temple. This dovetails nicely with what you’ve often said concerning al-Aqsa. Even the classical Jewish priesthood would agree.

    As for Aaron’s lachrymose disposition, I suppose it can’t be helped. Who knows to what neurosis I’d fall victim if compelled to defend the amorphous pastiche of moral relativism that passes for Judaism in his world?

    There but for the grace of God …

  236. AaronB says:
    @Fran Taubman

    Yes, Fran, our discussions on this site with our Muslim friends has proven very fruitful indeed. It took time, but clarity is beginning to emerge. A lot of your comments helped me along the path to understanding as well, and a lot if the responses you elicited.

    I don’t think any of us understood the extent to which Islam is not truly monotheistic but dualistic – and dualistic religions do not seek reconciliation but seek to fight and destroy evil. I think this is one of two keys to understanding why Islam does not seem able to get along with Jews – or anyone else, really.

    The figure of Dajjal should have been a clue. If a Satan figure is central to your theology, someone has to fill that role for you to crush. You are in a battle and you need an enemy.

    Like you, I was extremely puzzled by this whole ascribing all evil to one side and all good to the other. The extreme things that even Talha was willing to believe about Jews made no sense to me, not to mention the other Muslims hee, like Kevin Barrett and AS. And I was also puzzled that no matter how generous I was to the good side of Islam, it was never reciprocated. A tone either of hostility, or of attempting to deny value, was always kept up, however subtle.

    I had an epiphany when AS responded to my praising Islam with telling me Judaism is based on a Lie – he was quite polite, but could not in good faith abandon his basic theology. I don’t blame him, but it helped me understand his theology.

    It was apparent that what was sought was not harmony and peace, but aggressive domination and defeat – and if your theology is dualistic, you cannot help but think this way. The world is set up as a battle between good and evil. Others must represent evil and be crushed or subjugated. You don’t strive for healing, unity, and rectification, but victory and subjugation.

    Now, this way of thinking is not without merit – but it is a primitive reflection of the Truth, which is not the defeat of evil but its repair and elevation, the ultimate unity of opposites. Jewish insistence on monotheism – on unity and oneness – was meant to oppose exactly such dualistic tendencies. But the derivative religions could not maintain that high level, and for that reason, perhaps, lack staying power. We shall see.

    The second key to understanding Islam, that I mentioned earlier, I had as an epiphany when Colin Wright very helpfully made that comment that our holy sites belong to Islam and they are the corrected version of Judaism, and Talha responded by agreeing.

    I suddenly thought – lame. So that’s all it is – not a grand and magnificent tradition in its own right, but based on envy, and derivative. And then I felt pity and compassion – a religion that acts this way suffers from a massive inferiority complex. And that gave me the key to understanding the extremely harsh idea that everyone not a member of your religion goes to hell l, which seemed so puzzling, and the strange need to subjugate Jews and Christians.

    It has been an interesting journey.

  237. The desperate attempt by Islam to inject Mohammed into Jewish scripture. The Song of Songs is a love poem. Odd to find a prophesy of Mohammed in that location.
    Compare to prediction of the Messiah (Jesus) in the book of prophets Isaiah. It makes more sense to find the prediction of a prophet in the actual book by prophets. Compare Song of Songs sensual depiction of a lover, to the Prophet Isaih 11:16

    Isaiah 11:6 English Standard Version (ESV)
    6 The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
    and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;
    and a little child shall lead them.

    Song of songs: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2014/05/muhammad-in-song-of-solomon-516.html
    Excerpt: Desperados !!! Islamic Desperados

    This is what happens when Muslim apologists try to force Muhammad into the Bible. They go to a passage in which Solomon’s bride is praising her husband’s body, and they expect us to believe that she’s actually having adulterous thoughts about a future prophet. Shabir Ally and Zakir Naik take a perfectly normal Hebrew word and try to transform it into a prophecy of Muhammad, but in doing so they end up claiming that Muhammad was Ezekiel’s wife and that God promises to desecrate him!

    Since Shabir calls Song of Solomon 5:16 the “most significant” reference to Muhammad in the entire Old Testament, we can only wonder how persuasive the rest are!

  238. AaronB says:
    @Colin Wright

    The central idea in Judaism is “tikkum olam” – I am sure you will admit this, at least. It means rectification of the world, quite simply.

    And the main theme in the Kabbalah is reconciling opposites and unifying the physical and the spiritual.

    The central idea in Christianity is “spiritual warfare”. And the central idea in Islam is “Jihad” – which of course has a spiritual as well as a physical side, but means quite simply battle, war, struggle.

    Now, both Christianity and Islam have a Satan like figure – a Devil or Head Demon that opposes God and must be crushed and destroyed. Judaism does not have this. Satan is merely “the Accuser” in Judaism, a loyal servant of God who tests man.

    And lets examine Fran’s and my attiude contrasted with that of AnonStarter, Kevin Barrett, Talha, and your proto-Muslim self – the Muslim contingent here are willing to ascribe extreme levels of malice and deliberate mischief to Jews stretching back to ancient times. Fran is more fiery than I am, certainly, but our basic attitude is one of “disappointment” in Islam, frequent praise and appreciation, and a hope that it will ripen, mature, and perfect itself. We lament that it is “immature”, and we don’t harshly condemn it as “evil”.

    This is the basic different between a monotheistic theology based on healing and rectification – “tikkun olam” – and a dualistic theology based on a battle between good and evil.

    Also, Islam believes everyone not a member of their religion goes to hell – this is not tolerant. And Islam commands its adherents to subjugate Jews and Christians because it glorifies Islam that people of other religions are second class citizens. Given some level of protection, yes, but the intent is to demean. This is not tolerant, although more tolerant than Christianity.

    By contrast, Judaism has the “ger toshav” – the non-Jew who is allowed to live in Israel. The whole atmosphere surrounding how he is to be treated is markedly different. We are reminded that we were strangers in Egypt, so a basis for compassion is established. And he is classed among the main category of “unfortunately”, along with the widow and the orphan, and has to be treated with consideration. Finally, the morning prayer service includes prayers for his protection. Judaism believes God is glorified by treating foreigners with compassion.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  239. Anonymous[304] • Disclaimer says:

    This is a very interesting article:

    Wikipedia Slashes Spanish Flu Death Rate

    Looks like Wikipedia is busily rewriting history during the current pandemic by lowering the Spanish Flu mortality rate from 10-20% to 2-3%. Any ideas why?

  240. @AaronB

    Colin like most of the haters on this site will never get past their hate to reconcile conflicting ideas. They have no ability to do that. I can rethink Judaism and brutally criticize it (the bronze age, Purim etc) and still see the good.
    Colin and the extreme left who hate Jews for conspiracies or whatever will follow the old adage: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. But who could possibly think that an atheist and the radical left Marxist and anarchist can embrace and or be embraced by Islam is laughable. The next up on the WN list after Jews will be Muslims. The next up on the Islamic list will be the non believer and renegade non conformist. It is the ultimate in phony alliance. Hatred is powerful glue. I had no idea the level that hatred blots out reason and the ability to reason until UR. When commentators post memes of tortured children and point to Israel. When Israel point of fact has less tortured children then any Arab country or any country in the world. It is fact. Look at the children next door in Syria.

    The smarter you are with regards to attempting conversations with our Muslim friends on this site the more brutal the responses. I guess the less bright people are more malleable to their ideas. But the conversations are like night and day. Case in point they will no longer talk to me directly, only thru intermediaries like Colin

  241. @AaronB

    ‘…Jews had no choice but to ally with the powerful nobility in order to survive – they had to make themselves useful to those in power or they would never have survived in intolerant Christian Europe and would have been exterminated like the Cathars. Even so, they were constantly attacked and expelled. All manner of healthy and good occupation was denied them, and they were not allowed to bear weapons. When they became good at making money anyways, they are hated…’

    I think you reverse cause and effect here. For example, the Ashkenazim did not appear in Carolingian Europe as earnest settlers seeking only to farm — but were then denied the chance and so had to become slave traders, etc and became hated on that account. Nor did they move into the Sixteenth Century Ukraine, asking if please, could they settle down and become peasants as well. No: from the start they traded in slaves in Dark-age Europe, and from the start they offered their services to the Polish Catholic nobility of the Sixteenth Century as arrendors, willing to oppress and exploit the Orthodox Christian peasantry on their behalf.

    In fact, when the Russian Tsars of the early Nineteenth Century tried to eliminate the source of friction between Jews and Christians in their newly acquired territories in the Ukraine by settling the Jews as peasants on empty lands, the Jews obstinately refused to farm. However understandably, they wanted to keep exploiting and impoverishing the Christian peasantry, and thus keep making themselves hated.

    The Ashkenazim at least chose their role, and thus made themselves hated. Your selective history notwithstanding, other groups and religious minorities have managed to make themselves tolerated, if not beloved. I mentioned the Mormons and the Mennonites — but it’s not just in the modern world that such groups have found a place for themselves and managed to preserve a unique identity without exciting the rage of their neighbors. I’m aware of the ‘Saxons’ in Transylvania, who managed to fit in quite well for centuries, and indeed, were never driven out by their neighbors, but only by Stalin in 1945. The Phanariot Greeks in Istanbul also seem to have flourished up until modern times.

    No doubt there are others. You would have it that Jews were inevitably hated simply because they were different — or that they were hated because of the role they were forced to take up. The evidence suggests difference alone wasn’t sufficient. Jewish behavior — and that behavior was voluntarily chosen — had a lot to do with it. The Jews — again, at least the Ashkenazim — chose to become successively slave dealers, agents of an oppressive and alien aristocracy, commissars for a murderous Bolshevik regime, and — today — ‘Neo-cons’ manipulating modern America into successive evil and futile wars on behalf of their psychotic mini-Reich in the Middle East.

    You can bleat that all Jews shouldn’t be hated on that account, and indeed, I would agree with you. All Jews shouldn’t be hated on that account. But surely, you can’t pretend that it’s a mystery that sometimes they are. This isn’t a fate visited upon an innocent and helpless minority. It’s a fate that’s a direct consequence of the behavior of at least some in that minority.

    Just to take the immediate future: when the Israel Lobby finally does manage to frog-march America into that war with Iran, and when that war turns out to be the moral and material catastrophe it almost certainly will, would you argue American and Zionist Jewry will be entirely blameless if the reaction focusses on them?

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Fran Taubman
  242. Talha says:

    Hmmm…there’s a lot of stuff being said about Islam and myself around these parts.

    People’s misunderstandings of Islamic doctrine is pretty par for the course around here so that’s no surprise.

    But I’ll clarify some things for anybody who is actually on the fence on interested. To commence…

    There should be no problem in sharing holy sites with others as I have mentioned about the Temple Mount or other holy sites. I have often stated (in fact many times) that the city of Jerusalem should become an independent and demilitarized city under the joint control of Jews, Christians and Muslims with space-sharing or time-sharing arrangements for access to the various holy sites which hold significance to others. Just because the figures that are buried in these places are recognized in our tradition as our prophets and messengers (which goes for any prophet or messenger ever sent) doesn’t mean they don’t also belong to others. Same with the spiritual significance these places hold. Whether we, as Muslims, believe a religious tradition to be valid or not is irrelevant to whether or not we should respect their right to worship in those places.

    As far as Islam being the corrected version of Judaism (or Christianity), that is simply myopic – which is fine if one assumes it is false and simply plagiarized*. It’s not even from that branch – in fact it’s latest manifestation is from the Ishmaelite Abrahamic line. It is the original primordial religion that predates Judaism which is one of the reasons that Jerusalem is not its center.
    “He has ordained for you that religion which He enjoined upon Noah, and that which We inspire in you (Muhammad), and that which We enjoined upon Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying: ‘Establish the religion, and be not divided therein.’…” (42:13)

    It is a return specifically to what was exemplified best by Ibrahim (as) as primordial religion (that of the Haneefs):
    “Ibrahim was neither a ‘Jew’ nor a ‘Christian’. but a man of pure natural belief (Haneef) — a Muslim. He was not an idolator.” (3:67)

    “They say, ‘Be Jews or Christians and you will be guided.’ Say, ‘Rather adopt the religion of Ibrahim, a man of natural pure belief (Haneef) who was not an idolator.’” (2:135)

    Which is why Islam asserts that everyone, not just Semites, received prophets and messengers:
    “And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger…” (16:36)

    It simply sets the record straight for the things other got wrong (including Judaism and everyone else).

    Another point; Shaytan is not some independent evil power apart from and a rival to God – there is NO independent power apart from God. This doesn’t even make any sense once someone understands basic-level Islamic creed regarding metaphysical realities. Nothing has any intrinsic existence or capability except what is granted such by the Divine Will.

    Shaytan know that he loses, he’s known from the beginning. He simply wants to drag as many humans down with him since misery loves company. In fact, he is the worst type of evil adversary; he encourages humans to do evil and then abandons them when they reap the consequences:
    “And Shaytan will say when the matter has been concluded, ‘Indeed, Allah had promised you the promise of truth. And I promised you, but I betrayed you. But I had no authority over you except that I invited you, and you responded to me. So do not blame me; but blame yourselves. I cannot be called to your aid, nor can you be called to my aid. Indeed, I deny your association of me [with Allah] before. Indeed, for the wrongdoers is a painful punishment.’” (8:48)

    Now, one can simply disagree with all of this, which is totally fine. But other peoples’ misunderstandings (especially outsiders with specific biases) of our religion does not define our religion. We do.

    This is about all I want to contribute to clarify my position so others aren’t speaking on my behalf, for anyone interested in what I might have to say on these subjects as well as clarify the Islamic position on certain things. Not really interested in getting into a debate about it.

    Peace.

    • Thanks: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @AaronB
  243. @Fran Taubman

    ‘only thru intermediaries like Colin…’

    I’m going to have to add that to my portfolio.

    Anti-semite, Jew, Shabbos Goy, and now…

    INTERMEDIARY OF THE MUSLIMS!

    I’m a real triple threat…quadruple threat. Did I mention I garden and do home electrical work as well?

    • LOL: Talha
  244. AaronB says:

    The smarter you are with regards to attempting conversations with our Muslim friends on this site the more brutal the responses

    I have noticed this as well.

    Because they are not interested in harmonizing or reconciliating – they are interested in forcing submission.

    If your theology is dualistic rather than based on “tikkun”, repairing and elevating, you have no choice but to think this way.

    Its not really their fault. This is their theology.

    I used to see Islam as somehow “Eastern”, but in fact the areas ruled by Islam were the base for Zoroastrianism – the world’s purest form of Dualism. And Talha tells us that Persia, the old base of Zoroastrianism, was the single most influential region in all of Islam.

    So the old Zoroastrians were the ones who contributed the most to shaping the character and development of Islam! Is it any wonder that after its monotheistic Jewish origins, it seems to have fallen into a marked strain of Dualism?

    And Ron Unz can fairly be described as a very pure example of Zoroastrian Dualism – he firmly believes there is an ancient evil force in the world that is the essence of evil that must be fought. Is it any surprise that Ron particularly favors Muslims on his site?

    The alt-right idelogy is also Zoroastrian Dualist, btw.

    And I am beginning to wonder if anti-Semitism is precisely because Jews deny Dualism – Jews are seen as the essence of all evil by Dualists precisely because are monotheists. I remember utu, a fierce anti-Semite l, used to get furious with me because I refused to take sides, but tried to see the good in the bad and the bad in the good.

    An interesting idea that deserves to be followed up, at any rate.

    Colin like most of the haters on this site will never get past their hate to reconcile conflicting ideas. They have no ability to do that.

    Colin is also a classic Zoroastrian Dualist, which is why he finds Islam so congenial. And why he constantly thinks all good is on one side and all bad on the other.

    And if my theory above is correct, as a classic Dualist he must be at constant war with monotheists. If he understood Eastern non-duality, I suspect he would hate it as much as Judaism.

    The next up on the WN list after Jews will be Muslims. The next up on the Islamic list will be the non believer and renegade non conformist.

    Absolutely. That’s their tragedy – they will always need an enemy. Evil is always on the “other side” – harmony cannot exist.

    I had no idea the level that hatred blots out reason and the ability to reason until UR. When commentators post memes of tortured children and point to Israel.

    Me neither. It was a learning experience. I had not encountered before people who thought this way, that all evil is on one side.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  245. @Fran Taubman

    ‘Colin like most of the haters on this site will never get past their hate to reconcile conflicting ideas. They have no ability to do that…’

    We can’t all aspire to match your majestic intellect, Fran. We can’t even pretend to equal the perfect absence of religious and ethnic bigotry you so consistently display.

    Really, it’s kind of like comparing, oh I dunno, the souls of cattle to those of human beings.

    But as you gaze down upon us poor troglodytes, Fran, you should strive to conceal the certainty you feel of your superiority. Try not to rub it in. That’s tacky.

    Noblesse oblige and all that, Fran. Come on. Don’t be cruel to the goyim. You’ve got all that intellectual heft. Mentally, you’re the big guy — or gal — here; try not to throw your weight around.

  246. @AaronB

    Your whole post is such a target-rich environment, Aaron. It’s like being at a smorgasbord; it all looks so good.

    …but I can’t eat it all; lessee…

    I think I’ll take this:

    ‘…If your theology is dualistic rather than based on “tikkun”, repairing and elevating, you have no choice but to think this way.

    Its not really their fault. This is their theology…’

    Of course, Islam — and myself — are only ‘dualistic’ because it suits the purposes of your argument; the claim has no basis in fact at all.

    …and then you proceed to build on this; Judaism doesn’t suffer from this fault that others do, so it — and you — are intellectually (and morally) superior to Islam — and Talha, I, and everyone else who cares to wade into your palace of lies.

    But it’s all lies; can’t you understand that? It’s lies at both ends; you would make Islam into something that it’s not, make Judaism into something that it’s not, and then win the argument.

    It’s as if I overlooked the fact that I’m in my sixties and you’re presumably less than half that and asserted that I can beat you in a sprint. How did I decide that? Why, I claimed to be Usain Bolt and decided you’re a quadriplegic; and of course Usain Bolt can beat a quadriplegic in a sprint.

    Q.E.D. But surely, you can see the problem with the reasoning here. Hint: I’m not Usain Bolt in the first place, and it’s improbable you’re a quadriplegic.

    It’s all very irritating. First, because lies really do set me off; you keep pretending to identify various traits that I have, when in fact the ones I actually do have are quite obvious and amply explain my behavior. You lie; I go off into a frenzy of barking. It’s not complicated.

    Second, because it makes everyone waste time. Witness Talha spending several paragraphs demonstrating that Islam isn’t dualistic. Well, of course it’s not, you no more seriously thought it was than you believe anything else you dream up, and he got suckered into wasting time proving that indeed, water is wet. You just concocted that lie because it let you cook up another one of your sophisms.

    Do you convince yourself? Do you think you convince anyone else? Fran would agree with you if you found it convenient to assert two and two make five. What’s the point, Aaron?

    • Agree: Kali
    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Talha
    , @AnonStarter
  247. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    Thank you for your clarifications, Talha.

    It is the original primordial religion that predates Judaism which is one of the reasons that Jerusalem is not its center…

    It simply sets the record straight for the things other got wrong (including Judaism and everyone else)…

    “They say, ‘Be Jews or Christians and you will be guided.’ Say, ‘Rather adopt the religion of Ibrahim, a man of natural pure belief (Haneef) who was not an idolator.’” (2:135)..

    So Judaism and Christianity are invalidated – they got things wrong and are corrupted. Islam is the corrected version.

    It isn’t the case that there are multiple valid paths to the Divine appropriate for different peoples with different dispositions. It also isn’t the case that different spiritual paths are appropriate for people on different levels, some being higher or lower, but all valid.

    All paths other than Islam are corrupted versions of the original primordial religion and invalid on some level at least.

    Which is why Islam asserts that everyone, not just Semites, received prophets and messengers

    However, Mohammed corrected all the other messengers. So all the other traditions are to some degree wrong and invalid beside that started by Mohammed.

    Shaytan know that he loses, he’s known from the beginning. He simply wants to drag as many humans down with him since misery loves company. In fact, he is the worst type of evil adversary; he encourages humans to do evil and then abandons them when they reap the consequences:

    But he is an Adversary. So Islam sees itself as being in a battle, where there is an adversary that must be fought, battled, defeated, and crushed, rather than seeing itself as being involved in a process where the world is healed, repaired, reconciliated, integrated, and harmonized.

    Dualism.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Colin Wright
    , @Kali
  248. AaronB says:
    @Colin Wright

    From wiki –

    Among socio-economic factors were restrictions by the authorities. Local rulers and church officials closed many professions to the Jews, pushing them into marginal occupations considered socially inferior, such as tax and rent collecting and moneylending, tolerating them as a “necessary evil”.

    Why were restrictions necessary if Jews anyways did not want to practice honest trades? (And slave trading??)

    And why did Catholics massacre the Cathars and stamp them out, who were a remarkably pacific and inoffensive sect? And why the Wars of Religion, if people were allowed to practice their religion in peace?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  249. Talha says:
    @AaronB

    All paths other than Islam are corrupted versions of the original primordial religion and invalid on some level at least.

    Correct.

    However, Mohammed corrected all the other messengers.

    Incorrect. He was sent to (among other things) correct what their followers messed up.

    But he is an Adversary.

    Yes, he as enemy, just like one’s own animal self can be one’s enemy.

    must be fought, battled, defeated, and crushed, rather than seeing itself as being involved in a process where the world is healed, repaired, reconciliated, integrated, and harmonized.

    Neither is mutually exclusive. Humans cannot destroy Shaytan, he has been given respite until the Day of Judgement. They can only avoid his traps and his plots.

    Dualism

    If that’s what you want to call it. How others define us is not all that relevant.

    Peace.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Thanks: AaronB
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  250. @AaronB

    ‘… (And slave trading??)…’

    I’m not responsible for your ignorance of the details of life in Dark Age Europe.

  251. @AaronB

    ‘ …So Islam sees itself as being in a battle, where there is an adversary that must be fought, battled, defeated, and crushed, rather than seeing itself as being involved in a process where the world is healed, repaired, reconciliated, integrated, and harmonized…’

    Now you see, there you go.

    No doubt you can select texts to support this interpretation of Judaism — but you’ll have one hell of time making a case for Judaism ever having concerned itself with realizing this goal in practice.

    As to the ‘dualism’ of Christianity and Islam, you know perfectly well this trait is at least as pronounced in Judaism — if anything, more pronounced, as Judaism tends to perceive a ‘dualism’ between the Jews themselves and everybody else. In fact, when Christians get into this mood, they usually decide they are the Jews and everyone else are the gentiles.

    So gee — wherever did this ‘dualism’ come from?

  252. AaronB says:
    @Colin Wright

    Witness Talha spending several paragraphs demonstrating that Islam isn’t dualistic.

    I guess everyone will have to decide for themselves.

    Talha has helpfully explained that Islam considers itself to have corrected the errors of Judaism and Christianity – indeed all other faiths – and to have restored the original purity of the primordial religion.

    This means other religions are invalid to a greater or lesser extent, and that Islam alone is fully legitimate.

    Similarly, everyone may have got prophets, but Mohammed corrected the errors of all the other religious and spiritual traditions, so only the prophetic traditions concerning him are truly valid.

    This sets up an oppositional dualism – an us vs them mentality. It is not a mentality of reconciliation and cooperation. It is a theology of aggressive invalidation. Dualism rather than harmonizing of diverse strands.

    Judaism by contrast believes religions and faiths are not necessarily more or less legitimate but appropriate to different peoples, and there is no necessary conflict between them. At worst, Judaism believes that different spiritual paths are appropriate to people on different spiritual levels, but again, there is no necessary antagonism here.

    I was just talking to an orthodox friend of mine, and commenting on the harsh belief that non Muslims go to hell, I mentioned that Judaism believes non members can go to heave, if perhaps on a lower level – he immediately corrected, saying its not a question of levels, but that non Jews have their own, perfectly valid, relationship to God, that is different from ours.

    Now as Talha very helpfully also explained, Islam believes in an Adversary that is an independent personality trying to drag mankind down, who is to be fought and defeated.

    The message here is not one of healing and reconciliation, of integration and repair, but of victory in battle, of one side losing and the other winning.

    Is there talk in Islam of making the profane sacred, of elevating the physical and uniting it with the spiritual, of repairing the world – of unifying and achieving wholeness – or is the language that of victory on battle? Perhaps a spiritual battle, but a battle.

    That’s dualistic.

    But again, everyone will have to decide for themselves.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Colin Wright
  253. AaronB says:
    @AaronB

    And please understand I am not trying to condemn Islam as a potentially valid religious path appropriate to some people.

    As a non-dualist, I do not have an us vs them mentality, but seek to harmonize diverse strands – like a tapestry. I do not see Judaism as more correct and valid than Islam potentially – both can be valid for different peoples, who have different relationships to God.

    But it seems to me that Islam has a monotheistic strand, inspired by Judaism, and a dualistic Zoroastrian strand, perhaps there from the beginning but surely developed by the heavy Persian influence on Islam.

    It is said that Arabs conquered Persia – but did perhaps Zoroastrian Persians really end up conquering Arabia in the end? Did the conquered conquer the conquerors? If so, this would not be at all unusual – Greece culturally conquered Rome, and the Chinese culturally conquered the Mongols.

    And as long as this us vs them mentality exists, I think Islam will find it impossible to live at peace with its neighbors, as we see. As a young religion, it has not yet integrated these two strands, and as the Arabs were a primitive people, they perhaps were unable to resist the ancient and immensely sophisticated Zoroastrian Persians.

    I look forward to the day that Islam joins the ranks of the mature non-dualistic religions, Judaism and the Eastern faiths, and finally leave a behind its Zoroastrian influence and become a genuine monotheism.

    At that day, Islam will be able to finally live it peace with its neighbors and take its honored place in the tapestry of religions. It will have ripened into a beautiful mature fruit.

  254. @Colin Wright

    No doubt there are others. You would have it that Jews were inevitably hated simply because they were different — or that they were hated because of the role they were forced to take up. The evidence suggests difference alone wasn’t sufficient. Jewish behavior — and that behavior was voluntarily chosen — had a lot to do with it. The Jews — again, at least the Ashkenazim — chose to become successively slave dealers, agents of an oppressive and alien aristocracy, commissars for a murderous Bolshevik regime, and — today — ‘Neo-cons’ manipulating modern America into successive evil and futile wars on behalf of their psychotic mini-Reich in the Middle East.

    That is the point Colin you are a skunk, a stinking skunk. You consistently describe Jews and Judaism as genetically and theologically evil and inherently the source of trouble. For you as the above description is that Jewish behavior is the diabolical thread tearing at the inherent goodness of others.

    Aaron and I are saying is Fuck that. We know better who we and are ancestor are. It is our heritage.

    I hold the very enlightened egalitarian idea that all humans are the same. All. Muslims, Christians, Hindu, etc. all the same. The Jews are no better or worse. Human behavior is a shit fight over resources and supremacy by everyone, no one goes unscathed in the battles of humanity.

    Thought history the Jews got dealt hands and they played their hand the best they could, like the rest of humanity.

    The first extensive Jewish emigration from Western Europe to Poland occurred at the time of the First Crusade in 1098. Under Bolesław III (1102–1139), the Jews, encouraged by the tolerant regime of this ruler, settled throughout Poland, including over the border in Lithuanian territory as far as Kiev.[34] Bolesław III recognized the utility of Jews in the development of the commercial interests of his country. Jews came to form the backbone of the Polish economy. Mieszko III employed Jews in his mint as engravers and technical supervisors, and the coins minted during that period even bear Hebraic markings.[31] Jews worked on commission for the mints of other contemporary Polish princes, including Casimir the Just, Bolesław I the Tall and Władysław III Spindleshanks.[31] Jews enjoyed undisturbed peace and prosperity in the many principalities into which the country was then divided; they formed the middle class in a country where the general population consisted of landlords (developing into szlachta, the unique Polish nobility) and peasants, and they were instrumental in promoting the commercial interests of the land

    During the Early Middle Ages the Islamic polities of the Middle East and North Africa and the Christian kingdoms of Europe often banned each other’s merchants from entering their ports.[9] Corsairs of both sides raided the shipping of their adversaries at will. The Radhanites functioned as neutral go-betweens, keeping open the lines of communication and trade between the lands of the old Roman Empire and the Far East. As a result of the revenue they brought, Jewish merchants enjoyed significant privileges under the early Carolingians in France and throughout the Muslim world, a fact that sometimes vexed local Church authorities.

    While most trade between Europe and East Asia had historically been conducted via Persian and Central Asian intermediaries, the Radhanites were among the first to establish a trade network that stretched from Western Europe to Eastern Asia.[10] More remarkable still, they engaged in this trade regularly and over an extended period of time, centuries before Marco Polo and ibn Battuta brought their tales of travel in the Orient to the Christians and the Muslims, respectively. Indeed, ibn Battuta is believed to have traveled with the Muslim traders who traveled to the Orient on routes similar to those used by the Radhanites.

    It is not that I am superior to you Colin, but I will give you no quarter to pursue you toxic bigotry full of idiotic nonsense. I will lord my sense of righteousness fresh with the knowledge of my own history and family over you like a moral person confronting a stinking racist skunk.
    You are a skunk. You stink.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @AaronB
  255. Art says:
    @AaronB

    “I gotta be honest”

    Snicker laugh — AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA’ AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA’

    • LOL: Kali
  256. @Talha

    ‘Yes, he as enemy, just like one’s own animal self can be one’s enemy.

    must be fought, battled, defeated, and crushed, rather than seeing itself as being involved in a process where the world is healed, repaired, reconciliated, integrated, and harmonized.

    Neither is mutually exclusive. Humans cannot destroy Shaytan, he has been given respite until the Day of Judgement. They can only avoid his traps and his plots….’

    I’d point out that Aaron’s attempts to distort the matter notwithstanding, in neither Islam nor Christianity is the focus on ‘defeating’ Satan; ultimately, he cannot be defeated — certainly not by men.

    Rather, in Christianity — and I suspect, in Islam — the emphasis is on overcoming the temptations and snares Satan places in our path. He can no more be ‘crushed’ than a hot day can be ‘crushed.’ It — or he — is there and will always be there. The critical question is simply how one responds.

    Aaron needs to discover a full-blown ‘dualism’ to make his sophism work. However, Aaron’s need doesn’t cause this ‘dualism’ to come into being.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Talha
  257. Talha says:
    @Colin Wright

    Witness Talha spending several paragraphs demonstrating that Islam isn’t dualistic.

    Dualism, perennialism, Western faith, Eastern faith…all of these definitions and terms are not native to Islam. If others want to call us that after the doctrine is clarified, it’s fine, makes no difference to someone like me. Islam has its own native terms like tawheed and such. It actually doesn’t have a utopian vision because the world is simply a testing ground, that is its purpose, it was never meant to be paradise or last forever or be perfected. Which is why, if one has studied islamic eschatology, then one realizes that the defeat of the Dajjal by the forces led by the Mahdi (as) and the Son of Mary (as) ushers in a golden age – for a while. After that, things will eventually deteriorate until disbelief becomes predominant. It is like spiritual entropy.

    At this point, the test is done, the world has outlived its usefulness and it is folded up.
    “The Hour will not begin until there is no one left on earth who says, ‘Allah, Allah.’” – reported in Muslim

    “Among the most evil of mankind will be those on whom the Hour comes when they are still alive, and those who take graves as places of worship.” – reported in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad

    “[After the golden age has passed and believers have died off] Only the wicked people would survive and they would be as careless as birds with the charactertistics of beasts. They would never appreciate the good nor condemn evil. Then the Satan would come to them in human form and would say: ‘Don’t you respond?’ And they would say: ‘What do you order us?’ And he would command them to worship the idols but, in spite of this, they would have abundance of sustenance and lead comfortable lives. Then the trumpet would be blown…” – reported in Muslim

    This world is ultimately not redeemable, it was never meant to be…our souls, on the other hand, are. We are simply asked to act in accordance with the dictates of the Creator within the situations we have been placed as testing grounds.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Kali
  258. @Fran Taubman

    ‘That is the point Colin you are a skunk, a stinking skunk…’

    Rhetorically, you and Aaron make kind of an interesting tag team.

    I’m tempted to ask if between the two of you, you span the range of Jewish ethical possibilities — but that really wouldn’t be fair.

    (in case you were wondering, yes, you’ve just been insulted.)

    ‘…It is not that I am superior to you Colin..’

    There’s the understatement of the day, you pathetic little vole.

  259. AaronB says:
    @Fran Taubman

    Colin thinks this way because his spiritual lineage is a rather pure and unadulterated form of Zoroastrian Dualism – he needs a Devil to fight, and he will create one if necessary.

    This website is the spiritual headquarters of Zoroastrian Dualism, and its creator and leader, Ron Unz, may be seen as the Head Priest of this spiritual lineage in the world today.

    This ancient and primitive heresy always reappears in the world and never fully dies out.

    To be fair, it is an attitude that has some level of spiritual truth to it, except that it is a very primitive level of spirituality and a very dim reflection of the pure Light of Truth.

  260. AaronB says:
    @Colin Wright

    Ok, but evil is externalized – it is not in your own soul, it is some outside force that causes you to fail. It is a force that is semi independent of you, and that actively wants you to fail.

    That is why you and other dualists see the world in terms of enemies, a fight between good and evil, and that is why for dualists, moral failures and errors are always the cause of sinister our side agents – an attitude shared by Islam and the alt-right.

    For the dualist, evil is am external force we are locked into battle with. It is constantly trying to seduce us and make us fall. Our own moral failures are the result of external forces – the Jews, perhaps, of the freemasons, or what have you.

    Jews see things differently. Certainly there is the “evil inclination”, but it is within us, and certainly there are malicious forces that wish us no good, but our moral failures are never the fault of some external evil force or principle that actively works for our failure.

    So we tend not to, for instance, blame Christians or Muslims for our moral failures or the corruption of our society and religion, although we certainly blame them for our suffering when appropriate.

    And for Jews, the point is to ultimately reconcile and elevate the corrupted world – not defeat its evil elements, which are seen not as active external forces but as broken aspects as a result of mans original sin.

    ******

    I like Talha’s point that words and terms don’t matter – the definitions do. To that end, we should define clearly what we mean.

    • Replies: @Art
  261. @AaronB

    ‘I guess everyone will have to decide for themselves.

    Talha has helpfully explained that Islam considers itself to have corrected the errors of Judaism and Christianity – indeed all other faiths – and to have restored the original purity of the primordial religion.

    This means other religions are invalid to a greater or lesser extent, and that Islam alone is fully legitimate…’

    Well, honestly, Aaron, that makes three of us.

    Only you would seek to find in that some point of superiority for Judaism.

    I know you’re incorrigibly mendacious, but try to at least make your lies interesting.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  262. @Colin Wright

    I can’t give this post a mere “Thanks,” as it deserves a better response.

    Of course, Islam — and myself — are only ‘dualistic’ because it suits the purposes of your argument; the claim has no basis in fact at all.

    …and then you proceed to build on this; Judaism doesn’t suffer from this fault that others do, so it — and you — are intellectually (and morally) superior to Islam — and Talha, I, and everyone else who cares to wade into your palace of lies.

    But it’s all lies; can’t you understand that? It’s lies at both ends; you would make Islam into something that it’s not, make Judaism into something that it’s not, and then win the argument.

    When you’re on target, boy do you knock ’em down.

    I would also add that there’s an inherently binary relationship between any given conviction and what lies beyond it, so all of this talk about one religion possessing duality while another does not is simply meaningless. If there was no such fundamental duality, what need would we have to distinguish one path from another?

    True story: My favorite teacher, a fundamentalist orthodox Muslim, had a neighbor who was a card-carrying member of the Jewish Defense Organization. They and their sons got along without a single argument over religion. Go figure.

    So if Aaron wants his special perspective of Judaism, he’s more than welcome to it — always has been, always will be. I’m not sure how talking out both sides of one’s mouth functions as “tikkun olam,” but there it is.

    “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

    • Thanks: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Kali
  263. Talha says:
    @Colin Wright

    the emphasis is on overcoming the temptations and snares Satan places in our path. He can no more be ‘crushed’ than a hot day can be ‘crushed.’ It — or he — is there and will always be there. The critical question is simply how one responds.

    That’s basically a good summary – he is part of the trial that is this world. Once it ends, his entire raison detre ends. And I can only really speak to my own tradition. My spiritual teachers have taught that man has two enemies; the external (Shaytan) and the internal (one’s untamed animal self/ego [nafs]) – of the two, the nafs is the bigger enemy.

    Peace.

  264. AaronB says:
    @AnonStarter

    I

    would also add that there’s an inherently binary relationship between any given conviction and what lies beyond it, so all of this talk about one religion possessing duality while another does not is simply meaningless. If there was no such fundamental duality, what need would we have to distinguish one path from another?

    Interesting point. Thanks for raising it.

    What is the point of there being different religions? From your dualist perspective, there is no point – only one is valid, and the rest invalid.

    This is inherently aggressive, although the aggression can take on a muted form in decent people.

    From the non-dualist and Jewish perspective, the point of different religions is that 1) Different peoples with different dispositions have a unique relationship to God, emphasizing different things 2) People on different spiritual levels must necessarily follow different paths.

    It is the either/or perspective as opposed to the both/and perspective. It is the tapestry of interlocking parts perspective vs the my way or the highway perspective. It is the perspective of wholeness vs the perspective of the fragment.

    Beyond the question of religion, duality refers to the belief that the world is a battlefield between two opposing forces, rather than a process of healing unification. It is the belief that creation is divided into two aspects, one which will triumph over the other, rather than both integrating and harmonizing in a higher divine unity.

    Talha said it best – the world cannot be redeemed, healed, unified, or repaired. It will be finally destroyed and souls will be gathered up to God. Physical and spiritual are opposed, and the physical will be destroyed. This is classic Gnostic dualism – a position I respect, but one that is not monotheistic and not as profound as the Truth, which goes deeper than apparent division and reaches an underlying Unity.

    Jews believe the physical and the spiritual are not two opposing forces, but both emanations of the one Divinity – it is a false opposition, ultimately. The corruption of the world which occludes spiritual radiance can be healed and repaired, and there is no fundamental dualism in essence.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  265. AaronB says:
    @Colin Wright

    Only you would seek to find in that some point of superiority for Judaism

    You are a dualist, so I would not expect you to find monotheism superior.

    You have a fundamentally different metaphysics.

    An interesting character you might find interesting is Bruce Charlton. He is a frank Christian dualist – very honest about not being a monotheist and who also sees the world as a battlefield between forces of good and evil.

    He also shares your, err, interesting temperament Colin 🙂 I think he can help you become more spiritually refined as a dualist – he seems the best of the dualists to me.

    As a non-dualost, I think that even dualism has its place on the spiritual pantheon. It is appropriate for some people on a certain spiritual level.

    But Colin – I think you urgently need some spiritual discipline. You act right now like a terrible person, but I don’t really think you’re a bad guy deep down. You’re pretty smart, too, not at all stupid. Your anger and rage now is unfocused and unintelligent, and your suffering clear.

    Convert to Islam already – or if not, find solace in some form of dualistic Christianity like that offered by Bruce Charlton. Do yourself a favor. Some sort of spiritual discipline is necessary for all of us.

    • Troll: Colin Wright
  266. Talha says:

    Talha said it best – the world cannot be redeemed, healed, unified, or repaired.

    I specifically said, the world cannot ultimately be redeemed. I did not say this other stuff. That’s your interpretation.

    Physical and spiritual are opposed,

    Those are your words, not mine.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    , @AaronB
  267. @AaronB

    From your dualist perspective, there is no point – only one is valid, and the rest invalid.

    Validity is the quality of being correct or true. You can not hold other religions as valid because if you did, it would necessarily require you to negate the truth of Judaism as you see it.

    Case in point: Jews continue to hold that the Moshiach has not been sent by God, while Christians hold that Jesus was the Moshiach. One cannot hold both views as mutually valid, particularly when they define their respective religions as fundamentally as they do.

    In examining the entirety of your argument, it’s clear that when you speak of “validity,” you’re referring to a transparently conditional one, subject to the scrutiny and affirmation of those you regard as learned among God’s chosen people (perhaps yourself). In short, your concept of “validity” is a necessarily Jewish — and, as such, non-universal — one. It cannot possibly be otherwise.

    Another point: If you actually held that Islam was a valid path, what need would it have to “mature”? In fact, you don’t hold it as such. You yourself have stated that it has potential, which implies that it has yet to attain validity.

    Bottom line: You want for your religion what it really can never have. It’s a rational desire, I’ll grant, but it simply isn’t the truth and no amount of unctuous rhetoric will change that fact.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @AaronB
  268. @Talha

    Those are your words, not mine.

    Funny, I had the same thought.

    Is this “tikkun olam” or “sheber olam”?

    Hard to tell.

    was-salaam.

  269. Validity is the quality of being correct or true. You can not hold other religions as valid because if you did, it would necessarily require you to negate the truth of Judaism as you see it.

    False.
    You can hold validity as being relative to what one is taught and brought up with. I believe that there is more then one valid path to follow and we all end up at the same place. If you believe there is only one valid path. That is the whole point.That is what this entire argument is about.
    You believe that your path is valid and Aaron and I are swindlers trying to wind you up.

    God’s chosen people (perhaps yourself). In short, your concept of “validity” is a necessarily Jewish — and, as such, non-universal — one. It cannot possibly be otherwise.

    False
    Chosen is time sensitive who’s shelf life has expired. It is finished. Chosen referred to a time in the distant past when Jews were chosen to experience a revelation. A moral code and set of commandments as well as the nature of divinity, and the sanctity of life. Novel ideas at the time of the revelation. We were chosen to pass it along. Mission accomplished. At this time we are all the same. Judaism and Christianity, Hinduism all bound by moral codes and the sanctity of life.

    Bottom line: You want for your religion what it really can never have. It’s a rational desire, I’ll grant, but it simply isn’t the truth and no amount of unctuous rhetoric will change that fact.

    What Aaron and I have been pointing out is the rhetorical imbalance like the statement above. Aaron and I believe it is all good all the religions are good. You and Colin believe everything involving Jews and Judaism is riddled with deceit and evil.
    So when Aaron talks about duality. The response is we are con artist.
    The response is:
    But it’s all lies; can’t you understand that? It’s lies at both ends; you would make Islam into something that it’s not, make Judaism into something that it’s not, and then win the argument

    You have decided that we are swindlers and con artist. So no matter what we say it is viewed as a new con game. I am guess I am good with that, or have learned to accept it. So why try to engage a swindler to what end? Colin constantly engages to infer that Judaism is a con game and Jews are con artist. For me it is nihilistic, futile, and goes against the nature of god’s will for peace, divine grace and acceptance. It is just repulsive to engage in such a destructive manner.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    , @AaronB
  270. @Fran Taubman

    You can hold validity as being relative to what one is taught and brought up with.

    Then what you are proffering is, by definition, moral relativism.

    The distillation of your argument is simple: Judaism is equivalent to having no religion at all, since the very same kind of belief you describe is pragmatically indistinguishable from any one of a number of secular persectives which hold that most of the world’s religions are equally valid paths to goodness. In your case, you’re merely substituting said “goodness” for God; otherwise, there’s no difference.

    If you want to call that “swindling,” it’s up to you. I’m just a reporter here, telling it like it is.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  271. Kali says:
    @AaronB

    Last night I skimmed through the last 28 or so comments in this thread, only to be treated to a display of dishonesty, arrogance, condescension and vomit-inducing supremacist ideology from our resident jew-trolls, both screeching about how hateful some of our most respectful and courteous commenters are, cackling about “derivitive” theologies, and gloating about the imagined/invented on-the-spot “merrits” of their religion.

    Aaron, I’m absolutely certain, is here to play games and toy with people for his own personal entertainment, including with Fran (you think he likes you Fran, but he’s just using you to promote himself).

    In her defence, at least Fran believes the lies she spews, and seems to be genuinely unaware that she is the most overtly toxic hater on this platform. I feel she is truly deluded, which, in itself, makes her twisted rantings and inversions of the truth at least somewhat honest – from her perspective at least.
    That said, the hatered she spews forth is just as vile as that which she accuses others of, if only she could see it.

    But Aaron is, from what I see, a complete fraud.

    So Islam sees itself as being in a battle, where there is an adversary that must be fought, battled, defeated, and crushed,

    Is it not the case that “the jews” are locked in perpetual battle against the goyim, to cleanse the world of all enemies of their psycho-God, to bring us all to our knees before them, to enforce, on behalf of psycho-God, their commandments, their “law” on us? Does that not make judaism the most adversarial of all religions?

    rather than seeing itself as being involved in a process where the world is healed, repaired, reconciliated, integrated, and harmonized.

    Harm-onised under the boot of Jewish supremacism, integrated under Jewish law?

    No thanks dude. If it’s all the same to you, take your tikkun olam, your supremacist Noahide “law”, the commandments of your psych-God, and piss-off back to the dessert in which your fucked-up ideology was devised.

    Viva Palestine!
    Kali.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @AaronB
  272. Kali says:
    @Talha

    Now I understand!!

    Islam is, ultimately, about transendance, as is my own spiritual perspective.

    This world is ultimately not redeemable, it was never meant to be…our souls, on the other hand, are. We are simply asked to act in accordance with the dictates of the Creator within the situations we have been placed as testing grounds.

    Thank you Talha. I am a lot clearer now regarding the Islamic religion, and it’s spiritual teachings.

    Nameste (the Divine in me bows to the Divine in you),
    Kali.

    • Replies: @Talha
  273. Kali says:
    @AnonStarter

    I can’t give this post a mere “Thanks,” as it deserves a better response.
    […]
    When you’re on target, boy do you knock ’em down.

    Couldn’t agree more!

    Colin, when I suggested you were a narcissist a few weeks ago, I was 100% wrong. – You later suggested I might have been right. In that, you were wrong!

    Please do accept my apologies. I don’t know whether your comments have improved, or if my perception has cleared (probably the latter – revealing a very common cycle for me) but my apology is unequivocal.

    Thank you for your contributions here. They make a huge (possitive) difference to my experience of this forum.

    With love,
    Kali.

    • Thanks: Colin Wright
  274. Talha says:
    @Kali

    Thank you for reading my posts.

    Islam is, ultimately, about transendance, as is my own spiritual perspective.

    Yes. The physical world is important in so far as it is a means to attain one’s ultimate goal, which is closeness to the Divine:
    “Know that the life of this world is but amusement and diversion and adornment and boasting to one another and competition in increase of wealth and children – like the example of a rain whose [resulting] plant growth pleases the tillers; then it dries and you see it turned yellow; then it becomes [scattered] debris. And in the Hereafter is severe punishment or forgiveness from Allah and approval. And what is the worldly life except the enjoyment of delusion?” (57:20)

    A past shaykh in my spiritual lineage made a useful analogy. The world is like a vast ocean and one’s own heart and soul is like a boat that is navigating towards the harbor of its ultimate destination. One respects the ocean, it is a means of one’s own provision and also the means by which one accomplishes one’s goal, reaching the harbor. BUT one must not be deluded or mistaken and grow so attached to the ocean that one forgets their goal and – even more forgetfully – allows the water to enter upon the boat of their heart. Because once it takes on too much water, it will flounder and result in disaster for one’s soul.

    Nameste

    Thank you, peace be upon you as well.

  275. AaronB says:
    @Kali

    So basically, I’m all terrible, and you’re all good. And Jews are all terrible, and every other group is good.

    Classic Dualism.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Kali
    , @Colin Wright
    , @Anon
  276. AaronB says:
    @AnonStarter

    Validity is the quality of being correct or true. You can not hold other religions as valid because if you did, it would necessarily require you to negate the truth of Judaism as you see it

    .

    One can hold that certain aspects or claims of a tradition are not valid, but that overall the tradition is capable of lifting people spiritually.

    One can hold that overall, a tradition is spiritually efficacious, and it may even be beneficial for certain people to hold specific false beliefs in the short term that help them spiritually.

    Another point: If you actually held that Islam was a valid path, what need would it have to “mature”? In fact, you don’t hold it as such. You yourself have stated that it has potential, which implies that it has yet to attain validity

    I regard Islam as a spiritually efficacious path for people on a certain level – it genuinely helps and assists people on a certain level attain spiritual fruits.

    Even as it is right now, it has its place on the spiritual pantheon and genuinely helps many people.

    At the same time, I think that like all living and dynamic systems, it is evolving – and that eventually, it will reach a higher spiritual level, where it doesn’t have to hate jews in order to feel good about itself, but can see the truth that we all have a part to play.

    But even in its current state, where it is Dualistic and hates Jews, Islam has a certain level of vakidit and spiritual effectiveness that is not to be despised.

    As a Dualist, I understand that this is hard for you to understand.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  277. AaronB says:
    @Fran Taubman

    Hey Fran,

    One can be angry with them, but I think it is better to simply understand them. They cannot help thinking the way they do, and once you understand how they think, everything they do makes total sense. They are a classic “type” worth understanding.

    For instance, Talha seems like a “nice guy”, but is extremely chummy with the worst and most aggressive people here – plain bullys – like Colin Wright and Kevin Barrett, but won’t talk to you.

    It seems incredibly puzzling at first – but once you understand he is a classic Dualist, it is no mystery. Colin is on “his side” and you are not. Considerations of basic decency and universal humanity are not the significant factors to a Dualist. Sides are.

    The “original sin” of Dualists is to externalize the evil in their own soul. We all have evil and good running through our own soul, but the Dualist tries to pretend that his own evil is an external force – so he hates Jews or blacks or whoever, and believes in conspiracy theories. Because evil is outside, not inside him.

    This is an ancient spiritual tradition – Zoroastrian Dualism – that has always appealed to some people and is enormously influential in Islam. This is a classic “type” of person and psychology – we need to understand it intelligently. And the Unz website may be regarded as one of the modern epicenter of this ancient spiritual tradition.

    And Islam should be seen as at least partly a vehicle for Persian Zoroastrianism – Persians being by far the most influential people in the development of Islam, who clearly smuggled in their Dualist tendencies.

    Jewish monotheism – and Eastern non-dualism – arose specifically in response to this spiritual sin.

    Did you ever wonder why Jews insist so strongly on the Oneness of God? Why the central prayer in Judaism is the Shema, which celebrates the Oneness of God?

    Seems really weird, right? What’s so important about Oneness? Why can’t there be many Gods? Aren’t other aspects of religion more important? And why do Eastern faiths make non-duality the very pivot and centerpiece of their faiths?

    Because from this oneness all morality and human decency flows, and all capacity for spiritual evolution – and when one falls into the heresy of Dualism, one externalizes the evil in oneself as an outside force, and one no longer sees the enemy as oneself bit as some outside entity, be it Jews or whatever.

    And that is the secret to anti-Semitism – Jews say, no, there are no two forces, and evil is not external to you. It is in you that you must fight it.

    To the Duslist, this is the worst message you can give him. But it is also the only message that will help him spiritually evolve.

    And now, as monotheists and non-dualists, we must give even dualism its due and not merely condemn it. And this is utterly incomprehensible to the Dualist, that we can see goodness in and be geneous to even what we oppose. Because as non-dualists, we don’t really oppose anything. There is no war – all is One, and God us One.

    Dualism, to give it it’s due, is a legitimate rung on the spiritual ladder. It is the first step, and we should not be too harsh on people who are attracted to it. They too are on the Way. We should only wish them a speedy journey.

    • Replies: @Assad al-islam
  278. @AaronB

    I am also increasingly struck by how Islam also has a Devil, Dajjal, and sees evil as an I dependent force at war with God. It seems Islam is not as monotheistic as I thought, and shares shades of a dualistic theology with Christianity, which has Satan.

    Jews do not have a Dajjal or Satan figure in our theology, we have the “evil inclination” –

    WRONG! FALSE!

    There is no Dajjal in the Quran. It is in the false cooked Hadiths. Devil is an English word and satan is an Arabic word. Basically, satan is a noun and not a proper noun and it means, “adversary” or some say, “evil adversary” GOD HAS NO ENEMIES!

    God commanded angels to prostate to Adam, all the angels did except Iblis (a proper noun). Basically, Iblis a Jinn was was hanging around with the angels. Jinn (not Hollywood) and Ins are two intelligent beings and in between them there are umpteen intelligent beings. Iblis refused, so God asked him why he refused. His answer, I am created from fire whereas Adam is created from dust and I am better than Adam. God told him you are arrogant and haughty. Iblis then asked God, Rabbi (my Sustainer) give me respite until the Day of Judgement, as men is my enemy being the reason for my fall so to show you that I am better than men. God’s answer, “shaytan has been given respite until the Day of Judgement”. You see the play on words, Iblis is not given respite until the Day of Judgement, but satan is given respite…..

    So, what is satan? It is our “evil inclination”. We are back to yetzer ha and yetzer tov. It is our heart which keeps on whispering to us, and those around us. A good example of those whispering around us is The Evil Mass Media. Here is the complete last chapter 114 of the Quran, which is titled, “The Mankind” and which explains the “evil inclination”.

    Say, “I seek refuge in Rabb (Sustainer) of mankind, Owner of mankind, God (*) of mankind, from the evil of the retreating whisperer, who whispers [evil] into the breasts of mankind, from among the jinn and the mankind.” (*) The Arabic word used her is ilah and not al ilah (allah)

    What astonished me, Fran to one of my question, answered Judaism is dualism. I was shocked.

    Fran post #191 : to weather Hashem feels fear. I have no idea. From what I can tell Hashem cannot control evil impulses. Like the plaques in Egypt. Why didn’t Hashem skip to the last plaque. Why all the build up. The answer given in the Midrash is that the Egyptians had to reach their full measure of evil.
    So apparently Hashem could not control the measurement of evil. How much he can control I do not understand.

    And, my reply to her.

    Assad post #194 : If one says that, “From what I can tell Hashem cannot control evil impulses.”, then Elohim is not a God who does control everything. We get into dualism.

    Sister Fran is honest and full of light but you are very dishonest and you mask Fran’s light. There is not one iota of goodness in you. Your are like a slippery snake who twists and turns and knowingly misquote what is written to you.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Colin Wright
  279. anon[101] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    So basically, I’m all terrible, and you’re all good. And Jews are all terrible, and every other group is good.

    Classic jew projection.

    FIFY, jewbreath.

  280. @AaronB

    To the Duslist, this is the worst message you can give him. But it is also the only message that will help him spiritually evolve.

    Hey snake, how would Hitler describe your twisting and turning.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  281. AaronB says:
    @Assad al-islam

    Sister Fran is honest and full of light but you are very dishonest and you mask Fran’s light. There is not one iota of goodness in you. Your are like a slippery snake who twists and turns and knowingly misquote what is written to you.

    So basically, I am all evil and you are all good.

    As far as I understand, you are Shia Muslim right? Of course you will hate me – I am a Monotheist and non-dualist. I believe in the Oneness of the Divine.

    Like all Muslims, you are a Dualist – and as a Shia Muslim, centered in Persia, you’re probably more Dualist than average.

    Yes, I am all evil and you are all good. And the failures of your society and yourself are caused by Jews, because monotheists are your enemy and evil is an external force.

    I get it.

    For my part, I understand and sympathize with you. You are on the Path, and will eventually see the limitations of Dualism.

  282. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    This is what you said –

    This world is ultimately not redeemable, it was never meant to be…our souls, on the other hand, are…[Islam] actually doesn’t have a utopian vision because the world is simply a testing ground, that is its purpose, it was never meant to be paradise or last forever or be perfected.

    If this is not setting up an opposition between the physical and spiritual, between this world and the next, between soul and body, then I apologize for misreading you.

    But if you want to be honest, Talha, you have to accept that any eternal opposition between this world and the next, the soul and the body, is classic Gnostic Dualism, and that Islam as you described it falls into this category at least to some not insignificant extent.

    In Judaism, there is no eternal and fundamental division between this world and the next or the body and soul – Messianic times are envisioned as earthly life in the body perfected by the constant presence of God. Basically, nothing will change except everyone will have a connection to God (well, war will cease and love and justice prevail). In other words, everyone will be a Mystic 🙂

    This is similar to Buddhism, where Nirvana and this world are exactly the same, just seen from different perspectives – in the light of Truth and God, or in spiritual darkness.

    And this is similar to Hinduism as well, where you and the world are one.

    Thank you for your explanation of Islam – I am beginning to really appreciate the extent that Islam has a very marked strain of Gnostic Dualism in it – I honestly had no idea! You guys are almost Gnostics, based on your words above!

    Of course of this is your theology you will not work for harmony and peace with Jews not accept other religions have validity!

    You quite literally cannot justify that within a Dualist theology.

    • Replies: @Talha
  283. One God.
    Three Persons.
    One abode
    In His daughters and sons.

  284. @AnonStarter

    Then what you are proffering is, by definition, moral relativism.

    I am not proffering anything. This is is easy as pie. Simple.

    Explaining Judaism’s acceptance of other faiths is not relativism that negates my faith, equating it to secularism. And you know that.

    I can reject the trinity and Jesus as a demigod and at the same time engage in sincere dialogue with Christians and view them as inherently moral people. Most Christian feel the same way about Jews and Judaism. Christians believe it is a sin against god to hate Jews, as expressed by the Pope. It was not always like that. It was a long struggle to achieve that parity.

    What has transpired on this site between the Jews and the Muslims is empirical evidence of pre existing character traits that have been established between the two faiths, prior to our engaging in conversations. Aaron and I have sincerely tried work around the roadblock. We have despite all efforts fallen into the trap.

    When analyzing empirically the conversations as for the why? You can look away if you believe the worst.

    I have observed.

    You and the other Muslims on this site hold the idea that Jews and judaism are preternatural evil. Conversations have become mind traps engaged in expose for revelation of the evil.

    Aaron’s theory of duality is an attempt to explain the above phenomenon. Judaism does not have a built in boogeyman that Islam has. The Jews are not wired to view other people and their religions as preternaturally dangerous. I view secularism as an abhorrent religion.(I consider it a religion) but I do not view secularist themselves as abhorrent and can engage them without fear, free from mind games.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  285. @Assad al-islam

    Aaron was trying to explain why Islamist and Muslims hate Jews so much. Nothing more then that. I do not understand your response. The idea that Islam holds the view of an evil source as a sentient does not exist in Judaism.

    • Replies: @Assad al-islam
  286. AaronB says:

    This has been an amazing conversation – light after light bulb is going off in my head!

    Islam is the legitimate heir to the religion of Mani, Zoroaster, and the Gnostics, and the Jewish monotheism is just window dressing. Talha’s explanation of Muslim theology with regard to this world and the body makes that crystal clear.

    You are absolutely right Talha when you say Islam doesn’t come from the lineage of Jacob, etc!

    I remember Kevin Barrett saying that Muslims fast to prepare us for a disembodied state without a body – classic Gnostic Dualism – and mocked Jews for not being ascetic in this fashion. (Only Buddhism is similar in avoiding asceticism as dualistic and taking the Middle Path instead, recognizing that rejecting anything is the same thing as clinging to anything.)

    But it makes total sense – the Muslim Gnostic hates the body. The monotheist Jew seeks to spiritually elevate the body. The Muslim Gnostic seeks to free the soul from the body. The monotheist Jew seeks to unite spirit and body.

    Dualism vs monotheism – nothing could be more stark.

    Of course Muslims cannot peacably coexist with other religions nor accept that they are legitimate paths! That isn’t possible within a dualistic, Gnostic theology where the world is divided between good and evil.

    And of course the heirs of Mani and the Gnostics must hate Jewish monotheists and other non-dualists – is it a surprise that the first things Muslims did after conquering India, was destroy the Buddhist monasteries?

    This is an ancient theological battle – except it is one sided, as Jews and Buddhists do not hate the heirs if Mani but wish for their spiritual elevation only.

    And of course the heirs of Mani must see evil as an external force that causes their failures – and the monotheist Jews who stubbornly refuse to reject any aspect if Creation are the obvious choice.

    And from that follows all the conspiracy theories, etc.

    Once you have one piece of the puzzle, the entire jigsaw falls into place!

    To be fair, I used to have world-rejecting Gnostic tendencies myself, and I understand how spiritually seductive they can be. Such tendencies are not exactly wrong – the beginning of the spiritual path is to reject the world and the body. And the first step is also to develop a keen sense of good and evil. So Gnosticism and Dualism and the like can be seen as the first step on the spiritual journey. But eventually one sees that rejecting the world is as bad as clinging to the world – both come from desire. And that the tendency to see evil everywhere leads one to treat others in an evil fashion, as we see in Islam.

    Of all world religions, the newest and youngest – Islam and Christianity – seem to have the largest Gnostic and Manichean heritage. Christianity seems to have overcome its Gnostic heritage to a significant degree during much of its history.

    The last redoubt of Gnosticism and the heritage of Mani seems to be Islam – and Unz .com, of course 🙂

    • Agree: Fran Taubman
    • Replies: @anon
  287. Kali says:
    @AaronB

    So basically, I’m all terrible,

    That’s not what I said Aaron.
    I said that I believe that you are not even remotely sincere in your arguments or professed beliefs.

    and you’re all good

    I didn’t say that either.
    Though I would hazard that, unlike you who have already, it seems, deemed yourself perfect, most of the rest of us are getting closer ti being “all good” every day.

    And Jews are all terrible, and every other group is good.

    Nah. Didn’t say that either.

    I did however refer to you, personally, as dishonest. Case in point,your response.

    Kali.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @AaronB
  288. AaronB says:
    @Kali

    So basically, I am insincere and dishonest. And Assad calls me snakelike.

    It’s an interesting response, and I don’t doubt it sincerely seems that way to you. To a dualist, I cannot honestly be trying to see the good side of Islam. I cannot honestly be generous to my opponents. What one opposes must be regarded as completely evil, and can only be crushed and treated with contempt, as everyone here treats Jews.Therefore I must have an ulterior motive or agenda – a conspiracy! I cannot be sincere.

    Whoever heard of not seeing the world as good vs evil?

    I am often shocked and puzzled by the negative responses I get across this site to what I think are utterly innocuous comments – even friendly comments. Especially friendly comments. Utu used to flip out at me over nothing.

    But my dualism theory helps me make sense of it – often the incredibly nasty responses are in reaction to my refusal to take sides but try and see the good in everything, the Divine in everything, and not condemn any one group, as a good Monotheist must.

    To the dualist this can only be dishonest “snakelike” behavior. I must be a snake acting in bad faith because of the world is divided into good and evil, and I am refusing to see all evil on one side.

    And Unz. com is the spiritual headquarters of modern Gnostic Manicheanism in the world today – so it is not surprising that I regularly get nasty reactions for refusing to see the world in Gnostic terms.

  289. @Assad al-islam

    ‘…Sister Fran is honest and full of light but you are very dishonest and you mask Fran’s light. There is not one iota of goodness in you. Your are like a slippery snake who twists and turns and knowingly misquote what is written to you.’

    Dunno about ‘Sister Fran’ — we all prefer to think the best of women, but…

    However, you certainly nailed the vile Aaron.

    • Replies: @Assad al-islam
  290. @AaronB

    ‘So basically, I’m all terrible, and you’re all good. And Jews are all terrible, and every other group is good…’

    Just you, Aaron, just you.

    Well, you and Fran.

  291. Talha says:
    @AaronB

    you have to accept that any eternal opposition between this world and the next, the soul and the body, is classic Gnostic Dualism

    Hmmmm…but those weren’t my words, those are your terms or conclusions. I never stated there is an “eternal opposition” between this world and the next. This world is a stage of existence – and important stage – and one which helps determine one’s next stage. For instance, the very oft recited prayer in the Qur’an is:
    “…And among the people is he who says, ‘Our Lord, give us in this world,’ and he will have no share in the Hereafter. And there are men who say. ‘Our Lord! Give us good in this world and good in the Hereafter, and save us from the punishment of the Fire.’ Those will have a share of what they have earned, and Allah is swift in account.” (2:200-202)

    The family and relationships one builds here in this world (if they are built on a righteous foundation) are part of one’s Hereafter:
    “And (as for) those who believe and their offspring follow them in faith, We will unite with them their offspring and We will not diminish to them aught of their work; every man is responsible for what he shall have earned.” (52:21)

    Gnostic Dualism, and that Islam as you described it falls into this category at least to some not insignificant extent.

    As I said. Everyone is entitled to their interpretation. And if that is your personal conclusion, no problem. These are terms foreign to Islam, so it really doesn’t bother me how others define what they perceive Islam to be. Some on UNZ are insistent that Islam is not a religion, but a political ideology. I might give your personal opinion more weight on the subject if you had more solid credentials with regard to Islam or philosophy/comparative religion.

    In Judaism, there is no eternal and fundamental division between this world and the next or the body and soul

    With us, it’s pretty clear; this world will come to an end and there will be a Day of Judgment. And there is a next life that begins after.

    you will not work for harmony and peace with Jews

    I’m likely a better judge of what I am willing to do or not. I’m fine with working with Jews for peace and harmony. But it depends on the circumstances, details and terms (for instance, what I stated about Jerusalem being managed and shared equitably three-ways between the three faiths). These may or may not be conditions acceptable to Zionists though, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

    not accept other religions have validity!

    Working with others for peace and harmony doesn’t necessitate accepting their worldviews as valid (or even coherent).

    Peace.

    • LOL: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @AaronB
  292. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    Thanks for your explanations.

    You may not have used my exact words, but I am obviously characterizing your position based on the words you did use. I am mostly just expanding on the words you used with synonyms and related terms. Although obviously you – or anyone – is free to disagree with my characterization or expansion with related words.

    As far as I understand, Islam envisions a future world that is not physical and not embodied – that transcends this physical world, which will be destroyed.

    Please correct me if I’m wrong. Kevin Barrett certainly suggested that Islam envisions an ultimate state that is not physical, and that fasting is partially a preparation for that.

    If this is so, then this sets up a duality between the physical and the spiritual. And indeed, part of our task in life is to vanquish the physical, to which end fasting and other ascetic means are employed, and work towards the ultimate victory of the spiritual. Spiritual life is primarily a battle where this plays out.

    Judaism, and Eastern faiths, the physical is not transcended but made spiritual. The two poles are unified and harmonized rather than one dimension eradicating the other. In Judaism, the physical has to be elevated and redeemed. Spiritual life is the drama of this process of healing, and not primarily a battle, although it obviously also involves a struggle.

    Now, I am only mentioning Judaism here to bring out the contrast with what I understand Islam to be. Please correct me if I have misunderstood.

    I would argue that the above kind of division or duality – whatever you want to call it – is pervasive in Islam and characteristic of its outlook in many ways that do not promote peace and harmony.

    For instance,I would argue that if your metaphysics considers all other faiths invalid you will have a hard time generating the necessary respect to get along peacefully with your neighbors. You are starting from a position of aggression.

    And I would further suggest that if your metaphysics thinks that all people who aren’t members of your religion go to hell, you are not likely to have the compassion and respect needed to get along with your neighbors. You are already starting from a dehumanizing position.

    I think, also, the history of Christianity and Islam bears me out.

    Now, you are certainly entitled to disagree with me, but I believe this kind of metaphysics will create subtle cognitive distortions that corrupt ones ordinary sense of justice and fair play, and make you think schemes that unfairly favor your side are “obviously” just.

    And this is what we see with regard to your idea that it is totally fair for Muslims to demand partial control of Judaism holy site and ancient national capital, while relinquishing no control of your sites – not that that would make it ok.

    Because your metaphysic is aggressive and invalidating, you do not see how claiming another religions holy sites and national capital is an inherently aggressive stance.

    And to say that you have no problem working for peace and harmony with Jews provided they accept your principles – like ceding control of Jerusalem – is the same thing as saying you are looking for victory and not peace 🙂

    Now, of course terms don’t matter – they are only shorthand. Terms like Gnostic, Zoroastrian, Manichean, Dualist serve the purpose of making the discussion clearer and also help establish historical parallels and influences.

    So yes, the underlying ideas are the essence of the matter, but these terms are essential. Although if you don’t wish to use them you don’t have to.

    Of course, you are at liberty to disagree with anything and everything I am saying here, and readers will have to judge for themselves, drawing on their own knowledge of history and personal experience.

    And finally, yes, I agree coherence is overrated. A good religion should not be too coherent, as too much logic and not enough mystery would be one sided and dualistic.

    • Replies: @Talha
  293. Anon[208] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    Classic Dualism.

    Whatever isn’t your supremacist, copper-age “destroy all other tribes” monotheism.

    The meaning of the Jewish War in Heaven ideologially proves the overwhelming portion of the anti-Jewish “conspiracy theory”.

    I’m all terrible,

    By definition, Jews are ideological. Ideology can be “all terrible”.

    Ie: if I believe that murder is just, that is “all terrible”.

    If I believe that all tribes should be be forcefully degenerated toward being subverted under Judaism in a future age, that is “all terrible”.

    Disavow Judaism and then we can revisit how terrible you are.

    and you’re all good.

    And your false dichotomy is complete.

    By definition, racial tribes aren’t all good or all bad.

    They lack ideology, as racial tribes, other than that of their continued existence as part of God’s creation.

    They are both human and natural. But at least they don’t have a coordinated effort, as a race, to destroy all other tribes and aren’t therefore all bad.

    At least they exist due to God’s Will. And we certainly can measure their natural behaviors and achievements, on a scale of civilization, and rank those God given behaviors on a scale of Good and Bad. Ranking them above or below other tribes and their “natural behaviors”. Like the one that is primarily oriented toward destroying other nations and occupying their lands.

    How many unarmed Palestinians did the Devil’s Chosen and History’s eternal Saints and Victims kill or purposefully cripple over the past twenty four months? Given the content of your books, that behavior seems very”natural”.

    How many still feel entitled to occupy nations throughout the West, in spite of endless deaths over wars centered around them, in spite of finally having nation of their own, and in spite of the fact that no one likes or wants them?

    In net terms, what isn’t terrible for us about your presence in our lands?

    What isn’t terrible about being forced to treat the fake Holocaust as the new Christianity and subvert all of our values and our existence under its mandates?

    What, on Earth, is not terrible to us about our being destroyed due to your tribe’s post WWII (at minimum) continued political demands and machinations?

  294. @AaronB

    One can hold that certain aspects or claims of a tradition are not valid, but that overall the tradition is capable of lifting people spiritually.

    That’s what millions upon millions of people do. If this is your perspective of Judaism, it doesn’t make it unique among religions in any way. You might as well be Muslim, since we say the same; or have no religion at all, since many atheists and agnostics say the same.

    I regard Islam as a spiritually efficacious path for people on a certain level

    Ah, there it is: conditional validity. Not spiritually efficacious of itself, but only “for people on a certain level.”

    Here’s another gem:

    Even as it is right now, it has its place on the spiritual pantheon

    “Even as it is right now”: a phrase suggesting it is currently flawed.
    “[I]t has its place”: a sentence that implicitly subordinates it in your personal hierarchy of religions.

    Thank you for proving that you really don’t believe other faiths are valid in and of themselves, but rather, that they must dispense with “certain aspects [and] claims” in order to become valid.

    Now that you’ve been exposed as a Dualist, I take it you’ll stop lying about us as well?

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Talha
    , @AaronB
  295. Talha says:
    @AaronB

    I am obviously characterizing your position based on the words you did use.

    Nope. I am quite precise in the words I use when dealing with certain subjects. My words are my words. The words you insinuate with “synonyms and related terms” are yours, not mine.

    you – or anyone – is free to disagree

    Yup – disagree.

    Islam envisions a future world that is not physical and not embodied – that transcends this physical world, which will be destroyed.

    This is incorrect. Though this world is destroyed, the Hereafter is not just a disembodied spiritual realm, this would be familiar to anyone having cursory knowledge of the writings of Sunni theologians (like Imam Ghazali [ra]). The next life is some sort of an embodiment, the exactness and details of which will only be known in the next life.

    Please correct me if I’m wrong.

    Yes, it’s wrong. I do not recall your conversation with Br. Kevin, so I have no idea what he said and whether you are accurately interpreting his words or not.

    I would argue that the above kind of division or duality

    Incorrect assumption – as I pointed out – leads to incorrect conclusions.

    I would argue that if your metaphysics considers all other faiths invalid you will have a hard time generating the necessary respect to get along peacefully with your neighbors.

    I would argue otherwise. As reported in Imam Bukhari’s Adab al-Mufrad:
    “We were with Abdullah ibn Amr and his servant was preparing a roasted sheep. Abdullah said, ‘Young man, when you are finished, then begin with our Jewish neighbor.’ A man said, ‘Jewish? May Allah rectify you!’ Abdullah said, ‘I heard the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, enjoining good treatment of our neighbors so often that we thought he would make them our heirs.’”

    You are starting from a position of aggression.

    We are starting from a point of being faithful to the revelation. From your perspective, it seems that Islam is simply something that was formulated by a bunch of people like any other religion – a set of doctrines that is in flux and “not mature” and needs the right adjustments until it can be acceptable to people who do not believe in it, like yourself. But Islam isn’t really interested in being acceptable to people who don’t believe in it, it is interested in being reliable to the revelation:
    “And when Our clear revelations are recited to them, those who hope not for meeting with Us say: ‘Bring a Qur’an other than this or change it.’ Say, [O Muhammad], ‘It is not for me to change it on my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me. Indeed I fear, if I should disobey my Lord, the punishment of a tremendous Day.’” (10:15)

    If people accept it or not, that is something they ultimately have to resolve with the Divine. If you say that is aggressive, well that’s something we’ll just have to live with.
    “…This day, the disbelievers have despaired of overcoming your religion. So do not be afraid of them but fear Me. Today I have perfected your religion for you and completed My blessing upon you and I am pleased with Islam as a religion for you…” (5:3)

    Which is why we were taught the beautiful and oft-repeated prayer:
    “The Prophet (pbuh) said: ‘There is no Muslim – or no person, or slave (of Allah) – who says, in the morning and evening: ‘I am pleased with Allah as my Lord, Islam as my religion and Muhammad as my Prophet’, but he will have a promise from Allah to make him pleased on the Day of Resurrection.” – reported in Ibn Majah

    So we simply have to be dutiful to our message whether or not it pleases others. Some will like what they hear and sign on, and some will not and simply reject it.

    you are not likely to have the compassion and respect needed to get along with your neighbors. You are already starting from a dehumanizing position.

    OK – again, that is your assumption. We don’t see the need for that conclusion:
    “Sahl bin Hunaif and Qais bin Sad were sitting in the city of Al-Qadisiya. A funeral procession passed in front of them and they stood up. They were told that funeral procession was of one of the inhabitants of the land (i.e. of a non-believer), under the protection of Muslims. They said, ‘A funeral procession passed in front of the Prophet and he stood up. When he was told that it was the coffin of a Jew, he said, “Is it not a soul?”‘” – reported in Bukhari

    While I would love to tell everyone that everything will be just fine and there is nothing to worry about irrespective of what stance they take, that would simply be disingenuous to our mandate to convey to people as it was revealed. It would be both treacherous to the Divine as well as the people to lie to them about what consequences there are in the Afterlife just to make them feel better.

    The Qur’an says over and over again (in similar phrasing):
    “Verily, We have sent you [O Prophet] with the truth, as a bearer of glad tidings and a warner…” (2:119)

    While one may well think someone is condemned in the next life, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they treat them less than human in this one.

    you do not see how claiming another religions holy sites and national capital is an inherently aggressive stance.

    Not claiming it – those are your words – I’m offering to share it because it is obviously holy to us as well.

    And to say that you have no problem working for peace and harmony with Jews provided they accept your principles – like ceding control of Jerusalem – is the same thing as saying you are looking for victory and not peace

    “And to say that you have no problem working for peace and harmony with Muslims provided they accept your principles – like keeping control of Jerusalem – is the same thing as saying you are looking for victory and not peace.”

    Terms like Gnostic, Zoroastrian, Manichean, Dualist serve the purpose of making the discussion clearer and also help establish historical parallels and influences.

    Well, the issue is, you keep using these terms, which is fine, but I’ve never heard these terms used by people (even non-Muslim academics to describe Islam). So it doesn’t make things any clearer for me. It seems to make things clearer for you to define Islam as per your initial assumptions. So I decided to look at some third-party source and dug up a wonderful book (and fairly comprehensive work) I have, called “The Encyclopedia of Islam” that covers many topics. And I did find a clear reference to Manichaeism and Gnostic-Dualism and its very heavy influence on the marginal Ismaili sect. There is no mention of these things having any real influence on Orthodox Islamic thought. In fact, if one is familiar with men like Imams Ghazali (ra), Fakkhruddin Razi (ra), Taftazani (ra), etc. then they will know that these men publicly debated and rejected these influences into Islamic doctrine. People can read the chapter on Ismailism and its connection to Gnostic-Dualism (especially the embodiment in the Hashashin sect) here (it is long, so I went ahead and typed out key parts, but one can read it all by following the link):
    “The sect is a manifestation within Islam of ancient Persian religious systems…Ismailism is the Islamic parallel to Gnosticism (the alternative Dualist form of Christianity), and is related to Hellenistic pagan Gnosticism, and Manicheism…The Alamut period represents the culmination of a perfected Ismailism in which the Gnosticism was so closely adapted to Islam…that they fit together like hand and glove.”
    The New Encyclopedia of Islam

    and readers will have to judge for themselves, drawing on their own knowledge of history and personal experience.

    Totally agree, probably best to leave it at that and let readers see what makes sense and appeals to them.

    As far as whether Islam is purely monotheistic or not in classical/traditional Jewish thought (as opposed to your particular interpretation), I did a little research and went straight to an authority like Maimonides to see if I could find something, and I did:
    “Maimonides: Islam Is Untrue, But Not Idolatry…Indeed, it was Maimonides’ son, Rabbi Abraham, who took his father’s view to its logical conclusion when he argued that, although Islamic religious practices should not be imitated, strictly speaking they do not fall under the biblical prohibition of following the ways of the Gentiles. This is so simply because ‘Muslims are monotheists who abhor idolatry.‘”
    https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-views-on-islam/

    And even more detailed, here:
    “In his Letter to Obadiah the Proselyte Maimonides states clearly: ‘These Ishmaelites are not idol worshippers in the least, and [paganism] has been long since cut off from their mouths and their hearts, and they worship the singular God properly and without any blemish.‘…’It is permitted to teach the commandments to Christians and to attract them to our religion, and it is not permitted to do the same with the Ishmaelites,’ he writes. This is because the Christians never denied the authenticity of our Torah, they merely added their nonsense on top of it, but they and we believe both in the Torah’s sanctity and in the fact that it is an accurate representation of the original Torah delivered to the Jews by God through Moses. The Muslims, on the other hand, even though their Koran describes the giving of the Torah to the Jews, they insist that in every point where their version differs from what’s in our Torah, this is because we either made a mistake in copying our texts, or, worse, falsified our texts.”
    https://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/maimonides-islam-good-christianity-bad-muslims-bad-christians-good/2013/11/15/

    “Maimonides sees the relation of Islam to Judaism as primarily theoretical. With the strict monotheism of Islam, Maimonides has no quarrel. Indeed, he could not have formulated his monotheistic theology if he had not learned his philosophical method for theology from Muslims.”
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/1999/02/the-mind-of-maimonides

    And we further see Muslim thought on Maimonides here for anyone interested (so it is fairly obvious he was knowledgeable about the views of Muslim theologians and not speaking off-the-cuff):
    “The Influence of Islamic Thought on Maimonides”
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/maimonides-islamic/

    Thanks for the discussion, but – as I said before – I think it has run its due course. Please feel free to respond, but pardon me ahead of time if I don’t answer any further since I’ve written about all I want on this topic.

    Peace.

  296. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    or have no religion at all, since many atheists and agnostics say the same.

    Yeah, it always came across to me to be a kind of boiler-plate Left-liberal position. They also want to be inclusive of Islam, but would like us to jettison the stuff they find offensive.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  297. anon[246] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    Jewish monotheism is just window dressing.

    Yep:

    [MORE]

    3

    ORTHODOXY AND INTERPRETATION

    This chapter is devoted to a more detailed description of the theologico-legal structure of classical Judaism. (1) However, before embarking on that description it is necessary to dispel at least some of the many misconceptions disseminated in almost all foreign-language (that is, non-Hebrew) accounts of Judaism, especially by those who propagate such currently fashionable phrases as ‘the Judaeo-Christian tradition’ or ‘the common values of the monotheistic religions’.

    Because of considerations of space I shall only deal in detail with the most important of these popular delusions: that the Jewish religion is, and always was, monotheistic. Now, as many biblical
    scholars know, and as a careful reading of the Old Testament easily reveals, this ahistorical view is quite wrong. In many, if not most, books of the Old Testament the existence and power of ‘other gods’ are clearly acknowledged, but Yahweh (Jehovah), who is the most powerful god, (2) is also very jealous of his rivals and forbids his people to worship them. (3) It is only very late in the Bible, in some of the later prophets, that the existence of all gods other than Yahweh is denied. (4)

    What concerns us, however, is not biblical but classical Judaism; and it is quite clear, though much less widely realised, that the latter, during its last few hundred years, was for the most part far from pure monotheism. The same can be said about the real doctrines dominant in present-day orthodox Judaism, which is a direct continuation of classical Judaism. The decay of monotheism came about through the spread of Jewish mysticism (the cabbala) which developed in the 12th and 13th centuries, and by the late 16th century had won an almost complete victory in virtually all the centres of Judaism. The Jewish Enlightenment, which arose out of the crisis of classical Judaism, had to fight against this mysticism and its influence more than against anything else, but in latter-day Jewish Orthodoxy, especially among the rabbis, the influence of the cabbala has remained predominant. (5) For example, the Gush Emunim movement is inspired to a great extent by cabbalistic ideas.

    Knowledge and understanding of these ideas is therefore important for two reasons. First, without it one cannot understand the true beliefs of Judaism at the end of its classical period. Secondly, these ideas play an important contemporary political role, inasmuch as they form part of the explicit system of beliefs of many religious politicians, including most leaders of Gush Emunim, and have an indirect influence on many zionist leaders of all parties, including the zionist left.

    According to the cabbala, the universe is ruled not by one god but by several deities, of various characters and influences, emanated by a dim, distant First Cause. Omitting many details, one can summarise the system as follows. From the First Cause, first a male god called ‘Wisdom’ or ‘Father’ and then a female goddess called ‘Knowledge’ or ‘Mother’ were emanated or born. From the marriage of these two, a pair of younger gods were born: Son, also called by many other names such as ‘Small Face’ or ‘The Holy Blessed One’; and Daughter, also called ‘Lady’ (or ‘Matronit’, a word derived from Latin), ‘Shekhinah’, ‘Queen’, and so on. These two younger gods should be united, but their union is prevented by the machinations of Satan, who in this system is a very important and independent personage. The Creation was undertaken by the First Cause in order to allow them to
    unite, but because of the Fall they became more disunited than ever, and indeed Satan has managed to come very close to the divine Daughter and even to rape her (either seemingly or in fact
    – opinions differ on this). The creation of the Jewish people was undertaken in order to mend the break caused by Adam and Eve, and under Mount Sinai this was for a moment achieved: the male god Son, incarnated in Moses, was united with the goddess Shekhinah. Unfortunately, the sin of the Golden Calf again caused disunity in the godhead; but the repentance of the Jewish people has mended matters to some extent. Similarly, each incident of biblical Jewish history is believed to be associated with the union or disunion of the divine pair. The Jewish conquest of Palestine from the Canaanites and the building of the first and second Temple are particularly propitious for their union, while the destruction of the Temples and exile of the Jews from the Holy Land are merely external signs not only of the divine disunion but also of a real ‘whoring after strange gods’: Daughter falls closely into the power of Satan, while Son takes various female satanic personages to his bed, instead of his proper wife.

    The duty of pious Jews is to restore through their prayers and religious acts the perfect divine unity, in the form of sexual union, between the male and female deities. (6) Thus before most ritual acts, which every devout Jew has to perform many times each day, the following cabbalistic formula is recited: ‘For the sake of the [sexual] congress (7) of the Holy Blessed One and his Shekhinah … ’ The Jewish morning prayers are also arranged so as to promote this sexual union, if only temporarily. Successive parts of the prayer mystically correspond to successive stages of the union: at one point the goddess approaches with her handmaidens, at another the god puts his arm around her neck and fondles her breast, and finally the sexual act is supposed to take place.

    Other prayers or religious acts, as interpreted by the cabbalists, are designed to deceive various angels (imagined as minor deities with a measure of independence) or to propitiate Satan. At a
    certain point in the morning prayer, some verses in Aramaic (rather than the more usual Hebrew) are pronounced. (8) This is supposed to be a means for tricking the angels who operate the gates through which prayers enter heaven and who have the power to block the prayers of the pious. The angels only understand Hebrew and are baffled by the Aramaic verses; being somewhat dull-witted (presumably they are far less clever than the cabbalists) they open the gates, and at this moment all the prayers, including those in Hebrew, get through. Or take another example: both before and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands, uttering a special blessing. On one of these two occasions he is worshipping God, by promoting the divine union of Son and Daughter; but on the other he is worshipping Satan, who likes Jewish prayers and ritual acts so much that when he is offered a few of them it keeps him busy for a while and he forgets to pester the divine Daughter. Indeed, the cabbalists believe that some of the sacrifices burnt in the Temple were intended for Satan. For example, the seventy bullocks sacrificed during the seven days of the feast of Tabernacles, (9) were supposedly offered to Satan in his capacity as ruler of all the Gentiles, (10) in order to keep him too busy to interfere on the eighth day, when sacrifice is made to God. Many other examples of the same kind can be given.

    Several points should be made concerning this system and its importance for the proper understanding of Judaism, both in its classical period and in its present political involvement in zionist practice.

    First, whatever can be said about this cabbalistic system, it cannot be regarded as monotheistic, unless one is also prepared to regard Hinduism, the late Graeco-Roman religion, or even the religion of ancient Egypt, as ‘monotheistic’.

    Secondly, the real nature of classical Judaism is illustrated by the ease with which this system was adopted. Faith and beliefs (except nationalistic beliefs) play an extremely small part in classical Judaism. What is of prime importance is the ritual act, rather than the significance which that act is supposed to have or the belief attached to it. Therefore in times when a minority of religious Jews refused to accept the cabbala (as is the case today), one could see some few Jews performing a given religious ritual believing it to be an act of worship of God, while others do exactly the same thing with the intention of propitiating Satan – but so long as the act is the same they would pray together and remain members of the same congregation, however much they might dislike each other. But if instead of the intention attached to the ritual washing of hands anyone would dare to introduce an innovation in the manner of washing, (11) a real schism would certainly ensue.

    The same can be said about all sacred formulas of Judaism. Provided the working is left intact, the meaning is at best a secondary matter. For example, perhaps the most sacred Jewish formula, ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one’, recited several times each day by every pious Jew, can at the present time mean two contrary things. It can mean that the Lord is indeed ‘one’; but it can also mean that a certain stage in the union of the male and female deities has been reached or is being promoted by the proper recitation of this formula. However, when Jews of a Reformed congregation recite this formula in any language other than Hebrew, all Orthodox rabbis, whether they believe in unity or in the divine sexual union, are very angry indeed.

    Finally, all this is of considerable importance in Israel (and in other Jewish centres) even at present. The enormous significance attached to mere formulas (such as the ‘Law of Jerusalem’); the
    ideas and motivations of Gush Emunim; the urgency behind the hate for non-Jews presently living in Palestine; the fatalistic attitude towards all peace attempts by Arab states – all these and many
    other traits of zionist politics, which puzzle so many well-meaning people who have a false notion about classical Judaism, become more intelligible against this religious and mystical background.
    I must warn, however, against falling into the other extreme and trying to explain all zionist politics in terms of this background. Obviously, the latter’s influences vary in extent. Ben-Gurion was adept at manipulating them in a controlled way for specific ends. Under Begin the past exerts a much greater influence upon the present. But what one should never do is to ignore the past and its influences, because only by knowing it can one transcend its blind power.

    ________________________________________________________

    1. As in Chapter 2, I use the term ‘classical Judaism’ to refer to rabbinical Judaism in the period from about AD 800 up to the end of the 18th century. This period broadly coincides with the Jewish Middle Ages, since for most Jewish communities medieval conditions persisted much longer than for the west European nations, namely up to the period of the French Revolution. Thus what I call ‘classical Judaism’ can be regarded as medieval Judaism.

    2. Exodus, 15:11.

    3. Ibid., 20:3–6.

    4. Jeremiah, 10; the same theme is echoed still later by the Second Isaiah, see Isaiah, 44.

    5. The cabbala is of course an esoteric doctrine, and its detailed study was confi ned to scholars. In Europe, especially after about 1750, extreme measures were taken to keep it secret and forbid its study except by mature scholars and under strict supervision. The uneducated Jewish masses of eastern Europe had no real knowledge of cabbalistic doctrine; but the cabbala percolated to them in the form of superstition and magic practices.

    6. Many contemporary Jewish mystics believe that the same end may be accomplished more quickly by war against the Arabs, by the expulsion of the Palestinians, or even by establishing many Jewish settlements on the West Bank. The growing movement for building the Third Temple is also based on such ideas.

    7. The Hebrew word used here – yihud, meaning literally union-in-seclusion – is the same one employed in legal texts (dealing with marriage etc.) to refer to sexual intercourse.

    8. The so-called Qedushah Shlishit (Third Holiness), inserted in the prayer Uva Letzion towards the end of the morning service.

    9. Numbers, 29.

    10. The power of Satan, and his connection with non-Jews, is illustrated by a widespread custom, established under cabbalistic influence in many Jewish communities from the 17th century. A Jewish woman returning from her monthly ritual bath of purifi cation (after which
    sexual intercourse with her husband is mandatory) must beware of meeting one of the four satanic creatures: Gentile, pig, dog or donkey. If she does meet any one of them she must take another bath. The custom was advocated (among others) by Shevet Musar, a book on Jewish moral conduct first published in 1712, which was one of the most popular books among Jews in both eastern Europe and Islamic countries until early this century, and is still widely read in some Orthodox circles.

    11. This is prescribed in minute detail. For example, the ritual hand washing must not be done under a tap; each hand must be washed singly, in water from a mug (of prescribed minimal size) held in the other hand. If one’s hands are really dirty, it is quite impossible to clean them in this way, but such pragmatic considerations are obviously irrelevant. Classical Judaism prescribes a great number of such detailed rituals, to which the cabbala attaches deep significance. There are, for example, many precise rules concerning behaviour in a lavatory. A Jew relieving nature in an open space must not do so in a North–South direction, because North is associated with Satan.

    Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Year. Shahak, Israel.

    Good luck with your next gilgul, deluded jew cunt. 🙂

  298. AaronB says:
    @AnonStarter

    You are confusing dualism with equality and relativism. I never said all spiritual paths are equal or that nothing can be criticized about any spiritual path.

    Dualism is an either/or mentality – either you are Muslim, or you go to hell. Islam is true, and your religion isn’t valid. Judaism is evil, and Jews have been the main source of evil since ancient times.

    It recognizes two principles that are opposed – not harmonized. There is a fight, not cooperation.

    Unity thinking tries to harmonize – different spiritual paths are correct for people on different levels. The harmonizing principle here is hierarchy. The knight and the lord are not equal, but both cooperate in a larger whole.

    Another harmonizing principle is not hierarchy but simply difference within a larger unity – different characters require different spiritual methods. But all strive for the same goal.

    Another harmonizing principle can be the Buddhist principle of expedient means – even a false view may assist ones spiritual growth at a certain level.

    Now, I certainly see faults in other spiritual paths – and we Jews certainly do not accept all spiritual paths – that would be relativists – and we don’t much like idol worship. But in principle, Judaism accepts that other spiritual paths can be appropriate to other people. In principle, Islam cannot consider any path but its own as legitimate.

    Now I have not been shy in explaining that I see Islam right now as having certain spiritual faults that it will evolve away from as it matures. But my position is that even as it is a valid way to serve God. Good Muslims will go to heaven.

    Heck, I even said that I think Dualism has a certain level off validity as a spiritual path.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Art
  299. AaronB says:
    @AaronB

    Another unifying and harmonizing principle Judaism believes in is that each nation has its own role to play in serving God.

    The Jewish role may be central, but each role is important. So non-Jews have their own perfectly valid spiritual path.

    So it is not a question of which religion is true and which false, and which valid or invalid – but rather, is it the best spiritual path for that people.

    There is no reason for the whole world to become Jewish, although anyone who feels the inner call is welcome. Anyone may go to heaven, not just Jews.

    And the Redemption of the world that is the main task of the Jewish people is for everyone, not just Jews. There is a famous passage in Isaiah that everyone knows, where it is said that Jews will be hated and despised and suffer great abuse, but at the end, everyone will realize that the Jews carried the sins of the world (repaired the spiritual damage caused by Adams sin), and everyone will rejoice in the Redemption and bless Jews. Christians famously interpret this passage as referring to Jesus.

    But it is a very benevolent vision.

    Islam and Christianity think that ultimate salvation is only for them, which is a selfish and rather inhumane notion, as non members will presumably now suffer torment or destruction.

    It is dualism vs monotheism in action – a monotheist cannot believe that God cares only for some humans, while a Dualist naturally sees the human race divided into the good guys and the bad guys.

  300. Art says:
    @AaronB

    And for Jews, the point is to ultimately reconcile and elevate the corrupted world

    To funny — you Jews are the corrupt world. Fix Thyself sinner.

    Here is you Jews defined by one sentence.

    Mossad brings 100,000 incomplete coronavirus test kits to Israel

    https://www.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENCE/Mossad-brought-100000-coronavirus-tests-to-Israel-report-621532

  301. Kali says:

    @AaronB

    This is what you said –

    This world is ultimately not redeemable, it was never meant to be…our souls, on the other hand, are…[Islam] actually doesn’t have a utopian vision because the world is simply a testing ground, that is its purpose, it was never meant to be paradise or last forever or be perfected.

    If this is not setting up an opposition between the physical and spiritual, between this world and the next, between soul and body, then I apologize for misreading you.

    What Talha describes doesn’t sound even remotely like “opposition” to me.

    That this temporal/physical life is “a testing ground” in no way “opposes” our spiritual nature, nor does it “oppose” the “next world”, nor our souls. In fact, if I understand correctly, our physical lives and how we choose to live them LEADS to our experiences in the hereafter. So we’re talking about progression rather than opposition.

    You are clinging on to a hypothesis you invented in order to somehow elevate judaism. It’s bogus, intellectually dishonest and, self-serving.

    ——————————-

    On another note, regarding what I perceive as your insinserity/dishonesty/game-playing:

    As an exercise in reflection and self-awareness, try, with an open mind, going back and reading your contributions to this conversation. See if you can grasp why it is that so many others here perceive you as we do.

    You think your being clever, with your “light-bulb” moments, which you present to us as if they were divinely inspired, when in fact they are flimsy rationalisations to which you have given very little though.

    Examine your condescending attitude toward other, your veiled insults, your arrogance. All of which place YOU in opposition to those you attempt to, ever so politely, belittle and abuse.

    Do you have the courage to face yourself, Aaron?
    It is through reading your own words, not mine or Talha’s or Fran’s, through exploring the darker aspects of your character (ego) that you may come to a spiritual, rather than interlectual, light-bulb moment, and so evolve spiritually and mature personally.

    I wish you well on your journey, knowing that only you can make those choices which will divorce you from your ego and invite Divine Presence into your being.

    With love and best wishes,
    Kali.

  302. Talha says:
    @Kali

    In fact, if I understand correctly, our physical lives and how we choose to live them LEADS to our experiences in the hereafter. So we’re talking about progression rather than opposition.

    Thank you, I appreciate you writing this. I wrote quite a bit so I’m glad that some people understood what I was getting at.

    Peace.

  303. @Talha

    Brilliant. You’re a real asset to these discussions.

    • Agree: AnonStarter
    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Talha
  304. @Kali

    ‘…Examine your condescending attitude toward other, your veiled insults, your arrogance. All of which place YOU in opposition to those you attempt to, ever so politely, belittle and abuse.

    Do you have the courage to face yourself, Aaron?
    It is through reading your own words, not mine or Talha’s or Fran’s, through exploring the darker aspects of your character (ego) that you may come to a spiritual, rather than interlectual, light-bulb moment, and so evolve spiritually and mature personally.

    I wish you well on your journey, knowing that only you can make those choices which will divorce you from your ego and invite Divine Presence into your being…’

    There’s only any chance of any of this happening if we assume that there is at least an element of good will in Aaron’s motives for entering into these discussions.

    I’m skeptical such an assumption is valid. The rest of us all believe — rightly or wrongly, as the case may be — that we are expressing or at least approaching truth, and our discourse develops in pursuit of that. The form varies, and certainly the content does. Talha favors extreme restraint, while I frankly enjoy verbal pyrotechnics — but we’re all genuinely seeking to reach and express the truth.

    …except Aaron. I really don’t think he is. Responding him can be useful for elucidating ideas one wishes to express oneself — I’ve done this, and Talha certainly has — but I doubt one can seriously have a dialogue with Aaron in the sense of exchanging ideas. What Aaron’s actual ideas are I don’t know. He persistently conceals them. He seems to be attempting to wrap some sort of Judeo-Zionist Supremacism in a froth of pseudo-mystical universalism, but that’s about all one can conclude. It’s all intentionally obscured — and not very attractive.

    He’s lying to us, and I doubt he considers he even should consider the possible validity of what we have to say.

    • Replies: @Kali
  305. Talha says:
    @Talha

    While one may well think someone is condemned in the next life, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they treat them less than human in this one.

    A clarification on this because I think it deserves it since it was stated as a general principle that could apply to anyone. I have met Christians that also believe I am putting my soul at risk for punishment in the Afterlife by not converting, but have treated me with decency and charitably. And I have met Christians who also believe the same, but have a horrible attitude. Within minutes one can tell the difference between a Christian who is genuinely concerned about someone facing punishment in the afterlife versus one who wants you to end up there so they can say “I-told-you-so.” Having come across both types, the difference in attitude is palpable.

    My teachers (who are Orthodox Sunni scholars and Sufis among them) have taught that we don’t have a right to claim any specific person is condemned to Hell or not. Because ultimately this is in God’s Hands:
    “And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He forgives whom He wills and punishes whom He wills. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (48:14)

    “To Allah belongs what is in the heavens and what is in the earth. If you disclose what is in your hearts or conceal it, Allah shall hold you accountable for it, then He will forgive whom He wills and punish whom He wills. Allah is powerful over everything.” (2:284)

    The Messenger of Allah (pbuh), said, “A man said: ‘By Allah, Allah will not forgive this person!’ Allah Almighty said: ‘Who is he who swore by Me that I will not forgive someone? I have forgiven him and nullified your good deeds.’” -reported in Muslim

    All we can do is faithfully convey the warning of the consequences that has been conveyed to us out of concern for people (not contempt). What they decide to do with that information is between them and their Creator. What God ultimately decides to do in the Afterlife (knowing all details and circumstances, comprehensively and intimately), whether to forgive or punish anyone, no one has any authority to disagree or challenge His decree.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
  306. Talha says:
    @Colin Wright

    And I am impressed (and you have my sympathy) that you were able to get through that huge post. I probably should have hidden some of it with the MORE tag out of courtesy for others. 🤔

    Perhaps next time.

    Peace.

  307. @Fran Taubman

    Aaron was trying to explain why Islamist and Muslims hate Jews so much. Nothing more then that. I do not understand your response. The idea that Islam holds the view of an evil source as a sentient does not exist in Judaism.

    Shalom dear sister Fran,

    I thought my post #285 was very clear that whisper means suggestion and there is no dualism in Islam. It was Jacob’s mother who suggested to Jacob to steal his brother’s birthright. Then his heart (mind) suggested to him, what an excellent idea. In this case the suggestion came from external source. There are cases, where the suggestion is internal. Beer is haram in Islam, and my mind keeps on saying that a pint of iced cold beer would do wonders. I don’t want to drink alone, so I ask my friends to join me, suggesting to them iced cold beer will be great. Whisper = Suggestion!

    Iblis died long, long time ago as he was not given respite. Respite was given to our “evil inclination”! Basically, Adam and Eve were grown up so they deified God. Of course, the snake didn’t whisper to Eve. In Islam we don’t know who was the one who suggested first, maybe a mutual suggestion on touching each other. In Judaism, we know that Adam blamed Eve, and in turn she blamed the snake. Due to our “evil inclination”, we most of the time defy God, nothing new!

    As to weather Hashem feels fear. I have no idea. From what I can tell Hashem cannot control evil impulses. Like the plaques in Egypt. Why didn’t Hashem skip to the last plaque. Why all the build up. The answer given in the Midrash is that the Egyptians had to reach their full measure of evil.

    So apparently Hashem could not control the measurement of evil. How much he can control I do not understand.

    Your above response in your post #191, I have NOT been able to digest. If Elohim cannot control evil impulses, then who does?

    What are other things, Elohim is not in control of?

    Bless be Hashem!

    P.S. We don’t travel to USA much after air travel became cattle class, spending 3 hours or more at the airports with no shoes. How demeaning! But I am sure our families will meet each other some day. Amen!

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  308. @Colin Wright

    Dunno about ‘Sister Fran’ — we all prefer to think the best of women, but…

    However, you certainly nailed the vile Aaron.

    Yes, no doubt Aaron is vile. He has been given forgiveness umpteen times, but then like a slick snake he keeps on constantly changing. Fran light is shinning very bright, she is kind and God fearing Jewess

  309. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    Thanks for your detailed reply.

    Regarding use of words – logically, if the world cannot be redeemed and must be destroyed, it cannot be healed or rectified or integrated — so I am not sure why you object to these additional words, which I regard as synonyms.

    Furthermore, I was the one who first introduced the word redeemed into this conversation, so when you commented that the world cannot be redeemed, it seemed quite logical to assume you were responding to my articulated position – and my articulated position included the words healed and rectified.

    So I am not sure what you object to – do you think the world can be healed and rectified? Am I wrongly characterizing your position when I say that since the world cannot be redeemed but must be destroyed, it also cannot be healed and rectified?

    I must admit I am confused.

    Now, if I understand you correctly, the nature of the next world is an embodiment, but exactly in which way is unclear.

    Is there anything more you can add to elucidate this comment?

    As it stands, it comes close to being the functional equivalent of saying the next world is disembodied. We are quite familiar with physical realities, so if the physical reality will be so different that we can’t really conceive of it, its hard to describe it as physical in any meaningful sense.

    I am assuming it does not mean physical realities will be exactly like our world, and the differences will be only non-essential like changes in our physical shape or the temperature at which water boils at or something like that – i.e, the structure of physical reality remains unchanged, and only its superficial manifestations change.

    I take you to mean that the very structure of physical reality will be different in ways that our current familiarity with what we call physical can give us no conception of.

    That it isn’t simply that we don’t know what physical change will take place – a new limb, an added wing, a halo – but that our new state is in fundamental ways not conceivable in terms of our current physical reality.

    If I have misunderstood you, please correct me. But if this is more or less correct, than I would say that this is about as good as saying the reality – whatever it is – will not be physical.

    To bring out the contrast, in Judaism the physical changes will be within the current parameters of what we mean by physical – eternal life, etc – and the major changes will be spiritual. A perfected physical life will be pervaded by a spiritual radiance we cannot conceive of.

    And in Buddhism, if we could see the ultimate reality, it would be apparent that physical reality, just as it is, is mysterious and inconceivable. Apparent physical reality is just one level of truth, and as such is like an illusion. But physical and spiritual are one, two facets of the same coin.

    So can I summarize where we are so far?

    1) This world cannot be redeemed. It will be destroyed.

    2) The next world, while in some sense physical, will involve fundamental differences in the structure of reality in such a way that we can have no conception of in terms of our current physical reality (if this is indeed a correct interpretation of your position)

    3) This you did not say, but Kevin Barrett has said that Muslims fast partially in order to get used to not having physical bodies in the next life.

    Now, Kali helpfully adds the notion of progression rather than opposition – that our behavior in this world leads to our status in the next world, that it cannot be described as opposition but as progression.

    However, successfully progressing to the next world may well depend on rejecting key aspects of this one. And the opposition lies in the two states of being – one state of being fundamentally opposed to key aspects of this one.

    A child progresses into an adult – but a key aspect of being an adult is rejecting aspects of being a child.

    You have explicitly rejected the idea that this world may be redeemed, but must be destroyed and we will take our place in a world which is so different it cannot be conceived of in terms of this world – if it could be conceived of in terms of this world, it would merely be a redeemed version of this world, would it not?

    Again, to contrast with the Buddhist and Jewish ideas, to bring out the contrast between dualism and non-dualism.

    In Buddhism, this world isn’t destroyed, but redeemed by integrating it in a larger spiritual context. In Judaism, this world isn’t destroyed, but rectified, so that God’s presence can fill it once again.

    • Replies: @Assad al-islam
  310. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    Sorry, Talha, I wrote both replies before seeing your final remark that you are bowing out of the conversation, so please disregard my direct questions.

    I will still publish the replies as is —-

    Now, to discuss the other dualistic themes in Islam – the notion that if Islam is valid, every other religion is false, and that all non Muslims go to hell.

    You seem to have two points. One, that this is your revelation, and you have no choice but being faithful to it. I can totally respect that, as far as it goes.

    It is an admirable declaration of loyalty – it may be aggressive to think other religions are invalid and heaven is reserved for us, but I am bound to believe they are true.

    While admirable as loyalty, it also concedes the point.

    You say that Islam does not evolve or mature, but is simply a revelation you must follow. You have, in this way, unwittingly illustrated another way in which Islam is starkly dualistic – either its all true, or it isn’t. It is the is/isn’t duality, which excludes Becoming.

    Once again by contrast, Judaism believes that we discover the full meaning of the Torah through a process of finding deeper meanings all the time. It is a process of Becoming as much as Being. Man is a participant in the Divine plan and just just a servant.

    Now, your second point seems to be that despite these aggressive metaphysical positions, it is still possible to live amicably with others. And further, you bring forward many quotes that enjoin amity.

    Now, as you know, and as anyone can easily find out online, your quotes coexist with extremely harsh and aggressive quotes about how to treat non Muslims.

    How are we to interpret this? Perhaps under some conditions – Muslim dominance – they are treated well, but in others not.

    Either way, the positive quotes give me hope they can be watered and made to overshadow the negative ones, despite your denial of evolution in Islam.

    Beyond that, everyone will have to decide for themselves, based on their personal experience and knowledge of history, whether an inherently aggressive and invalidating theology can indeed create the conditions of living in peace.

    As for Gnosticism and Manicheanism and the like, yes, this is my own insight and interpretation. I find it quite compelling, but anyone is free to disagree with me. I consider it an advance in interpreting the deep metaphysical structure of Islam, and I don’t think the question can be disposed of by merely consulting ancient authorities.

    Knowledge does evolve, and we are not meant to merely be servants of authority 🙂

    Its entirely possible that after Maimonides time, the Persian influence grew tremendously and the religion became far more gnostic and Manichean.

    Certainly most Jews have considered Islam monotheistic, and I am unusual. It could be that classical Jewish opinion on Islam was most concerned with formal ritual and belief, and not the deep metaphysical structure of Islam, which is what I am analyzing. So there need not be a contradiction.

    While I would love to tell everyone that everything will be just fine and there is nothing to worry about irrespective of what stance they take, that would simply be disingenuous to our mandate to convey to people as it was revealed. It would be both treacherous to the Divine as well as the people to lie to them about what consequences there are in the Afterlife just to make them feel better

    Sure, your stance certainly has a moral defense, and the Inquisition used a similar defense. My point is simply is that it is inherently aggressive and does not promote peace.

    Also, I am not a relativist and do not say anything anyone dies is ok. But your stance seems rigidly dualistic in an aggressive way.

    Which if is what you believe, is what you believe.

    • Thanks: Talha
  311. @Talha

    This world cannot be redeemed. It will be destroyed.

    If God is First and Last then everything will be destroyed, eventually the hell first and then heaven too! But the creation will keep on continuing!

    Quran says, it is ever expanding universe!

  312. Talha says:
    @Colin Wright

    By the way, I would highly, highly recommend the book I referenced for anyone interested in a general introduction to Islamic (and Islam-related) subjects from an academic perspective:

    Rarely have I found an entry in the book that clashes with what I have personally learned from Muslim scholars or other research I have done from academic sources. It really is a comprehensive gem that I find myself going back to in order to find an entry on an obscure sect or Mansur Hallaj or a historical event or a new term I haven’t come across before. As far as non-Muslim works on Islam are concerned, it is top notch.

    The only thing better is the Oxford Islamic Studies Online index – though access most of the entries require membership. The scholarship and level of research and detail s phenomenal:
    http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/browse

    They did produce a comprehensive work also, but I don’t have a copy and can only recommend based on my experience with the online site:

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  313. @AaronB

    This world cannot be redeemed. It will be destroyed.

    If God is First and Last then everything will be destroyed, eventually the hell first and then heaven too! But the creation will keep on continuing!

    Everything will perish beside God!

    Quran says, it is ever expanding universe!

    P.S. Correction: My post #319 was addressed to a wrong person.

  314. AaronB says:
    @Kali

    Sure, I’d be very willing to do that experiment, but would you be willing to examine your remarks on jews and Judaism – and that of Colin Wright and the entire anti-Jewish brigade here, which reaches levels of abuse and vitriol I have never come close to – and put them side by side with what you call my condescension? And do you think the vitriolic personal attacks you and Colin and others here subject me and Fran to will come out looking better than what you call my condescension, which is frequently interspersed with praise?

    Do you think your remarks on Jew la show you in a better light? Do you think Colin Wright’s remarks do?

    I would be happy for all of us on this site to do some honest soul searching and try and show some sympathy and understanding to the other side. To cease the vicious personal attacks and to criticize each others religion if we feel it’s necessary, but try and find beauty and goodness in each other’s position as well.

    I would be more than happy to examine my own remarks as part of a collective effort on this site to tone down hate.

    What do you say, Kali – will you join me in this collective effort of soul searching to tone down hate and develop sympathy and kindness towards the other side?

    • Replies: @Assad al-islam
    , @Kali
  315. @AaronB

    What do you say, Kali – will you join me in this collective effort of soul searching to tone down hate and develop sympathy and kindness towards the other side?

    It is your insincere posts which makes you vile!

    • LOL: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @AaronB
  316. AaronB says:
    @Assad al-islam

    These are the mind traps Fran was refering to above.

    Kali makes a post that rather one-sidedly focuses on my condescension, while ignoring the absolutely extreme levels of abuse I and Judaism are subjected to.

    I rather generously respond by saying hey, this can’t be a one sided thing, we both have to look at our behavior. You can’t just focus on me – I understand your perspective, but from my perspective, your behavior is ten times worse than mine. But no matter – let’s do this together.

    Assad responds by telling me I am vile and sincere – apparently the correct response would have been only surrender and submission. Daring to suggest that those who oppose me are also at fault makes me vile and insincere.

    Well, that’s just Assad – let’s see what Kali says about this. And lets see what Colin Wright says.

    Again, my invitation is that we all make a collective effort to examine our words and tone down the vitriol and hate – both me, and you guys. Instead of focusing on one side, let’s make it a collective effort.

    What do you guys say?

    • Replies: @Assad al-islam
  317. @Talha

    ‘By the way, I would highly, highly recommend the book…’

    To be frank, maybe.

    However, I did have a question.

    I rely on a translation of the Quran for my understanding of Islam — which seems to be more than Aaron et al can be bothered with! If there’s anything that gets my goat, it’s self-appointed experts on Islam who have not read the Quran. It’s not particularly long; it’s reasonably clear. So read it; then pontificate.

    However, the question I have concerns the translation I use: Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s 1934 text.

    Are you familiar with this? Is it considered reasonably accurate? Is there another you would recommend instead?

    • Replies: @Talha
  318. Si1ver1ock says: • Website

    I use a FireFox browser tool called Dark Reader it recently stopped working correctly on this site for reasons unknown. Might want to check that.

    Toggling Dark Reader on/off after the page loads seems to restore it for that page.

  319. @Talha

    As-salaamu ‘alaikum!

    May ALLAH inundate you with infinite blessings, dear brother. ‘Twas a sheer pleasure to read.

    I’ll be back after some time, insha’ALLAH. Real life calls …

    was-salaam.

    • Replies: @Talha
  320. AaronB says:
    @Kali

    That this temporal/physical life is “a testing ground” in no way “opposes” our spiritual nature, nor does it “oppose” the “next world”, nor our souls. In fact, if I understand correctly, our physical lives and how we choose to live them LEADS to our experiences in the hereafter. So we’re talking about progression rather than opposition.

    You are clinging on to a hypothesis you invented in order to somehow elevate judaism. It’s bogus, intellectually dishonest and, self-serving.

    Please see my detailed explanation to Talha.

    To make it clearer, the child progresses into a ln adult – but the state of being an adult, is opposed to being a chid. You exchange one for the other – they are not mutually compatible.

    Two states that are mutually exclusive, even if one progresses into the other, are oppositional in a dualistic manner – two states that coexist, are integrated.

    So, that one progresses from one state to another state does not mean that there is no opposition between those states.

    Progression is not the negative of opposition – integration is the negative of opposition.

    Now, imagine an adult who has managed to retain all sorts of childlike qualities and integrating them into his adult personality, verses the adult who “leaves childish things behind”, and there is barely a trace of the child left in him.

    You remarked that you believe in “transcendence” – in the theological language of religion, transcendence is considered a classic form of Dualism. Logically, its clear why – it creates two states, that even if one progresses into the other, are mutually exclusive.

    Religions like Zen, Mahayana Buddhism, and Hinduism are examples of religions that reject mutually exclusive states, and strive for s vision of Wholeness, like Judaism.

    Let me give you another example to clarify.

    Judaism believes that what man calls “evil”, is actually the Divine principle of Justice (Din) unmixed with Mercy and Compassion – in other words, “evil” is a necessary and good thing taken too far, and existing in a one sided fashion without it’s necessary complements. (In Judaism, Saran simply means the Accuser – he presents to God the case for justice against you).

    In this view, what man calls “evil” is not a state that is mutually incompatible with good – it is actually a necessary component of the good. The good is the Whole in its correct proportions.

    Now, agree with this or not, I am sure you will agree that has profoundly different implications for how one views life and other people.

    I hope I have explained better what I mean by Dualism and how Islam is characterized by it and Judaism is characterized by a theology of integration.

    As for me trying to make Judaism superior, that depends entirely on whether one views Duality as inferior – many people here don’t, for instance. I obviously do – but I have never claimed to not be hierarchical, in fact hierarchy is a major harmonizing principle in non-dualism.

    • Replies: @Kali
    , @Kali
  321. Art says:
    @AaronB

    Another harmonizing principle can be the Buddhist principle of expedient means

    Oh boy’ — our Jewish Buddhist Rebbe, lectures us on harmony.

    A one word reminder of Jew harmony.

    Schumer!

  322. Talha says:
    @Colin Wright

    Yusuf Ali’s is pretty good as far as I’m concerned, though uses some archaic language. I have it (as well as others). I use it as a crutch at times. I like Pickthall as well. Arberry tries to retain prose. Aisha Bewley’s is a straight-forward translation without too many parenthesis and such. This one is good as well and done under the supervision of a very solid top-notch, world renowned scholar:

    It is a tough call honestly to stick to one – I certainly don’t. I would recommend any of the above ones (and I’m sure others are reliable too). And if one gets into a spot where one is curious to see how others have translated something, go to this site to see variant translations:
    https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/2/255/

    Just plug in the chapter and the verse after the slashes:
    https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/{chapter}/{verse}

    And you’ll get the various translators and their attempts so you can compare and contrast. I personally love hearing the Qur’an* because the poetry and the depth of the message simply doesn’t come out in translation,

    Peace.

    [MORE]

    *For this, my personal favorite are these reciters:

    • Thanks: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Talha
  323. anon[353] • Disclaimer says:

    cristianity and islam were both born as revolutionary movement against the factual power of the time while hinduism and probably judaism were both born as state founding ideologies that wanted to integrated the whole after the conquest of foreign groups

    cristianity and islams have an enemy to overthrow (thats from where the evil &good dualism came from) hinduim and to a lesser extent judaism have already overthrown their enemies and are the work of stateman that need to create a stable society and integrate the whole social body

  324. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    Wa aalikum assalaam wa rahmatullah w abarakatuhu

    May ALLAH inundate you with infinite blessings, dear brother.

    Ameen and to you the same. May Allah swt protect us all during this trying time.

    Wa salaam.

  325. Talha says:
    @Talha

    And I would be remiss if I forgot the man who I believe was the sultan of the reciters of the last century, and who I personally listen to for memorizing/reviewing memorization of the Qur’an; Shaykh Mahmoud Husary* (ra).

    [MORE]

    *Many consider him to be the gold standard:

  326. @Assad al-islam

    Thank you for your kind comments Assad. There are many things to digest here, much has been written. I am not a theologian not even close. I try to discuss ideas that I know and have experienced through my own journey.

    Let me recap and cut through the comments that have been presented. There is perception then there is reality. The reality that Aaron and I have both experienced is a no go on Jews and Judaism, built into the very nature of the Jewish DNA. I will quote from my pre ious post.

    Muslims and other non Jews on this site hold the idea that Jews and judaism are preternatural evil. Conversations have become mind traps engaged in expose for revelation of the evil.

    Aaron entered into a theological discussion to try and reason why these ideas about Judaism and Jews exist, his answer was the theology of dualism in Islam. Truth and goodness exist in Islam, evil and falsehoods in Judaism. A sort of dualistic approach to a faith, not allowing for a middle ground, like other religious allow for. The Muslim response is a middle ground is tantamount to surrender and that can never happen. To surrender is to become secular and loose ones basic principles. There is no middle ground to Islam and at the same time there is no dualism. I honestly do not know enough theology to argue on that level.

    I will yield to the Rambam, Maimonides (I have studied) 1100 AD, a hot bed for the beginning of arguments over which Abrahamic religion was valid and which was not. Maimonides was a great religious scholar and intellectual as well as being a practical doctor and court physician to Saladin. He lived in Egypt and as a turban wearing scholar was well integrated and respected in Islamic society. He had no problems with Muslims. I am quoting from a source that Talha listed in one of his posts. You can read it and see the built in triggers between the two faiths and the confusion, as Islam is closer to Judaism then Christianity with respect to idol worship but further in its insinuation that Judaism is a con game a scam.

    If you woke up Maimonides in the middle of the night and asked him his opinion of all the non-Jewish religions, he would tell you they’re all stolen from Judaism, they all offer little more than a shallow veneer of what our Torah has to offer, and the difference between all the gentile religions and our own is like the difference between a statue and a real person (Yemen Epistle).

    Moreover, since all the other religions are well aware of our special relationship with God, their fundamental purpose is to destroy the Torah of Israel. The more God loves us, the more the gentiles hate us (Yemen Epistle).

    The Muslims, on the other hand, even though their Koran describes the giving of the Torah to the Jews, they insist that in every point where their version differs from what’s in our Torah, this is because we either made a mistake in copying our texts, or, worse, falsified our texts.

    Therefore, argues Maimonides (Rambam’s responsa, Blau, answer 149) that while a discourse with a Christian could lead to his understanding of his mistaken reading and therefore could benefit from the explanation, even if he didn’t convert to Judaism – a Muslim will always perceive our explanations as being founded on a lie, so don’t bother.

    To summarize: while we consider both Islam and Christianity to be merely stepping stones in humanity’s path to true Divine enlightenment, we do not treat the two of them equally. We recognize a higher capacity for abstract worship in Islam, while Christianity remains mired in embarrassing paganism. However, the discussion of our Torah is permitted only with Christians, who accept its validity, and not at all with Muslims, who see it as a Jewish forgery.

    Tahla’s explains it is what it is. Islam cannot modify it’s foundation. If the truth about the Jews is bad news then so be it. At the same time Talha explains that Muslims are commanded to be kind to Jews.

    You see the problem here Assad?
    We are not in early Islamic times when the Hadiths were written we are in 2020. I not see Muslims being kind to Jews. The trigger of just the word Judaism and Jews unleashes the most heinous of accusations. Jew are pre ordained from the beginning of time to wreck the world. Jews and Judaism’s basic theologic ideas are murder, enslavement and control over non Jews.

    These view are not acceptable. It is as Islam in 2020 is trying to cause a physical war with the Jews. What people who are armed and strong is going to put up with that. Bad news or no bad news These ideas should be mitigated by current Islamic scholars and mandated off limits, for the sake of world peace. To the contrary satanic ideas about the Jews and Judaism are encouraged flames fanned by Islamic leaders, both religious and political.Thala can wax poetic about Mohammed’s ideas that Jews should be protected and loved, that is not what is happening in the world. To blame it all on Israel is a shallow half baked idea. The pope has declared Jew hatred to be a sin against god. Why cannot Islam say the same?

    Stupidity rules Islam in 2020. Just plainly stupid ideas.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  327. @Talha

    Yeah, it always came across to me to be a kind of boiler-plate Left-liberal position. They also want to be inclusive of Islam, but would like us to jettison the stuff they find offensive.

    To summarize a little of what I’ve gathered from his writing …

    Jews possess a connection to God superior to all others, and God changes The Truth as He sees fit through them. Whereas idolatry was once idolatry for all, it later became idolatry only for Jews, but not for non-Jews. This was God’s way of saying, “You know what? I used to think it was pretty offensive that some folks said I needed partners to help Me out. After all, I am omnipotent as well as omniscient. Buuut … What the heck! I’m just gonna let it slide from now on. It’s all relative, you know?”

    And the Lake of Fire? Just a metaphor. No big deal. At worst, it’s like 12 months in a three-star hotel with no room service, but hey, we can’t all be saints, right? Even pornographers and swindlers and rapists and murderers and politicians who think nothing of destroying whole villages and wedding parties are equally welcome to heaven after a year-long stint at Club Gehinnom.

    As for that Devil … O, that Devil! Don’t you believe such nonsense, you hear? He’s just some illusory construct that enough wishful thinking should safely relegate to non-existence and acknowledging him is just a path to the inherently aggressive and war-mongering disposition of Dualism, which is clearly the preferred worldview of everyone but Jews and Buddhists. (And no, this isn’t to say there is some kind of tacit dichotomy between Dualists and Monists. Please, for the love of God, don’t go there.)

    Now he may not have used my exact words, but I am obviously characterizing his position based on the words he did use. I am mostly just expanding on the words he used with synonyms and related terms. Although obviously he – or anyone – is free to disagree with my characterization or expansion with related words.

    was-salaam.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @AaronB
  328. AaronB says:
    @Fran Taubman

    To summarize: while we consider both Islam and Christianity to be merely stepping stones in humanity’s path to true Divine enlightenment, we do not treat the two of them equally. We recognize a higher capacity for abstract worship in Islam, while Christianity remains mired in embarrassing paganism. However, the discussion of our Torah is permitted only with Christians, who accept its validity, and not at all with Muslims, who see it as a Jewish forgery.

    Thanks, Fran.

    I think there’s an element that needs to be emphasized here – it would appear that Islam attributes malicious intent to Jews from the very beginning.

    We have falsified our Torah – we are Liars.

    Whereas the Jewish position seems to attribute human error and frailty to Islam, not malicious intent.

    Once again one sees that Islam views things as good vs evil, while Judaism views things as gradations of Divine enlightenment.

    Islam has a tendency to demonize others as vehicles for evil, whereas Judaism sees others as on various stages of enlightenment. Once again the contrast between dualism vs a theology of integration.

    This surely helps us understand the extremely aggressive attitude of Muslims to Jews today, and throughout history, and the comparative generous behavior of Jews towards Muslims.

    As for Maimonides, I don’t think he was analyzing the deep metaphysical structure of Islam, but only examining it from the limited point of view of whether the formal beliefs and practices of Muslims can be considered idol worship, because that alone was relevant to Jewish practice.

    As a Jew, I doubt he was interested in delving very deeply into the metaphysical structure of Islam. So my discovery of the Gnostic Dualism theme that runs like a thread throughout the deep structure of Islam is not necessarily at odds with Maimonides analysis of the surface beliefs and practices of Muslims.

    Thanks for your contribution here, Fran – you have helped add a significant layer in our emerging analysis of the deep structure of Islam – the unconscious assumptions which structure Islam’s approach to the world and other people – and helped map another Dualistic theme onto this territory.

    Another excellent point you make is about how Christianity overcame its Gnostic Dualistic tendencies and rejected Jew hatred, while Muslims in 2020 are still trapped in this mindset – to me, this gives hope, as both religions share certain underlying features, both may mature in a similar fashion.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
    , @Kali
  329. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    This made me mildly interested in the subject so I did a little more digging on that website I referenced earlier (which seems to be a valuable store of such information) and it seems Jewish position on the Afterlife, Resurrection, Day of Judgment seems to not have any particular normative voice. This article was quite helpful:
    “Most Jewish ideas about the afterlife developed in post-biblical times….Some sources imply that the resurrection of the dead will occur during the messianic era. Others indicate that resurrection will follow the messianic era. Similarly, according to some, only the righteous will be resurrected, while according to others, everyone will be resurrected and — as implied in Daniel — a day of judgment will follow….According to Nahmanides, among others, the World to Come is the era that will be ushered in by the resurrection of the dead, the world that will be enjoyed by the righteous who have merited additional life. According to Maimonides, the World to Come refers to a time even beyond the world of the resurrected. He believed that the resurrected will eventually die a second death, at which point the souls of the righteous will enjoy a spiritual, bodiless existence in the presence of God.
    https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/life-after-death/

    So I don’t know if this means that anyone can take up any personal position on the subject and attribute it to “Judaism” (and thus any one of those opinions is right) or that no absolute claims are valid on the subject or what; not my religion, so it doesn’t matter much. I’m just personally glad Islam is clear on the subject of the Day of Judgment and such. To each their own.

    And as for Shaytan:
    “A lengthy passage in the tractate Sanhedrin accords Satan a central role in the biblical story of the binding of Isaac. According to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, it was Satan that caused the Jewish people to despair of Moses returning from Mount Sinai by showing them an image of the prophet on his deathbed….In Tractate Bava Batra, Reish Lakish says that Satan, the yetzer hara and the Angel of Death are all one. Maimonides, the medieval Jewish philosopher, endorses this position in his Guide for the Perplexed….Like the evil inclination, Satan’s function is to divert human beings from the path of truth and righteousness. Maimonides seems not to believe Satan actually exists, but rather that he is a symbol of the inclination to sin….The kabbalistic sources portray the demonic as a separate and oppositional realm in conflict with God. Kabbalah even offers explanations of the origins of the demonic realm, the most common of which is that this realm emerges when the attribute of God associated with femininity and judgment, is dissociated from the attribute of God associated with grace and masculinity, and becomes unconstrained.”
    https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/satan-the-adversary/

    And here it seems there are a multitude of opinions from a variety of authorities and I’m not clear whether all of them are considered valid or any one of them can be attributed as “the position of Judaism”. No clue – again; not my religion, not really my concern.

    Wa salaam.

    • Thanks: Kali
  330. AaronB says:
    @AnonStarter

    Is mockery acceptable in Islam?

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  331. @AaronB

    The religious Muslims on this site who have delved deep into the metaphysical ideas of goodness and transcendence, let the unimaginable accusations about Jews go unchallenged, is shocking. I am not talking about fair criticism. I am discussing what I have stated previously, the accusations of a preternatural evil amongst Jews and Judaism. Accusing Jews based on DNA of unspeakable crimes. This type of bigotry should be rejected by all people of faith. I would stop such accusations if it were reversed.

    The entire upper echelon of Islamic theocracy, and major Islamic leaders should also speak up. They should stop the education of hate that is taught to Muslim children, and stop the mitigation concerning Israel, which as witnessed on this site is phony.

    Muslims and other Jew haters should be warned and censured. Propagating hatred for Jews by accusing Jews and Judaism of conspiracies based preternatural evil must be stopped. This is not freedom of speech. These haters have no idea how hard moral Jews and non Jews are working worldwide to stop this and they/we are succeeding. This sickening hatred has reached is zenith and is being fought back. There are many more moral people repulsed by these ideas then their are haters. And shame on Islam’s leaders for contributing to this hatred.

    No good can come of hatred like this. It can only lead to war. To label Islamist who are fighting Israel as a legitimate resistance is a lie. These Jihadist want to rid the entire ME of Jews.

    Also while we maybe experiencing a duality of good and evil with regards to Judaism and Islam, Muslims reject duality as part of their theology. We need to respect that claim as legit. Forcing your theory of gnostic duality, regardless of the reality we see is unfair.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  332. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    Just a note on Maimonides –

    His philosophy is not widely studied by Jews nor considered authoritative. It is heavily influenced by Greek thinking and some even consider aspects of it heretical. Having studied it a bit, but not extensively, I would say it does betray the influence of Gnostic Dualism. It also heavily influenced Thomas Aquinas, who in my view betrays a similar bias.

    Maimonides is mainly revered among Jews for his halachic compilations – compendium of rulings on Jewish law.

    You will also find traces of Gnostic Dualism is some of the Kabbalistic writers. It exists in Judaism, it just isn’t pervasive nor the main theme, and almost always put into proper context within the the main teaching in by later generations of scholars.

    As AnonStarter mentioned, setting up a dualism as opposed to monism is itself a dualism – so dualism itself must be incorporated into a larger context.

    This is why Eastern faiths expressed called it non-dualism – because they did not want to oppose it to dualism.

    As for Judaism, in general you will find almost every opinion under the sun expressed by some Rabbi at some time, and since Judaism strives for wholeness and the integration of opposites, these are generally preserved as having captured some aspect of the Truth.

    But that does not mean there are no widely accepted normative voices – a good one widely studied today by nearly everyone is the Ramchal, the Way of God. Written in the 18th century, it gives a very good summary of the normative position on the afterlife, although some parts of it need to understood within the context of Jewish interpretive tradition. But on the whole its remarkably clear.

    • Replies: @Talha
  333. @Talha

    No clue – again; not my religion, not really my concern.

    Jazakumullahu khayr, akhi.

    I enjoy your approach, alhamdulillah. It’s refreshing to see your Confucian candle shine here.

    was-salaam.

    • Replies: @Talha
  334. Talha says:
    @AaronB

    Thanks – appreciate it. So it looks like Ramchal is actually Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto who apparently had this to say on the subject:
    “The Purpose of This World is to Get to the Next

    Moses Hayyim Luzzatto’s The Path of the Upright, compiled in the eighteenth century, is typical of the other‑worldly approach. Luzzatto begins his guide to holy living with these words:

    ‘It is the foundation of saintliness and the perfect worship of God for a man to realize what constitutes his duty in his world and to which aim he is required to direct all his endeavors throughout his life. Now our Sages, of blessed memory, have taught us that man was created only to find delight in the Lord and to bask in the radiance of His Shekhinah for this is the true happiness and the greatest of all possible delights. The real place in which such delight can be attained is the World to Come, for this has been prepared to this very purpose. But the way to attain to this desired goal is this world. This world, the Sages remark, is like a vestibule before the World to Come. The means by which man reaches this goal are the precepts God, blessed be He, has commanded us and the place in which the precepts are to be carried out is only in this world. Man is put here in order to earn with the means at his command the place that has been prepared for him in the World to Come.’”
    https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-world-to-come/

    Peace.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @AaronB
  335. @AaronB

    It depends on the circumstances, such as holding a mirror up to antagonists.

    Is lying acceptable in Judaism?

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  336. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    It’s refreshing to see your Confucian candle shine here.

    Well, I just figure that I should let the voices of another religion speak for and define themselves just like I would like others to respect that Muslims and their internal scholarship is what defines Islam. I see no need to hoist what I think they believe on top of them. Again, not my religion, thus defining its doctrines are not my concern.

    Wa salaam.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  337. @AnonStarter

    You hold that Judaism is one big lie so what difference does it make what Aaron says?
    What a disingenuous question even for a mind fucker like you.
    We have gone out of our way to explain positions that we hold to be true and moral, especially how we deal with religious adversaries not so much to solve the problem, but to at least increase understanding.

    You are a postage stamp of Islamic stupidity towards Jews and Judaism.
    Knock yourself out AS, it will not get you what you want. Hate and bitterness cloaked in religious dogma is just stupid in todays world given the situation of the ME. Calling Jews liars, thieves and theological losers is not a good hand for a Muslim in todays world. Trust me on this. I get it you are not open to compromise, that it wrecks the essence of your being and and the essence of your faith. And that it is important to Islam to stand by their revelation and point out where the Jews went wrong as the center of the faith. But there are bigger issues involved here. Like our faiths are at wits ends towards a war.

    This conversation has been amazing if nothing else to highlight the schism and tragedy that we see as irreconcilable. Highlighting the misconceptions of choosiness, and Judaism and Islam’s relationships to other religions is a good thing. There are misunderstandings, and to point them out is helpful. For us to explain the historical context of Judaism as decisions and ideas were shaped in the context of time, and to point out how many of these ideas are now obsolete in the hope of enlightening you to the idea that maybe your assessment is incorrect in the extreme,
    And you choose mockery.

  338. AaronB says:
    @Fran Taubman

    The religious Muslims on this site who have delved deep into the metaphysical ideas of goodness and transcendence, let the unimaginable accusations about Jews go unchallenged, is shocking. I am not talking about fair criticism. I am discussing what I have stated previously, the accusations of a preternatural evil amongst Jews and Judaism. Accusing Jews based on DNA of unspeakable crimes. This type of bigotry should be rejected by all people of faith. I would stop such accusations if it were reversed.

    Excellent, excellent comment, Fran. Hands slowly clapping.

    This exact point is what weighed so heavily on me, puzzled me to no end, and caused to do a dramatic reassessment of the entire structure of Islam, that it can produce people who are deeply engaged with the religion in a very high level but who nevertheless seem to have rather primitive moral ideas in certain areas.

    Not only do these religious Muslims not object, they lend tacit approval to these commenters, share friendly exchanges with them, lol their comments, and praise them.

    And Kevin Barret is himself a fully religious Muslim, and is as bad as Colin Wright. What does that mean?

    Talha seems like a decent and reasonable guy, but lends tacit approval to the most hideous Jew haters here by loling their comments, having friendly exchanges with them, and never objecting to what they say.

    What can you say about that? A persons character cam be judged by the company he keeps.

    At a certain point, you have to realize that this reflects the unconscious deep structure of Islamic theology – it is fascinating, because as Talha notes, there are many Islamic quotes to treat Jews well (although also many abusive quotes). But the deep structure of Islam is ultimately more influential.

    The entire upper echelon of Islamic theocracy, and major Islamic leaders should also speak up. They should stop the education of hate that is taught to Muslim children, and stop the mitigation concerning Israel, which as witnessed on this site is phony.

    Bravo. This is the obvious next stage in the moral growth and evolution of Islam – if it cannot make this leap, it won’t survive. Every religion so far has made this leap. I am ultimately optimistic Islam will too.

    Remember how young it is!

    Also while we maybe experiencing a duality of good and evil with regards to Judaism and Islam, Muslims reject duality as part of their theology. We need to respect that claim as legit. Forcing your theory of gnostic duality, regardless of the reality we see is unfair.

    Point taken, and it is perhaps a deserved rebuke. What I am doing is causing the Muslims here obvious distress and discomfort, and even though my intention was to promote self reflection among them and I think my theories are highly illuminating, I am only contributing to the atmosphere of hate and contention.

    So I will respect Muslim claims that they are monotheistic, and frame my criticisms in a different manner, to help promote peace and amity.

    • Replies: @Kali
  339. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    Yes, but the World to Come is this world after the process of tikkun is complete and the Messiah returns Gods presence to this earth. It is this world redeemed and reunited with God, not a state mutually exclusive with this world.

    He discusses this at length as well.

  340. @Talha

    Well, I just figure that I should let the voices of another religion speak for and define themselves just like I would like others to respect that Muslims and their internal scholarship is what defines Islam.

    Well stated, akhi.

    It certainly isn’t my intention to tell others what they believe. My satirical description of Aaron’s teaching was merely meant to draw attention to his own false impositions upon Islam.

    In truth, it wouldn’t matter what he believes were it not for how that belief is actually manifest in his own conduct.

    was-salaam.

    • Replies: @Talha
  341. Talha says:

    Talha seems like a decent and reasonable guy, but lends tacit approval to the most hideous Jew haters here by loling their comments, having friendly exchanges with them, and never objecting to what they say.

    Alhamdulillah that this came up on this open forum which allows me to clarify my position and why I carry myself the way I do.

    I do not consider myself the policeman of this forum. I engage with anybody who engages in a civil manner with me – irrespective of what views they hold. This has led me to have cordial and friendly exchanges even with people that have expressed a public desire to have me and my family shipped out of the US.

    In fact, plenty of people that were very hostile at the beginning have come to be friendly of their own accord – or at least grudgingly respectful.

    Just because I have cordial or even friendly exchanges with others does NOT mean I agree with all or even many of their views.

    I was even on good and friendly terms with a hyper-Zionist and self-declared Jewish-extremist named “Greasy William” before he left the forum. He hated Arabs and Persians and said stuff like:
    “As a die hard Arab hater who celebrates when a bus full of Arab school children explodes, I have no problem admitting that on an individual level Arabs are far and away the most pleasant people to be around in the world.”
    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-few-disjointed-thoughts-on-the-events-in-cologne/#comment-1296361

    “’I’m really getting sick of people saying that there is some kind of contradiction between acknowledging the scientific fact that Iranians are subhuman scum while also regarding Iranian women as, in general, the world’s most beautiful…. I have millions of subhuman Latinas to get through before I could even begin to think about Iranian sluts”
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/if-worst-comes-to-worst-in-armenia/#comment-2309017

    “That means we only need to kill 77% of Iranians instead of all of them. Makes our work a lot easier. But don’t worry about it: we still need to destroy Lebanon first. So you should have a good 20 to 30 years left with your Iranians.”
    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/is-putin-really-ready-to-ditch-iran/#comment-2368386

    And yet, he and I had friendly exchanges because he was generally civil towards me. And if I was away for a while, would ask:
    “Where is Talha? I miss my Pakistani BFF.”
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/still-not-jumping-ship/#comment-1915153

    My getting along with Greasy DID NOT AT ALL mean I tacitly approved of his hate for Iranians or support for his celebration at the deaths of Arab school children or that I think that Latinos are “subhuman scum”.

    And most people here already know how I operate so this should come as no surprise to them, but this is just a clarification for others (maybe newcomers) that might take the initial accusation seriously.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  342. @Talha

    ‘…“Most Jewish ideas about the afterlife developed in post-biblical times…”‘

    At the onset, let me frankly admit that one motive I have for writing what follows is that I anticipate it will irritate Aaron and Fran. That doesn’t imply that it’s not true; merely that a rarified desire to elucidate the truth is not the only consideration leading me to post this.

    What you wrote reminds me; post-Biblical Judaism obviously owes a great deal to the ideas of Christianity — and I assume, Islam.

    I first noticed this while reading the stories of Isaac Bashevis Singer, but it’s cropped up repeatedly since. It’s ironic, since Judaism would be, if nothing else, the senior religion, but its evolution and practices do seem to have been heavily influenced by Christian, and — again, I assume — Muslim ideas and practices.

    This is of course perfectly predictable. Since the rise of first Christianity, and then Islam, Judaism has always been practiced by a minority of the faithful surrounded by a gentile sea — a gentile sea, moreover, practicing ideas clearly related to Jewish ideology and readily intelligible to them. Inevitably, Jewish thinking came to be influenced by Christian and Muslim ideas.

    The precise ratios I wouldn’t try to determine, but obviously, Judaism as it has come to be over the last fifteen hundred years must owe a great deal to Islam and Christianity as well as to its own origins.

    Just to cite one example, you can see this readily enough with Aaron. He’s lifted the whole universalist-all-faiths-approach-the-truth schtick practically lock, stock, and barrel from progressive Christian thought of the nineteenth century. He may be genuinely unaware that the source of his ideas is Christian rather than Jewish — but that doesn’t alter the truth of the matter. Go back one or two centuries, and the heads nodding in vigorous agreement with his ideas are Christian, not Jewish.

    • Thanks: AnonStarter
    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Talha
    , @Talha
  343. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    And behold according to this root concept, the time of the true repayment – meaning the time of receiving the reward, that we mentioned above – and its place, is after the resurrection in the world that will be renewed. And man will enjoy it with his body and his soul, in that his body will be purified by the soul and prepared by it to enjoy that good. Yet people will be distinguished and their levels and positions will differ, according to the measure of that which they toiled in the world of work, and according to that [which] they strove to access perfection. For the soul will shine according to this measure, and light up the body and purify it. And both of them will acquire preciousness and stature and be fitting to approach the Master, blessed be He, to be lit by the light of His countenance and to enjoy His true good.

    https://www.sefaria.org/Derech_Hashem%2C_Part_One%2C_On_Mankind?lang=bi

    The preceding paragraphs provide context. Man existed in paradise in a state of perfection – the world and man were perfect. Adam sinned and the character of both man and the world changed and acquired impurities. Man must now repair – do tikkun – both himself and the world.

    Man and the world must die, and be renewed on its original perfect basis. It will be the same kind of world, just repaired, and with Gods presence. The world God created was originally meant to be perfect, not transcended – Man ruined it.

    The main theological work is his Way of God – the Path of the Upright is homiletic, not primarily theological.

    And there is a vast corpus expanding on his work and elucidating these concepts and clarifying them. He is a valuable precis.

    Quotes are important and useful in establishing that your position at least has some foundation in fact, but selective quotes cannot actually prove your point, unless you are willing to provide all quotes on a topic and all necessary context and received interpretation. You know well Talha that I could have provided a slew of quotes being very abusive and aggressive towards Jews to balance out your positive quotes – but to make sense of them, we need the full body of quotes, any other context, and the received interpretive tradition of Islam on this subject.

    And similar phrases – like World to Come – may mean different things on different traditions and contexts. For some it may be a disembodied state, for others a renewed world.

    Quotes are useful and good – but it is hardly as simple as providing a few selective quotes and calling it a day, as I’m sure you know. Provide quotes by all means, but be a bit more humble about any one quote you provide.

    • Replies: @Talha
  344. It certainly isn’t my intention to tell others what they believe. My satirical description of Aaron’s teaching was merely meant to draw attention to his own false impositions upon Islam.

    In truth, it wouldn’t matter what he believes were it not for how that belief is actually manifest in his own conduct.

    What a pile of horseshit. Where is that mirror any wheres close by? You are truly insufferable AS.

  345. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    Sure, there is no reason not to remain polite and have friendly exchanges with bad people in certain contexts, especially if you think it can provide them with a good spiritual example and perhaps elevate them.

    But on threads where they are saying terrible things, loling at their negative, mocking comments, and expanding or agreeing with their points on threads where they are acting horribly, creates a “mobbing effect” and an air of tacit approval and a tacit “cheering them on” effect. It is as if you don’t want to get your hands dirty your self, but will side with others who do.

    Your exchanges with Greasy William were humorous and the context made clear did not constitute support. Yet you frequently provide “supportive” comments to nasty commenters here – someone might leave a string of extremely nasty, abusive comments against Jews, and you will take a part of that comment and express support for it or expand upon it, or express a supporting lol at the next attacking comment.

    What is more, when these people are visibly on “your side”, there is a moral obligation to at least some what distance your self from people saying horrible things, not create an air of friendly intimacy and chumminess – certainly remain polite and certainly not police them, but the company you keep does say something about you.

    You are not being friendly in neutral or humurous contexts – and Greasy William was clearly being humorous.

    In fact, plenty of people that were very hostile at the beginning have come to be friendly of their own accord – or at least grudgingly respectful

    By lolling when Colin Wright or SolontoCroesus mocks Fran in a nasty way, you squander a tremendous amount of earned respect and undermine your reputation for spirituality.

    You may not realize this, but to anyone not on “your side”, it’s obvious.

    Again, you will obviously act however you want and not change your behavior on my account, and at the end of the day if these are your moral standards them these are your moral standards – there is nothing to be done about it.

    I can only say that I wouldn’t act this way and I think its beneath your dignity and spiritual level. In fact its downright baffling that you can be so seemingly spiritual in some areas yet act this way – I will not sink to the level of accusing your spirituality of being an act, but it clashes so weirdly with this behavior that it creates s very discordant picture of who you truly are.

    • Replies: @Talha
  346. Talha says:
    @AaronB

    Provide quotes by all means, but be a bit more humble about any one quote you provide.

    I quoted and linked the particular person you cited as an authority and linked to the website (a Jewish site dedicated to teaching Jewish doctrines) for anyone to follow and read the rest for themselves.

    Neither did I claim that it was THE authoritative voice at all. In fact, I specifically and plainly stated that I did not have the requisite knowledge to know what was authoritative. So this remark is way off target along with some of your other characterizations of me and my views.

    Peace.

    • Agree: Kali
    • Replies: @AaronB
  347. AaronB says:
    @Colin Wright

    This isn’t so very offensive or irritating, Colin 🙂

    One of our most treasured books, Duties of the Heart, is known to have been influenced by the Sufis – who in turn were influenced by our Midrashim.

    And later in history, many of our scholars were polymaths conversant with the great thinkers of the West, and certainly their theology was influenced by them.

    Maimonides is known to have been heavily influenced by Aristotle.

    There are no hard and fast walls between religions, and religions do indeed act on each other all the time.

    And in Judaism specifically, we see the process of understanding the Torah as unfolding in time through our own efforts to discover its secrets, so there is no problem with outside influence if it assists us in this process.

    And in fact, there is a Kabbalistic tradition that the “gathering of the sparks” means going among the nations of the world and “liberating” the sparks of Truth that have landed among them – collecting and integrating into our tradition all sparks of Truth found anywhere.

    So I would say it is even an explicit Jewish theme to incorporate Truth found among other people into our tradition.

  348. Talha says:
    @AaronB

    Thanks for the free psychoanalysis.

    I will not sink to the level of accusing your spirituality of being an act,

    I’ve been accused (on these forums) of being things much worse than and including a fraud so – trust me – won’t make much of a difference.

    My post was addressed to anyone on this forum and I made a general explanation of how I conduct myself. If that doesn’t meet your particular standards, I guess I’ll have to live with that.

    Since I feel my explanation was thorough enough, and since I don’t make it a habit of policing others’ conduct on this forum, I don’t particularly feel the need to discuss the policing of mine further, thanks.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  349. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    Fair enough. What I got from you was that you were offering that quote simply as substantiation, without seeking any definition of terms like World to Come, context in general, asking for clarification or explaining that you were not offering this as in any way comprehensive or decisive but as a starting point for perhaps exploring the topic in its full proper context.

    And when you responded to AnonStarter that you like your own religion to be judged by quotes and are merely providing me the same courtesy, you created the impression that you think selective quotes without full context are indeed an effective way to establish positions.

    Since that is not your position, I am happy to retract my remarks. And really no harm done – its easy to clarify.

    However, I do think one has a responsibility to clarify, when one offers a selective quote, that one is not offering it as necessarily decisive or comprehensive, but as a fragment of as yet uncertain meaning and as at most, a starting point for exploration.

    And perhaps even ask for help in this. Anyways, this isn’t exactly a big deal and the situation is easily clarified.

    • Replies: @Talha
  350. Talha says:
    @AnonStarter

    This subject has reminded me of something that I remember that takes place before the next world comes into being, namely everything returns to as it was initially*. Always a good reminder especially in these times of tests.

    Wa salaam

    [MORE]

    *
    “And cry not unto any other god besides Allah. There is no god save Him. Everything will perish save His countenance. His is the command, and unto Him you will be brought back.” (28:88)

    “Everyone on it will perish. But will abide (for ever) the Face of your Lord, full of Majesty, Bounty and Honor.” (55:26-27)

    “To whom belongs dominion this day? To Allah, the One, the Subduer (of all).” (40:16)

    • Agree: AnonStarter
  351. Talha says:
    @Colin Wright

    Inevitably, Jewish thinking came to be influenced by Christian and Muslim ideas.

    Makes sense. You can see some of the references for this in Maimonides thought at the link I posted from Stanford. Not only was he influenced, he was actually quite well versed in the various competing strains of Islamic theological positions…pretty impressive.

    This, of course, happened to Muslims when confronted by Hellenistic ideas and philosophy. To turn the tables (even by the Orthodox scholars) required mastery of the tools of discourse; like Greek logic and what not. Basically learning Jiu Jitsu to beat Jiu Jitsu instead of trying to beat it with Tai Chi.

    I even see this in the West (specifically the US) where we have many pozzed Muslim voices talking nonsense about gay pride parades and what not. Par for the course, really.

    progressive Christian thought of the nineteenth century.

    If I recall, that’s when Perennial philosophy really took off in the (mostly Anglo) West, no?

    Peace.
    Peace.

  352. Talha says:
    @AaronB

    I do think one has a responsibility to clarify, when one offers a selective quote, that one is not offering it as necessarily decisive or comprehensive

    I felt I had already done that at the outset, by making it clear that I took no position on what is authoritative for the Jewish position (I’m not even sure Jews themselves are claiming anything as authoritative). I don’t see any need to repeat my initial stance of not claiming authority on every subsequent post. By adding the quote, I was simply adding one more voice and position to the already numerous ones cited in my previous post – specifically from the person you named.

    But the people and the stuff you cite keeps pointing to the eventual destruction of the world (before some kind of rebirth):
    “Rather they perforce need a transformation beyond the perdition – meaning, death for man and destruction for all of the other things in existence that became corrupted with him. And the soul can [no longer] purify the body until after it first goes out of it and the body dies and decomposes. And then [the body] returns and is built [as] a new structure, and the soul enters it and purifies it. And likewise the whole world will become destroyed from its current form, and it will return and be built in a different form that is fitting for perfection. And therefore it was decreed upon man that he die, and [then] come back and live [again]. And this is the matter of the revival of the dead. And [it was decreed] about the world that it will be destroyed and [then] come back and be renewed…”

    So, when you said earlier…
    “In Judaism, this world isn’t destroyed, but rectified, so that God’s presence can fill it once again.”

    …it would seem the more accurate is (according to your citation – again, have no clue whether this is definitive, but you cited it) that the world is rectified by first being destroyed and then reborn in a new different state.

    Peace.

    • Agree: AnonStarter
  353. I’m pleased at the opportunity to learn so much about religion, alhamdulillah. All sarcasm aside, Aaron makes a dedicated argument for his own viewpoint, however much I find the logic of it wanting.

    The more practical matter is how religion manifests itself in conduct. It’s all fine and good to hold that such faith is the key to peace, but what have we witnessed of its reality on the ground?

    If Judaism is not an inherently aggressive type of dualism, then why have Jews behaved so aggressively toward Palestinians? It’s not enough to speak of Jews being Monists and Palestinians being Dualists, since so many European Jews didn’t arrive in Palestine in the late nineteenth century without the intent to claim the Promised Land as their own — an implicitly aggressive posture.

    Guys like Ahad Ha’am (founder of cultural zionism) were anomalies, marginalized and subordinated to those of a more violent disposition. I imagine Aaron could be an Asher Ginsberg, but his voice would remain subsumed against a preponderance of zionists who, according to Ginsberg’s own testimony, didn’t really want to live among Palestinians in peace and harmony.

    So why does the historical record clash so violently with the ideal that Aaron presents?

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
    , @anon
  354. @AnonStarter

    Your joking right? I guess you fail to see your own irony.
    Why are the Jews so aggressive to the Palestinians you ask? Because their religious leaders and politicians have the same opinion of Jews that you hold. Just reread your post AS. Verbatim.

    Jews are lying and deceitful, forgers, they have sinned and fell out of grace with Allah, Jews have become greedy miscreants, barely if at all human dedicated to the satanic material pleasures who lost all connection to goodness and the spiritual world. We are con artist, not to be trusted.
    Why you ask?
    I would throw every last Muslim out of the country. It is not like we have not tried to work this out with results being similar to this thread. It is a very tired repetitive story, that has not served the interest of the Palestinian people or the Arab population in the ME.

    You are also speaking about today which is a snapshot moment in time. This battle has been going for for a very long time.

    You might want to look up this POS, who worked closely with Hitler to exterminate the Jews, and actually called on Muslims to kill Jews.The first mufti of Jerusalem.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini

    Then there is Q’tub’s the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and his Magnus Opus Under the Shade of the Q’ran which I pointed out before.

    With their spite and deceit, the Jews are still misleading this nation, and distracting her away from her Koran in order that she may not draw her sharp weapons and her abundant ammunitions from it… [The Jews’] aim is clearly shown by the Protocols [of the Elders of Zion]. The Jews are behind materialism, animal sexuality, the destruction of the family and the dissolution of society. Principal among them are Marx, Freud, Durkheim and the Jew Jean-Paul Sartre.”*

    Moving right along to the Hamas charter which calls for the genocide of the Jews, and these Jihadist are allowed to function in Gaza, under Israeli rule.

    The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, ‘O Muslim, O servant of God, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’ Only the Gharkad tree would not do that, because it is one of the trees of the Jews.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant#cite_note-41

    [MORE]

    1988 charter

    Article 1 describes Hamas as an Islamic Resistance Movement with an ideological programme of Islam.[1]
    Article 2 of Hamas’ Charter defines Hamas as a “universal movement” and “one of the branches of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine”.[1][22][29][30]
    Article 3 the Movement consists of “Muslims who have given their allegiance to Allah”.[1]
    Article 4 the Movement “welcomes every Muslim who embraces its faith, ideology, follows its programme, keeps its secrets, and wants to belong to its ranks and carry out the duty.”[1]
    Article 5 Demonstrates its Salafist roots and connections to the Muslim brotherhood.[1]
    Article 6 Hamas is uniquely Palestinian,[1] and “strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned.”[1][22]
    Article 7 describes Hamas as “one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders” and links the movement to the followers of the religious and nationalist hero Izz ad-Din al-Qassam.[1][30]
    Article 8 The Hamas document reiterates the Muslim Brotherhood’s slogan of “Allah is its goal, the Prophet is the model, the Qur’an its constitution, jihad its path, and death for the sake of Allah its most sublime belief.”[1][22]
    Article 9 adapts Muslim Brotherhood’s vision to connect the Palestinian crisis with the Islamic solution and advocates “fighting against the false, defeating it and vanquishing it so that justice could prevail”.[1]
    Article 11 Palestine is sacred (waqf) for all Muslims for all time, and it cannot be relinquished by anyone.[1]
    Article 12 affirms that “Nationalism, from the point of view of the Islamic Resistance Movement, is part of the religious creed”.[1]
    Article 13 There is no negotiated settlement possible. Jihad is the only answer.[1]
    Article 14 The liberation of Palestine is the personal duty of every Palestinian.[1]
    Article 15 “The day that enemies usurp part of Muslim land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Muslim”. It states the history of crusades into Muslim lands and says the “Palestinian problem is a religious problem”.[1]
    Article 16 Describes how to go about educating future generations.[1]
    Article 20 Calls for action “by the people as a single body” against “a vicious enemy which acts in a way similar to Nazism, making no differentiation between man and woman, between children and old people”.[1]
    Article 22 Makes sweeping claims about Jewish influence and power.[1][31]
    Article 28 Conspiracy charges against Israel and the whole of the Jewish people: “Israel, Judaism and Jews”.[1][31]
    Article 31 Describes Hamas as “a humanistic movement”, which “takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions”. “Under the wing of Islam”, it is possible for Islam, Christianity and Judaism “to coexist in peace and quiet with each other” provided that members of other religions do not dispute the sovereignty of Islam in the region.[1]
    Article 32 Hamas condemns as co-plotters the “imperialistic powers”.[31] References The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[1][32]
    Article 33 calls upon Muslims worldwide to work for liberation of Palestine.[33][1]
    Article 34 represents the Temple Mount in Jerusalem as the axis mundi, the sacred point where divine cosmology and temporal history meet.[34] Along with Article 35 it compares Israel with an imperialist-colonialist movement. The articles reflect and draws upon past examples of Crusader and Mongol invasions, both of which initially were successful but were eventually repelled.[35][36]
    Article 36 outlines the goals of Hamas.[37]

    You ask why we are so aggressive to the Palestinians? The question should be asked in reverse.
    As I said before there is nothing more stupid then Islam’s stance towards the Jews and Judaism in 2020, and shame on Islamic scholars for allowing this madness to continue.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    , @Anon
  355. @Fran Taubman

    One thing you appear to have forgotten is that I’m referencing a period of time that predates both Qutb and Hamas. Perhaps you’re not familiar with the history. Here, I’ll help:

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ahad_Ha%27am

    We must surely learn, from both our past and present history, how careful we must be not to provoke the anger of the native people by doing them wrong, how we should be cautious in our dealings with a foreign people among whom we returned to live, to handle these people with love and respect and, needless to say, with justice and good judgment. And what do our brothers do? Exactly the opposite! They were slaves in their Diasporas, and suddenly they find themselves with unlimited freedom, wild freedom that only a country like Turkey [the Ottoman Empire] can offer. This sudden change has planted despotic tendencies in their hearts, as always happens to former slaves [‘eved ki yimlokh – when a slave becomes king – Proverbs 30:22]. They deal with the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, beat them shamefully for no sufficient reason, and even boast about their actions. There is no one to stop the flood and put an end to this despicable and dangerous tendency. …

    That was written by Ahad Ha’am, founder of cultural zionism, in 1891, well before the early twentieth century riots in Palestine, long before the implementation of Plan Dalet laid waste to so many Palestinian towns and villages, driving a quarter of a million Arabs from their homes.

    Also, Muslims don’t regard Jews per se as liars, though Jeremiah himself had a thing or two to say about the Scribes:

    How do you say ‘We are wise and the Law of the Lord is with us’? Surely the lying pens of the scribes have turned it into The Lie. [Jeremiah 8:8]

    Surely you don’t expect us to forget what happened to the Kingdom of Israel and the record of The Torah after Solomon’s departure from this world? And why is there so much “uncertainty” among rabbis as to the whereabouts of the Ark of the Covenant, the most sacred relic of Judaism?

    “Half the story has never been told,” sang Bob Marley, but even the Kebra Negast isn’t entirely correct. There was good reason for Solomon to deliberately send the Ark south with Menelik. I don’t think you really want to know it, though …

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
    , @Fran Taubman
  356. @Talha

    I’ve been accused (on these forums) of being things much worse than and including a fraud so – trust me – won’t make much of a difference.

    You … You … You …

    Muslim, you!

    Ha! That‘ll teach ya to act so smart!

    was-salaam.

  357. anon[285] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnonStarter

    I’m pleased at the opportunity to learn so much about religion, alhamdulillah. All sarcasm aside, Aaron makes a dedicated argument for his own viewpoint, however much I find the logic of it wanting.

    So why does the historical record clash so violently with the ideal that Aaron presents?

    Because jew troll “AaronB” has been spewing endless streams of inane jew shit out of his ignorant jew asshole, and you and everyone else just keep lapping it up.

    If Judaism is not an inherently aggressive type of dualism, then why have Jews behaved so aggressively toward Palestinians?

    Add WTF does “dualism” have to do with with aggression?

    [Spoiler Alert: Absolutely Nothing]

    It’s not enough to speak of Jews being Monists and Palestinians being Dualists

    The jew cretin didn’t “speak of Jews being Monists and Palestinians being Dualists”‘, that was all you. The Jew cretin was spewing nonsense about “Dualism vs monotheism”.

    You were the first to person to mention “Monists” in comment 335, causing the jew cretin to claim that “monism is itself a dualism” in comment number 340! 🤣🤣🤣

    Please click on the [MORE] button in comment number 305 if you want a better understanding of “monotheistic” Judaism and to learn all the mysteries of AaronB’s jew “Kabbalah” and precisely how it “is reconciling opposites and unifying the physical”.

  358. Kali says:
    @Colin Wright

    but we’re all genuinely seeking to reach and express the truth.

    …except Aaron.

    Whilst I do largely agree with you on this Colin, I thought it worth trying to nudge Aaron into a moment of honest self reflection.

    He is obviously deliberately dishonest in his discourse. This suggests a certain level of clarity in his thinking, which in turn suggests a level of consciousness through which the light of Truth may enter. (Unlike Our sister Fran, who seems entirely unconscious in her bitter hatred of anyone who might burst her little bubble of self-delusion.)

    BTW, I like your phrasing “verbal pyritechnics”. 🙂

    Wishing you a good day.

    With love,
    Kali.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  359. balcanite says:

    judaism is the epitome of dualism it divide people in two groups jews and goying
    those who have pure souls and are destined to govern the masses and the rest ,its nazism for jews and the reason righfully jews have been expulsed evywhere they went .

    trying to mascarade the insane will for power of judaism with the redemption of humanity its the same ridiculous argument europeans used with colonization with muuu white burden

    there is nothing behind the curtain of judaism only love of power of infinite power

    • Replies: @balcanite
    , @Anon
  360. @AnonStarter

    Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.

    “… a quarter of a million Arabs …” should be three-quarters of a million Arabs.

  361. @anon

    [Aaron] didn’t “speak of Jews being Monists and Palestinians being Dualists”‘, that was all you.

    He’s been insinuating his non-duality as well as the Dualism of Christians and Muslims all along, well before I mentioned the word.

    It isn’t really important, though, since both Christianity and Islam have their own non-dualistic perspectives; as such, it’s yet another arbitrary imposition.

    What matters is how his purported perspective of non-duality is manifest in reality. He’s gone to great lengths to distinguish himself from dualists, implicitly and ironically establishing a dichotomy in the process.

    And it’s not difficult to see how this dichotomy serves his justification of zionism.

    • Replies: @Anon
  362. balcanite says:
    @balcanite

    jews&goyin and aryans & dasyus ,i think judaism is a very rudimentary version of hinduism

  363. @anon

    Add WTF does “dualism” have to do with with aggression?

    [Spoiler Alert: Absolutely Nothing]

    Touché!

    You have penned an excellent post above. And, especially, to your post #305 where you quote, “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Year. Shahak, Israel.”

  364. Kali says:
    @AaronB

    What do you say, Kali – will you join me in this collective effort of soul searching to tone down hate and develop sympathy and kindness towards the other side?

    Most certainly Aaron! In fact this is something I at least try to do anyway, not only with regard to my interactions here, but in life generally.

    I do very often condemn judaism (the religion) having read Israel Shahak and others descriptions, including Reed, the Old Testament and the first 4 books of the Talmud (which my husband read, not me). However I also know, personally, religious jews (and I think Fran falls into this category) who have been taught to interpret the judaic teachings differently, and who live according to modern interpretations, despite the history of that religion.

    (I think this is part of the nature of Religions generally, that they skew reality to fit their, often changing/morphing socio-political concerns, and the age in which they operate, drawing their “flock” to accept, in blind faith, what they claim “in the name of god”).

    Jewish culture, as well as the Jewish religion, seems to be almost wholly materialistic, chauvinistic and usurious. (Of cause, not all “jews” as so many have fallen away from that culture over time). And don’t even get me started on Zionism!

    I do try to take individuals as I find them, rather than lumping people together, but cultural mores (morals?), particularly dogmatic beliefs in the rightiousness of any give culture over another all too often mask the inherrent beauty of the individual, as the “need” to defend ones “team” causes people to take defensive/aggressive possitions which they hide behind.

    Long before I came to any investigation of the Jewish religion, I rejected all organised, centralised religions, including Christianity and Islam, because they (generally speaking) offer little more than a comfort zone for the masses, rules and instructions for life which prevent any real exploration of life and our spiritual nature. Of course, it is not always the case that religious indoctrination prevents spiritual exploration (Talha, for example, seems to go deeper than most into the teachings of his religion to arrive at an understanding of this journey of life and it’s spiritual aspect.) but for “the masses” it is generally true.

    Maybe it’s just that I reject “rules” which may or may not be in alignment with my own nature, (I reject government and “rule of law” as thoroughly as I reject religion) preferring to go within to discover what my true nature is, and to live in accordance with that. – Often, I find, my nature is to be very blunt, only to regret causing shock or pain to another. Words are more powerful than most (I) often realise…

    I once suggested to Fran that there are two religious systems, both entirely materialistic, the practice of which prevents or bars the individual from achieving spiritual enlightenment. They being Satanism and Judaism. Now, maybe I was being unfair and somewhat dogmatic myself, and I can certainly understand why she got so upset with me over that!

    But material reward “given” or or promised in return for devotion to a “deity” (which could be described in terms of “collective will” combined with in-group nepotism) is entirely contrary (in opposition to!) a spiritual exploration and a coming to Know the Divine “I am”. Which is why I came to equate the two religions. Looking back now, I see that, once again, I blurted out my thoughts without taking the precaution of softening the blow. That was wrong of me both on a personal level and in terms of putting Fran in a defensive position.

    Fran often tells us that she is an ordinary person just like the rest of us, and yes, of course she is! And (given the often “anti-jewish” rhetoric she confronts on this platform) it’s perfectly legitimate and fair that she says so. Just as it would be very unfair for anyone to doubt it. That she holds dogmatic beliefs regarding Judaism, Zionism, and Jewish history which fly in the face of the evidence (as I read it) in no way detracts from her daily life as an ordinary, caring, friendly woman.

    That her world-view and politics are shaped according to judaic and Zionist inversions of the truth (as many here have come to understand it) and that her personal interactions are coloured by her indoctrinated cultural “need” to defend her “team” suggests to me that she is unconscious, and therefore blameless (though she be incredibly annoying as she twists and turns, avoiding reality in order to defend her “side”).

    I see perfectly well why Assad call her Sister and sees the light in her. Her passion may be misdirected, but it is real passion. That is her light.

    Earlier on in this conversation, yourself and Fran had a brief exchange without much interruption, where you “teamed up” to belittle our Muslim Brothers and to besmirched Colin, congratulating each other for being in the best “team”, whilst exercising your cultural more (moral) of inverting the truth, and obscuring reality – something which is common to very many players of all teams. And that is exactly how I see this battle of Religions in which you indulge, as a game, which, if there is any Sacred Truth to be found in it, may be lost in the madness of fanaticism.

    Maybe my offering you my own take on reading that exchange might help you to appreciate where it is that I am coming from (if you care to). I, through experience, expect that my rejection of (and debunking of) religion in general, and my view of Judaism in particular, may upset some people. If that is the case here then I am sorry you are hurt. But I am very delighted to offer you food for thought and meditation.

    Talha’s descriptions of Islam demonstrate that he has moved beyond dogma, beyond cultural mimicking and that he explores the teachings of his religion to find deeper truth, which transcends this plane of existance. An understanding of Christ may lead one to the same transcendent state. But dogmatic adherence to religious ideologies/systems/beliefs may prevent one from reaching a deeper understanding of the message of your chosen Master (Christ, Muhammad, Buddha, Divine Creator…)

    Aaron, you yourself, often talk in terms of Buddhist philosophy (or some approximation of it) which you attempt to overlay onto Judaism. Yet you offer no description of the points of Judaism which correlate to Buddhism, marking you out as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. This is why I single you out as deliberately, consciously dishonest.

    It could be that I am wrong, and that you are genuinely deluded, though your obvious intelligence makes that conclusion doubtful. However, if it is the case that you are imbalanced, then a proven cure for such imbalance, which rids one of any delusions, is to Go Within, to become the Witness, to Know Yourself. But to do so takes great courage and humility! And results in the destruction of the ego, and that all you think you are.
    It is not a path for the feint-hearted. It is only for the true seeker. But it is open to everyone and begins with the first step of confronting yourself as you are right now.

    With love,
    Kali.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  365. @AaronB

    Well, that’s just Assad – let’s see what Kali says about this. And lets see what Colin Wright says.

    Both Colin and Kali have now spoken. Below is what Kali mentioned in her post #366 and to quote her:

    “He is obviously deliberately dishonest in his discourse. This suggests a certain level of clarity in his thinking, which in turn suggests a level of consciousness through which the light of Truth may enter. (Unlike Our sister Fran, who seems entirely unconscious in her bitter hatred of anyone who might burst her little bubble of self-delusion.)”

    Fran has beautiful heart full of light. You Aaron destroy her light intentionally. How unfortunate!

    Assad responds by telling me I am vile and sincere

    I told you are vile because you are insincere!

  366. Anon[299] • Disclaimer says:

    If you love the Jewish Race and hate the White Race, you too can wear the American Brand.

  367. Anon[419] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnonStarter

    He’s been insinuating his non-duality as well as the Dualism of Christians and Muslims all along, well before I mentioned the word.

    Only because he’s one of two things, and definitely a third.

    He’s either:

    1. A Jewish Supremacist that exercises that ideology through an inane assertion of the importance of non-duality over duality (pretending for one moment that very argument isn’t a gloss for tribal supremacy, and has any philosophical, theological, or spiritual relevance whatsoever outside of baseless Jewish Supremacist assertion that it does).

    2. He’s a theological moron who isn’t aware of the inanity of the argument.

    and he’s definitely:

    3. A rhetorical moron, as there has been no cogent case made for the importance of the argument. He’s merely asserting / implying “non-duality’s” importance and arguing from that proposition. Its the same lame trick that the media pulls day and and day out when they attempt to lecture the populace on morality. They enforce / imply the assumption that their ultimate political goal as some type of moral high ground, and all of the arguments ultimately are rooted in “yeah, but your view isn’t my assumed morality”.

    It isn’t really important, though, since both Christianity and Islam have their own non-dualistic perspectives; as such, it’s yet another arbitrary imposition.

    What is arbitrary is the argument over the supposed moral relevance of asserting a “non-dual” position (again, erroneously assuming for one moment that “non-duality” or monotheism isn’t a bronze age literary metaphor for material, tribal supremacy. Which it is).

    In short and respectfully, stop buying into a false argument.

    Judaism’s monotheism (in literature, facilitated through their “War in Heaven”) is a thin allegory for one thing and one thing only: the destruction of all other tribes in favor of Jews. Their god fights and defeats he “fallen angels”, which are metaphors for the gods of other racial tribes (72 in all). For Jews, a tribes god reflects that tribe’s health, justification to continue, and survival. When the tribe is functionally eradicated, their god is defeated in heaven.

    Their books are entirely comprised of such tribal-warfare literary devices.

    This is the ultimate source of “monotheism” and AaronB’s arguments.

    Its much better not to buy into his theological-political frame then to argue on Jewish terms.

    • Agree: Assad al-islam
    • Replies: @AaronB
  368. Anon[247] • Disclaimer says:
    @Fran Taubman

    Your joking right? I guess you fail to see your own irony.
    Why are the Jews so aggressive to the Palestinians you ask? Because their religious leaders and politicians have the same opinion of Jews that you hold. Just reread your post AS. Verbatim.

    Untrue.

    Actually, Jewish prophecy demands that Gaza be continuously assaulted and the Philistines (Palestinians) be continuously murdered until the Jewish messianic Age comes.

    It is right there in your Tanakh.

    Did you need help reading it to debunk your own lies or are you literate in your own religion?

    Moreover, your justification of Jewish “aggression” toward Palestinians, to necessarily include civilians, perfectly justifies German “aggression” toward Jews in the WWII period.

    As the Germans held exactly the same views on Jews, their religious leaders, and their politicians as you state the Jews hold toward the Palestinians.

    And the Jewish religious books are at least as explicit in informing us of such Jewish views, thankfully cutting through Jewish lies, as any Islamic book is in informing you of Palestinian religious belief.

    After all, Islam is only a pale reflection of Judaism.

    So, which is it?

    Are the Germans and Israelis both unjustified or both justified?

    Only the Jewish mind could not identify this type of hypocrisy that is a perfect modern manifestation of the millenia old reasons why your group is so detested.

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  369. Anon[163] • Disclaimer says:
    @balcanite

    judaism is the epitome of dualism it divide people in two groups jews and goying
    those who have pure souls and are destined to govern the masses and the rest

    Rabbis would disagree.

    This is because, for them, you aren’t dividing within an equivalent category (“people”).

    They only see Israelites as “man” or human and refer to all others as various forms of animals or elementals (incomplete humans) in their books.

    So, for them, humanity is already united within the Israeli Race. Everything else is an “impurity” that will be eradicated from the Earth before their Messianic Age.

    Judaism has survived for several millenia precisely because of these lightweight codes that some people have always became aware of, but that are difficult to decode for the majority of the populace.

    Even arguing against Judaism, but on false terms and understanding, protects them.

  370. In short and respectfully, stop buying into a false argument.

    Thank you for your well intended admonition, but I haven’t actually accepted the parameters of his argument.

    Admittedly, I have a fondness for the Socratic Method that isn’t always evident to others.

  371. @Anon

    Actually, Jewish prophecy demands that Gaza be continuously assaulted and the Philistines (Palestinians) be continuously murdered until the Jewish messianic Age comes.

    It is right there in your Tanakh.

    I have never been taught such ideas. All the the Jihadist in Gaza have to do is lay down their weapons and stop the Jihad against the Jews, and peace will exist and prosperity will ensue. The people of Gaza will be able to live Jews would like all the Palestinians to live in peace and prosperity, as well as all of Arabia.

    Jews do not wish to murder Palestinians. There are 1.7 million Palestinian citizens in Israel with equal rights. They are Doctors, Judges and heads of hospitals. The Arab block is the third largest in the Knesset. So reality disproves your insanity.

    As a Jew being educated in a Yeshiva, I was never taught to hate let alone murder a muslim.

    It is the perpetuation of nihilistic ideas like yours which have caused the Islamic world to a stand still. Islam must stop its insane Jew hatred from within. Islamist must rethink their ideas about Jews and Judaism, or stay a defeated people going no where. Israel has the sovereignty, and a standing army and air force.
    Lets compare.

    If a bunch of drug lords from Mexico started hurling missiles into Arizona, claiming they wanted the land because the people living there were liars and thieves. What do you think would happen?
    They would be bombed into oblivion.

    If you think you have a moral argument trying to convince the rest of the world that Jews and Judaism are evil you have failed. You are engaged in Kobayashi Maru.

    And please stop telling me what is in my holy books. I know what they are about.

    • Replies: @Anon
  372. AaronB says:
    @Kali

    Thanks for your reply.

    You make some interesting points. I see that you lay some pretty heavy charges against Judaism, and that you seem to divide the worlds religions into two groups, with Judaism being largely devoid of merit, and the rest of the worlds religions as having merit.

    Now, this is very much opposed to my own *stated* positions on this site, where I ascribe beauty and truth to all the worlds religions.

    This would *seem* to imply that my Jewish position is in fact significantly *less* chauvinistic than your own position, despite the fact that chauvinism is precisely what you accuse me and Judaism of being.

    However, you deal with this glaring discrepancy by claiming I am lying – you *know” I am lying, both about Judaism and my own position.

    Now, let us say I *am* lying – would that not, st best, make our positions *equally* chauvinistic?

    Secondly, how can I disprove your claim if you will simply say everything I say is a lie? You ate armored against disproof. I can bring you any number of quotes, but you *know” that Judaism lies.

    So before we can really discuss whether your perception of Judaism is accurate, I would ask you to please explain to me what you would consider acceptable evidence. As far as I understand, you think I am lying about my own opinions, and you think Judaism lies about its positions in general.

    So even if I demonstrate that Judaism is not what you think based on texts and my own opinion, you will *know* I am lying.

    Perhaps we can begin taking baby steps –

    Would you accept that Judaism believes moral non-Jews can go to Heaven, or would you accuse me of lying about this? And if I bring you quotes, would you accept them, or consider them a deceptive disinformation campaign by Jewish authorities?

    If you would accept this claim as honest, I would like to contrast it with the Muslim and Christian claim that people who are not members of their religion cannot go to Heaven, but must endure eternal hell – no matter how kind and moral. Talha above confirmed that this is so.

    Then, I would respectfully ask you to tell me which position is more *chauvinistic*.

    Now, for my own part, I think the Muslim and Christian position *does* have a moral defense – and I do not merely think their position is *wholly* wrong (assuming you believe I am not lying about this, of course). I do not think I am entirely one side and they are entirely on the other side.

    • Replies: @Assad al-islam
    , @Kali
  373. Kali says:
    @AaronB

    Please don’t think I’m ignoring you, Aaron. Today is turning out to be pretty busy.

    I very much look forward to getting back to you on this tomorrow morning.

    In the meantime, I’ve just been shown this short 6 minute video of someone I’ve never come across before. A French lady who is beautifully, poetically, spoken. I resonate exactly with what she is expressing, though her insight is greater than mine. The video is French with English subtitles.

    Oh bugger!
    I can’t get her homepage to load, so can’to locate the particular video. Maybe tomorrow. In the meantime, if you’re interested to look, here’s the link to her website: https://www.personocratia.com/en/les-videos-de-personocratia/
    I’m told it’s available in both French and English. I’ll find out myself tomorrow. 🙂

    Oh for goodness sake! After all that, it turns out I have the time now to respond! lol (I say “now”, but it may take me some time to write my reply. – I write all of these comments on my phone, and it often takes me ages – not to mention constant interruptions for 3d life.

    Ate ja (until soon),
    Kali.

  374. AaronB says:

    I just want to point out again that we are dealing here with a fascinating clash of basic psychological types that is reflected in philosophies and theologies (generally, each religion will have theologies which reflect both types, although at different historical periods, one may dominate).

    And while we can try and increase mutual understanding and sympathy between the sides, it is unlikely either side will change its core assumptions – they appear to be built into the deep structure of the mind. But in the interests of peace and amity, we can perhaps promote mutual understanding.

    Whatever you want to call it, dualism vs holism or whatever, the basic dichotomy here is between *exclusive* thinking and *inclusive* thinking.

    To the exclusive thinker, the inclusive thinker must seem insincere and dishonest, because he refuses to take *absolute* sides (he does take limited sides).

    The inclusive thinker thinks in terms of gradations – there is some truth in everything. The exclusive thinker in terms of absolute exclusion – if this, not that.

    The inclusive thinker can never see any major religion as wholly wrong – it always captures some part of the truth. It is a step on the path.

    Now, a natural tendency of the exclusive thinkers is to see themselves as in a kind of war with inclusive thinkers. Inclusive thinkers cannot see themselves as at war with anyone. (And both positions can be robustly defended in moral terms).

    It appears to be extremely common for exclusive thinkers to think Jews are wholly evil and to blame for the worlds problems. I will not get into why they select Jews specifically, but I will point out that the exclusive thinker *must* have an enemy.

    ——

    I will try and answer other comments here a bit later.

    Thanks Kali – no worries, take your time!

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  375. AaronB says:
    @Anon

    as there has been no cogent case made for the importance of the argument. He’s merely asserting / implying “non-duality’s” importance and arguing from that proposition.

    Excellent point. There can be no argument for the superiority of one over the other – it is a matter of First Assumptions. Just as Euclid builds his system on axioms which he cannot prove, one either intuitively finds dualism compelling or non dualism.

    One can only say that dualism promotes seeing people as enemies, while non-dualism promotes seeing people as on different levels of enlightenment. Now, there is a very robust moral argument for seeing people as enemies – if the world is actually a battleground, then it would be immoral to deny that. Peace and amity are not higher moral values than crushing evil – if that is how you see the world. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that dualistic thinking promotes war.

    So yes, I do not “prove” the superiority of either position, and I can see compelling moral arguments for being a dualist – what I am trying to do is promote mutual understanding. To merely elucidate. If we can understand each others First Assumptions better, maybe we can be more humane to each other.

    • Replies: @Anon
  376. Talha says:
    @Colin Wright

    I thought this was worth exploring a bit based on all the stuff I read on those Jewish learning sites because I personally find these things fascinating (much more so than politics). Specifically the methodology for determination of truth, truth claims, etc. – epistemology.

    I’ll put it under the MORE tag so as not to take up space for people that may not be interested. Also, Colin feel free to ignore it yourself – much of it is me just collecting my own thoughts down.

    Peace.

    Note (to others): I am NOT trying to start a debate here – I am actually not interested in a debate. If you like what I say, cool – if you don’t like it, cool. But I am putting down some thoughts on the subject – specifically from an Islamic point of view, partially for my own benefit (honestly I love UNZ.com‘s archive and search feature – I cannot believe this is a free service – I have referenced my research and thoughts here for discussions on other platforms).

    [MORE]

    So, frequently on that site (and others), you come across statements like:
    “Most Jewish ideas about the afterlife developed in post-biblical times.”
    “Judaism is famously ambiguous about this matter.”
    “…discussed by the rabbis of the and is explored in detail in Jewish mysticism, or Kabbalah.”
    “Many of these ideas would later find expression in Jewish folk beliefs and in the works of the Hasidic masters.”

    I find this to be interesting because this was explored by men like Imam Ghazali (ra) in his dissection of philosophical claims and the grounds upon which it is built. Specifically with the need for revelation as an arbiter into speculation and truth claims.

    Let’s take the Afterlife, Hereafter, Next World, whatever you want to call it. This would be classified by Muslim theologians as the Unseen (not only is it inaccessible due to timeline [it is in some indeterminate future], it is also inaccessible [to a degree] from an intellectual perspective). So while (many, not all) Muslim theologians would assert that any human being is liable to believe in a single originating Creator/Deity/God – since that can readily be arrived at by normal thought processes, they would not assert that angels, Heaven/Hell, Day of Judgment fall under that same category. These simply cannot be arrived at accurately (sure some could speculate on this or that) by any level of speculation. The possibility that a classification of unseen beings called angels exist is just as rationally valid as unseen sprites or dragons or whatever.

    Given this, let’s concentrate more on the idea of the Afterlife. There are numerous speculations one can have about it and all of them can easily be possible (though some are obviously less likely than others) – there is nothing intrinsically impossible about them. I’ll give a few (though there may be others):
    – There is reincarnation (until a person breaks free of the cycle into some after-state [whether annihilation or whatever])
    – There is simply nothing – you’re dead, your consciousness ceases to exist, do not pass go, do not collect $200…buh bye – even if there is a God, there need not be any necessary reason for a soul/consciousness to continue after death
    – Your soul joins your ancestors’ souls as a massive, growing amalgam that becomes a brightening star at the edge of a different universe
    – This world ends and then there is a Day of Judgment where life/deeds are judged and someone is then rewarded or punished in the next life
    – A variation of the above where after judgement, nothing happens – slate is wiped clean
    – This world ends and is reborn and under a different (improved or not) nature
    – You are plugged into a very advanced simulation and you simply get unplugged and into another one
    – You go to the great Cosmic Circus and live out forever as a happy clown and the number of balloons you own are in accordance with how you lived your life
    – You even have stuff like Mormon theology*

    And I’m sure many can speculate on other scenarios. Some make more sense than others (given what we know about the current universe), but it is difficult to pin down since the very nature of the Afterlife could easily be composed of anything from the purely spiritual to a physical reality that is only analogous to ours, but different in fundamental composition all the way down to not being made up of atoms/subatomic particles and not subject to any foundational laws like gravity/entropy. etc.

    Very murky soup we’re mixing here. Men like Imam Ghazali (ra) (good read on him here https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/al-ghazali/) realized this – speculation on such matters of the Unseen (other than using logic to eliminate some of them) has little foundation to build on. You need the Unseen to inform you of whatever supra-rational (not irrational mind you) reality exists beyond the veil of time-space. It is for this reason that two things are inescapable:
    1. You need a message/report/revelation that one can have conviction in its veracity
    2. You also need a mechanism/methodology to ensure that #1 is reliably accessible (meaning it is preserved or that it has reached you in a way that you can have trust in – I mean, what good is it if the revelation itself is destroyed or lost or altered**)

    In other words, you need to have a solid epistemological foundation upon which to build everything else; claims, conclusions, etc. If either of the two are shaky – or you reject one of the two – the whole thing comes crashing down and you just have speculation/opinion and , frankly, one man’s opinion is as good as another and we simply end up clinging to what feels good or sounds nice to us. Thus source texts that attain to this are called (nass qat’i – which is a text or source that is definitive or reached certainty in reliability – I’ll use “NS-status” from here on out).

    For this reason, any statements/claims about the Afterlife have to be traceable to Qur’an and then hadith (and even these hadith have to be at a specific status of reliability) and statements have to trace to the first three generations (those that were the Companions [ra] who directly sat with the Prophet [pbuh] or people who learned directly from them or the people that learned from that second generation) and even the second and third generation’s claims are vetted to make sure they are not their own speculation, but traceable to something that ties back to the Qur’an or the hadith – ie. the mouthpiece of the revelation, the Messenger (pnuh) himself.

    The rest is all speculation and some of it is fine as long as it doesn’t clash with what is plainly defined by the source texts. Even the words of high-level Sufi masters (and I say this as someone who has learned under Sufi teachers) or their dreams or claims of kashf (inspiration) can be used to teach a lesson or something, but holds zero weight in the Shariah and can be discarded (often because one shaykh has a kashf that clashes with another that has a kashf). Like the below story (about Imam Ghazali [ra] and the fly) which I love, but – as the shaykh mentions – is only to “gladden the heart” and has no real weight since it cannot be corroborated by a NS-status source:

    Which is why you don’t really see a lot of speculation or difference of opinion in our tradition about things like the Day of Judgment (other than when it might happen) or the Resurrection or Heaven and Hell and such since these are fairly clear in NS-status sources. Sure, you get some commentary here and there on some minutiae or details, but once Allah swt and His Messenger (pbuh) have spoken on a matter and it is pretty clear and you have determined it is actually from them – then, as the Companions (ra) used to say; “Allah and His Messenger know best.” After all, the most accurate translation of Islam is “submission” or as the Qur’an states:
    “The response of the believers, when they are invited to Allah and His Messenger that he may judge between them, is only to say: ‘We hear and we obey.’ And these it is that are the successful.” (24:51)

    So when I read about the various debates an discussions about the Afterlife in the Jewish tradition and such a wide berth of opinions (often diametrically opposite of one another)…it makes me wonder; how exactly do they come to determine the correctness of which one is right? I mean one group’s opinion among them seems to be as valid as another, and – in the absence of clarity from their source texts – they seem to acknowledge its unreachable (at least to a degree of conviction) nature. And maybe it simply doesn’t matter all that much since you’re dead anyway so you’ll just have to wait to find out that Rabbi So-and-So was right, so nobody really cares.

    Anyway, thought you and a minority of others might be interested in this perspective as you hunker indoors and ration toilet paper among your families. Stay safe.

    *

    **
    A discussion came up about the veracity/reliability of the Bible and how it is viewed by Islamic tradition as unreliable. The issue can be illustrated by a basic example. In Islamic tradition, prophets and messengers CANNOT lie – it is impossible for them to utter falsehood. This is an axiomatic position and can easily be understood rationally. If prophets can lie about something/anything, then they can lie about what they are claiming to receive from the Divine as revelation – thus the entire edifice of any claims comes crashing down because you cannot trust what comes out of their mouth even if you can trace it back to them.

    So, let’s review the issue of Jacob/Yaqoob (pbuh) who is called a prophet many times over in the Qur’an, but this is what we find in the Bible:
    “On the one hand, Jacob is clearly described as being more worthy of blessing than Esau. On the other, he obtains the blessing by the reprehensible measure of lying. In this specific case, however, one’s uncertainty persists only as long as the story is read in isolation. Comparing Genesis 27 with the later chapter 29, one realizes that the narrator undoubtedly disapproves of Jacob’s action, as the deceiver himself is deceived by Laban and so is punished, measure for measure, for lying to his father…A forgiving view of deception may also be discerned in cases where persons lie to secure what belongs to them by right but has been unjustly withheld. Thus, the initiative taken by Judah’s daughter-in-law Tamar, who disguises herself as a prostitute in order to become pregnant by him after his failure to marry her to his son Shelah, is described in a favorable light, and indeed justified by Judah himself in the narrative (Gen. 38:26). Tamar is rewarded for her subterfuge by the birth of the twins Perez and Zerah, through whom the tribe of Judah is established (Gen. 38:27–30).”
    https://janes.scholasticahq.com/article/2444.pdf

    The discussion has nothing to do with being nice and cordial or mean and disagreeable. It has to do with truth claims. We are being told that – in clear terms – that a prophet of God (himself a son of a prophet and a grandson of a prophet and the father of a prophet) lied to his father to obtain a blessing – yes it may have been disapproved (though other instances of deception are not), but it occurred and is apparently the means by which a major spiritual covenant is transferred ownership.

    So what are Muslims to do with this? If the prophet Jacob (pbuh) can lie/deceive – I seek refuge in Allah – in order to attain a spiritual station (or even less than this) then how are we to assume anything related by him or any statement he utters about the Unseen is true? Well, things have to be investigated and we come to a few possibilities:
    1. The record got it right and he lied and thus everything he says is suspect (thus for us he cannot be prophet – I seek refuge in Allah – due to our very definitions of a prophet)
    2. He didn’t lie and the record got it wrong (either through an unintentional mistake or through deliberate tampering)

    Since the Qur’an (our NS-status text) states he is clearly a prophet, our only conclusion is #2. Which makes sense. Who is the person relating the story? Who witnessed it as it occurred? Obviously the narrating voice wasn’t present, only he and his mother were. How can we trust the character of the narrating voice? And so on and so forth.

    Incidentally, this issue with Jacob (pbuh) deceiving – I seek refuge in Allah – to gain the spiritual covenant from his older brother has very, very serious implications to Muslims (for obvious reasons) about the reliability of any of the narrative in the Bible as it pertains to any spiritual covenant vouchsafed to the Ishmaelite line of Abraham (pbuh).

    This issue, by the way, is one thing I have heard related from many converts to Islam; they simply were baffled that a text could claim that prophets of God could deceive – it simply didn’t sit well with them. Obviously others can reconcile it just fine, but those who can’t often come our way.

    • Replies: @AnonStarter
  377. @AaronB

    It appears to be extremely common for exclusive thinkers to think Jews are wholly evil and to blame for the worlds problems.

    You keep appealing to this same old reductio ad absurdum fallacy. Sure, there are some actual anti-Semites here, but most of us aren’t. We’re simply observing the gaping chasm between what you say about your religion and facts on the ground.

    If Judaism is inherently inclusive, why did the new Jewish transplants in Palestine fail to manifest such inclusiveness when it came to the fellahin whom they treated so poorly as early as the late 19th Century CE?

    Let’s ground your abstractions in the concrete, affect that synthesis between the spiritual and the physical you keep celebrating. Tell us how that synthesis was manifest in the conduct documented by Asher Ginsberg.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  378. Kali says:
    @AaronB

    Hello again Aaron!

    To make it clearer, the child progresses into a ln adult – but the state of being an adult, is opposed to being a chid. You exchange one for the other – they are not mutually compatible.

    On this I our views are poles apart.
    In fact you say it yourself in the next paragraph, the adult integrates the child, the child is ALWAYS a an intrinsic element of the adult. From the second we come into this world and our life here begins we begin a journey which takes us away from our perfect innocence, but that perfect innocence, that perfect, untainted consciousness is never ever lost, just as our experiences as children are never lost. All is integrated into the adult.

    And it is the journey within, if we choose it, which brings us back to our point of origin, the perfect expression of a perfect being. This is when a crystallisation of one’s entire being happens. Integrated and whole. There is no opposition in this state, no duality.

    People in this world, in all manner of cultures and settings, are set at odds with themselves – told they are bad, sinful, wrong, inadequate, unqualified to lead their own life’s, subject to the “rule of law” which is not the rule of God (just the oposite) – which gives rise to internal conflict, opposition and duality. Could it be that you project your own, inner conflict toward some external “other” in order to avoid confronting it within? Certainly that is the usual pattern for most people.

    So, that one progresses from one state to another state does not mean that there is no opposition between those states.

    Again, I think that this is a “manufactured”/social opposition you describe. – The child is told to “grow up!” and later the adult rejects the child. But this division, separation, compartmentalization, this opposition, is not of God, it is of man, of society, of religion, of government.

    Progression is not the negative of opposition – integration is the negative of opposition.

    I think I see what you are saying here, but would suggest that unity is the inverse of oppososition, and that separation/fragmentation is the inverse of intergration.

    Meh, semantics?

    You remarked that you believe in “transcendence” – in the theological language of religion, transcendence is considered a classic form of Dualism. Logically, its clear why – it creates two states, that even if one progresses into the other, are mutually exclusive.

    This seems to suggest that to be in a state of oneness, wholeness or intergration, to have “transcended duality” is to immediately create another duality because one has left behind a previous, fractured state..
    And whilst I can appreciate the logic I’m afraid I have to utterly reject it as the insane ravings of those who would attempt to interpret god, life and all of existance in terms which confine it to an unending lying fractured state.
    (I’ve never ready any theology, certainly not of the academic sort, so do not speak from any kind of authority on the subject, but I’ll bet the majority of theologians are quite insane! Especially if what you say above is anything to go by! 😉 )

    Judaism believes that what man calls “evil”, is actually the Divine principle of Justice (Din) unmixed with Mercy and Compassion – in other words, “evil” is a necessary and good thing taken too far, and existing in a one sided fashion without it’s necessary complements. (In Judaism, Saran simply means the Accuser – he presents to God the case for justice against you).

    In this view, what man calls “evil” is not a state that is mutually incompatible with good – it is actually a necessary component of the good. The good is the Whole in its correct proportions.

    Let me see if I have this straight.
    Judaism says that “evil” is simply “justice” absent mercy or compassion, and therefore is not in opposition to good, but rather is an integral part of good.

    The logical conclusion being that evil is good, or by extention, that evil does not exist at all.

    Actually, minus the part about “God’s judgement” (which immediately re-invites duality, as it separates man from God!), I recognise the truth of this. All is One, including God!

    I hope I have explained better what I mean by Dualism and how Islam is characterized by it and Judaism is characterized by a theology of integration.

    I think so. At the very least I think I now see where the confussion is coming from. – Once again, as almost always seems to be the case, it is the externalisation of God *I liked that the French lady in the video I saw earlier talked about “the externalisation of responsability” in a similar way).
    This is a fundamental flaw within judaism, Christianity and Islam. Not so for Zen Buddhism. Other approaches to Buddhism I don’the know. Which I guess is why I wonder how you come to conflate Buddhism with Judaism.

    As for me trying to make Judaism superior, that depends entirely on whether one views Duality as inferior – many people here don’t, for instance. I obviously do – but I have never claimed to not be hierarchical, in fact hierarchy is a major harmonizing principle in non-dualism.

    Oh, Aaron, now you’very just confused me again!
    You view duality as inferior, hierarchy (separation) as a harmonising principle of Oneness (non-duality).

    Now, imagine an adult who has managed to retain all sorts of childlike qualities and integrating them into his adult personality, verses the adult who “leaves childish things behind”, and there is barely a trace of the child left in him.

    In the first I see great happiness and wisdom. An integrated soul who knows the joy of being.

    In the second I see an old man who has lost the twinkle from his eye and the life-force from his heart.

    And now it’s time for dinner! More tomorrow.

    Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective to me.

    With love,
    Kali.

  379. @AnonStarter

    Here we are in 2020

    If Islam does not reconcile it’s built in Jew hatred we will all see WW3. You more then anyone on this thread have expressed the classic Islamic view on Judaism and Jews.

    Preternaturally liars that cannot be trusted from the dawn of time until now. Less then human people.

    The world at large will not accept these views. The world cannot not accept these or similar views about any race or religious sect. It is a backhand call for genocide. If those views are accepted and preached to the masses what is the remedy?

    The British Labour movement featured Islamic Jew hatred as a selling point..
    Jews are evil spelled 50 different ways.

    These ideas were not only defeated they were pummeled to the ground with rejection. Gilad has been politically shunned. The remaining Labour MP’s had to regroup there entire position on Jew hatred and set up strict rules for defining anti semitism. The Labour leaders are trying to come back from oblivion. The British public is not interested in Islamic Jew hatred, and the Palestinian cause. This is true in the US as well, where there is a concerted effort to stop hate speech on the internet and in the political and public policy domain.

    Islam’s stance on Israel, Jews, and Judaism is nihilistic, creating a dysfunctional dystopian society where people are forced to be martyred representatives of a failed ideology that the world has rejected. Why?

  380. @AaronB

    If you would accept this claim as honest, I would like to contrast it with the Muslim and Christian claim that people who are not members of their religion cannot go to Heaven, but must endure eternal hell – no matter how kind and moral. Talha above confirmed that this is so.

    Shalom Aaron,

    Do you consider Talha to be an authority on Islam and and represent all Muslims. He is afraid of truth, therefore he accuses me of sectarianism, and sics the mods on me. Therefore, most of my post don’t go through and are deleted. I wrote a very lengthy response to sister Fran and it ended up in abyss. Basically, someone posted some nasty quotes to Fran from Dante’s Inferno. I hope this post doesn’t end up in abyss again.

    Fran keeps telling me that I am all Ali, Ali. It was the Prophet who was always Ali, Ali. He used to say my status is like Moses, and Ali is Aaron to me, what Aaron used to be for Moses. Anyhow, Dante steals the seven levels of hell from the Quran and he add two more levels. He puts his favorites friends like Avicenna (ibn Sina) and Averroes (ibn Rushd) in the first level of hell as he got the idea from seven levels of hell from them. In eight level he puts Mohammad and Ali only and uses very colorful language for them. In the ninth level, Dante puts Lucifer alone.

    The Shia Muslims have 5 principles/pillars and 10 practices/mandatory obligations. The first principle of Shia is Monotheism and the second principle is That God is JUST. One can imagine the 7 levels of hell are like a funnel. Since God is JUST and Merciful, therefore there are eight levels of heaven. Now imagine the heaven funnel upside down on the hell funnel. A total of fifteen levels. Eight of heaven and seven of hell. Where the rims of the two funnels meet is the first level of heaven and the biggest level. So, majority of people on the Day of Judgement will be in heaven and not hell.

    Before the Judgement Day, the seven universes and earth a similar number will all perish. Then there will be resurrection, those who have done good will inherit the heaven, those who have done evil will inherit hell. Slowly, slowly the people of hell will climb up and one day, most of them will be in heaven. The hell then be destroyed (eternity in our imagination) and eventually heaven will be destroyed too. God is First and Last and He keeps on Creating and Expanding the Universe. We are mortal in this life and after mortal in afterlife for an eternity.

    Netanyahu is destroying Israel’s democracy for his own personal gains. He is friend with KSA. Do you want to know in details what KSA and Wahhabism is? It is the most fanatic strain of Islam. With their petrol dollars they have turned most Muslims from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh into fanatic Wahhabis.

    Hope you will ask me about KSA and Wahhabism. And, I hope the mods will let this trough without putting it into “more” as I have only discussed the Shia Muslims view on heaven and hell.

    Blessed be the Name!

    • Replies: @Fran Taubman
  381. AaronB says:
    @AnonStarter

    Sure, I’d be happy to discuss Jewish behavior in Israel with you.

    First of all, these were mostly secular Jews – so while I expect them to have been somewhat influenced by Judaism, they are not the next example of the spirit of judaism.

    The orthodox Jewish position on the secular state of Israel is not one of unqualified support – basically, we view its secular character and leadership as deplorable, but view it as a starting point for the development of a true Jewish state and part of God’s plan.

    Nevertheless, I regard the Jewish behavior in Palestine as on the whole positive, although I fully acknowledge there were some glaring exceptions and bad actors. No human community is composed of angels, especially under conditions of stress.

    I also think, and I am sure you would agree with me, that we cannot look at Jewish behavior in isolation – we also have to see what the Arabs were doing on their part, and what the Jews might have been responding to.

    I am on record here as stating that I think the Arabs also have legitimate moral claims, and their actions also have to be examined in the light of mitigating factors. I merely think the Arabs made a series of dramatic moral errors that increasingly set back their position to where it is today, and is likely to cost them any prospect of a state.

    So – how do we go about this?

    What sources would both of us accept as credible? I am sure both you and I can bring forward individual cases of bad behavior from either side – but how are we to develop a full picture?

    And how will we agree on basic interpretation. For instance, we both agree that the Hamas and the old PLO *admit* to targeting women and children, while the Israeli government *claims* to try and minimize civilian casualties.

    However, you will merely say the Israeli government is engaging in sophisticated propaganda. So how can we come to an agreement about this?

    Further, there is also the basic question of witness credibility – for instance, I believe that the local Arabs have a culture of extreme exaggeration and sometimes just making up stories. No doubt, you believe the Israelis are dishonest and if, for instance, an ex Mossad chief will describe how he called off an air strike against a high level Hamas target at the last moment for fear of civilian casualties, after months of gathering intelligence, you will simply think he is engaging in propaganda.

    I know that your specific question here was about the 19th century and the fellahin, but I am sure you see how these are basic considerations that apply to any inquiry.

    So I am perfectly happy to engage in this inquiry with you, but I suspect it may be futile – how do you suggest we proceed?

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @AnonStarter
  382. balcanite says:

    the damage jews have done to europeans can only be repayed with the blood of every jew .
    they deserve to be punished ,for tainting the honour of our ancestors and for putting in risk the future of every europeans they deserve to be punished .

  383. AaronB says:
    @AaronB

    My point, AnonStarter, is that where there isn’t agreement on first principles – who is credible, who is not, what constitutes evidence, what doesn’t – such discussions are apt to prove a morass.

    Wouldn’t it be better to extend the hand of friendship to each other and try and find solutions today?

    And if we must fight, and cannot yet agree on a solution, isn’t it better to limit the extent to which we demonize the enemy and try and see some humanity and goodness in it?

    We cannot help but see ourselves as good and the enemy bad, but perhaps we should limit this impulse to some degree.

    In medieval times, the philosophy of Chivalry – based on Christian moral ideals and heavily influenced by the Troubadours – developed a way of thinking about fighting that did not regard the enemy as demonic and wholly wrong, but actually views him with sympathy – while not abating the ferocity one brought to combat one iota.

    And Saladin, the great warrior, was notably chivalric in his behavior towards the Christians he fought against

    Such an attitude is possible – fight we must, perhaps, for the time being. But why be dualistic about it?

  384. @Assad al-islam

    Assad your post have been terminated by the moderators? That is terrible. I do not think Tahla has that power. I hope not. So sorry. Keep trying.

    • Replies: @Assad al-islam
  385. @Talha

    May ALLAH bless you profoundly for taking the time and expending the effort to present this.

    Fully aware that you wish to avoid debate, I feel the following should be addressed:

    Even the words of high-level Sufi masters (and I say this as someone who has learned under Sufi teachers) or their dreams or claims of kashf (inspiration) can be used to teach a lesson or something, but holds zero weight in the Shariah and can be discarded (often because one shaykh has a kashf that clashes with another that has a kashf).

    This all depends on how we understand shari’ah, which most accurately translates as “a path