GENIUS FORUMS

Palestine Is Still The Issue:

In 1974, John Pilger made the film 'Palestine Is Still The Issue'. It was about a nation of people - the Palestinians - forced off their land and later subjected to a military occupation by Israel. An occupation condemned by the United Nations and almost every country in the world, including Britain.

But Israel is backed by a very powerful friend, the United States...

Alex Jacob wrote:Do mine eyes deceive me? A whole flock of 'Jesus Radicals'?!?

Why is that confusing to you? My influences include many people who were smitten or effectuated by the image of Jesus and the traditions around him. It's the way I started out myself, the tradition I was born in and baptized twice. It's a fertile ground for sure.

It's really the weakest retort to find out-of-context quotes of an author, cast some vague shadow of doubt and side-step the whole core argument with it. Perhaps it's more of your typical modus operandi: casting vague suspicions, unable to 'put ones finger on it' but at the same time implying a lack of character and truth, hinting at darker intentions: some nice category that justifies 'persecution', by words?

Obviously, the Torches of Revelation still burn weak in you, but I'll help you out some. 'Jesus' in no way acted...in any sense in the activities of the Inquisition which seemed to have everything to do with mind-control and very little to do with conduct (i.e. Christ-like conduct). No part of all that had anything to do with the teachings of Jesus, nor the nature of his words or deeds as recorded in the Gospels

But we're not talking about the Nazies behaving like Nietzsche did. We're talking about how certain ideas can influence institutions of power without the author's views having much, if anything, to do with it.

The Inquisition surely used Paul to root out false conversions that were the rage: "Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified". Surely there were political concerns too, there was a reasonable doubt about the utter lack of nationalism with many of the converted Jews who were climbing in rank now.

But a great part of what Nietzsche explored---the ideas presented and the furious way they were presented---were easy to assimilate into fascistic doctrines. This was done almost immediately by the likes of HL Mencken or GB Shaw.

Nietzsche's work goes so much against the whole idea of a German Reich, German Nationalism and socialism, that your point is just not there, as Nazism means specifically National-Socialism. Nietzsche has fueled so much of modern thinking and most of that started early 20th century. To pick out one thing and try to forge a link is really pointless and goes against the way Nietzsche is understood by and large, now and then.

Nietzsche's influence is much clearer in the works of Freud, Jung, Maslow, Yeats, Ayn Rand, Foucault, Heidegger, Paul Tillich, William Blake, Walt Whitman and of course Martin Buber! And it's mostly after World War Two his influence becomes clear in modern thought. So if there's any link between Nietzsche and Nazism, the link between Nietzsche and modernity must be a hundred times larger!

Which again, destroys your whole argument, demonstrating it to be completely vacuous.

Nothing is 'confusing' me, Diebert. I didn't express confusion but rather wonder. You had some demeaning opinions of 'social Christianity' and there are some strong social Christians who appear on your list. Don't have a freak-out, man, it was late and I didn't have time to comment really. It was a provisional post, with a touch of humor.

Diebert writes:

"It's really the weakest retort to find out-of-context quotes of an author, cast some vague shadow of doubt and side-step the whole core argument with it. Perhaps it's more of your typical modus operandi: casting vague suspicions, unable to 'put ones finger on it' but at the same time implying a lack of character and truth, hinting at darker intentions: some nice category that justifies 'persecution', by words?"

You wax paranoid. I lifted a paragraph from a blurb about a book of Ellul's only for the humoristic value. There is nothing vague at all about any part of what I have written in these posts. You can attempt to discredit it or dismiss it any way you want to but all the points I made are all quite solid. When I say in respect to the general philosophy of QRS that there is something suspicious I am unable to put my finger on, I mean that as a confession, that I am perplexed. But, I do not conceal or mask my very direct statements about the questionable nature of some of the sources for the QRS trip, nor to a certain percentage of the denizens who write and have written here. This is not casting dark aspersions, it is not dropping vague hints or playing at black propaganda, it is simply stating it as I see it.

"...implying a lack of character and truth, hinting at darker intentions..."

Just as one example, I find numerous of Dan's opinions (which were almost verbatim reprints from Hitlers gas chambers mere fiction?), as statements that lead away from the 'truth', and the under-structure in them ('difficult to put one's finger on' because it is not outrightly stated) seems to me to 'hint at darker intentions'. I don't know if I would bother to make an argument based on proving a 'lack of character', I am not even sure what you mean by that. To say 'character' is such a loaded term, isn't it? As to 'truth', now that is a whole other jar of worms. I am nearly completely convinced that the whole approach of QRS, and this entire forum (except notable contributors who genuinely explore ideas and viewpoints), has next to nothing---I repeat NEXT TO NOTHING!---to do with the pursuit of truth. This is where, in my view, the 'hidden undercurrents', the unknown or unexplored psychological landscape, the inner, psychological motivators, seem to speak far more clearly and to reveal themselves more obviously than all the layers and layers of outright BULLSHIT that is couched in 'pursuit of truth'. Enough already, Diebert! This (QRS forum) is NOT a place to come anywhere near 'truth' but to divert oneself away from it, to get lost in endless labyrinths of self-deception, presentation of false image, posturing, incomplete preparation for the pursuit of ideas. Oh man, Diebert, I could go on and on and on...

You can do with 'all this' what you wish (this forum, your sympathetic ideas that 'truth' is actually explored here, whatever...) If you have found or if you find value here, I am honestly happy for you. But what I don't get is why do you always set yourself up as defender? I don't feel I have arguments with you, Diebert. Our conversations are generally speaking provocative, constructive, and always (I feel) with a touch of irony. But, it is always you who interposes himself between me and these galoots, these impoverished Australian peasants, arrested in their development. They are never, ever going to move out of this, Diebert. It is called active mediocrity, vengeful mediocrity, and it could be a characteristic that, if we were to be really truthful, Nietzsche abhorred.

You see that, what I just said, that is stating the 'truth', but it is not a truth that can get through the mire of stupidity. It's like you could sing sonnets to a steer out on the prairie and it is never, ever going to understand what any of it means, and will certainly never respond. It is really (almost) that simple.

So, there is nothing at all indefinite or shady in what I write. There is nothing implied or alluded: it is stated openly. And now I prophecy for you! Here, in these people, this is exactly what needs to grow and change. The dull mind, the dulled spirit, must respond to a higher calling, a higher vibration. It MUST!

What is uncertain and indefinite about that statement, Diebert?

;-)

Come back punchin' Diebert!

As to the rest of it (Nietzsche, etc.), I'll try to get back to it later...

Alex Jacob wrote:You had some demeaning opinions of 'social Christianity' and there are some strong social Christians who appear on your list.

Uhmm, it was your list, not mine, schizo :)

Don't have a freak-out, man, it was late and I didn't have time to comment really.

Then ... don't comment! Gasp! The idea! Do you have this compulsion to write? Sometimes it takes me a week to get back for a response. Why the rush?

... that there is something suspicious I am unable to put my finger on, I mean that as a confession, that I am perplexed. But, I do not conceal or mask my very direct statements about the questionable nature of some of the sources for the QRS trip, nor to a certain percentage of the denizens who write and have written here. This is not casting dark aspersions, it is not dropping vague hints or playing at black propaganda, it is simply stating it as I see it.

It's a lack of definition nevertheless that fuels your comments. And don't kid yourself, you are certainly casting shadows from the start about the psychological unhealthiness and unwholesomeness of most of the ideas at this forum and those generating them. The fact that at the same time you are intrigued and not able to get the complete picture is not a justification for the way you have been debating so far.

... lost in endless labyrinths of self-deception, presentation of false image, posturing, incomplete preparation for the pursuit of ideas.

So far I suspect it's getting increasingly clear to more and more people it's mostly you who operates that way. Please write on! It's an excellent exposition of a self-conflicted brilliant mind!

But, it is always you who interposes himself between me and these galoots, these impoverished Australian peasants, arrested in their development. They are never, ever going to move out of this, Diebert. It is called active mediocrity, vengeful mediocrity, and it could be a characteristic that, if we were to be really truthful, Nietzsche abhorred.

Perhaps your view of me is romanticized because I engage you once in a while intellectually and referentially. I have way different ideas than you on what is health and wholesomeness, what is development, and I believe the 21st century will have different requirements than the 19th century when it comes to topics as development. That's why Herr Nietzsche isn't an obvious judge here.

So, there is nothing at all indefinite or shady in what I write. There is nothing implied or alluded: it is stated openly.

Of course there is, what you state openly is mere opinion. You are avoiding topics of logic, historical research, textual analysis and keep on retreating in the vague space of declarations. It seems that whatever the topic is, you are staying at the surface, not willing to go deeper. Instead we see a surface of feelings, a surface of name dropping, a surface of common place thoughts, a surface of bold declarations.

For example, it's way more interesting and backed by actual events to describe the influence early 20th century fascist philosophies [of ethnic or racial purity, homelands and national identities in a time or crisis] had on the rise of Zionism as influential body of thought with its culmination in the creation of the Jewish state of Israel.

But instead you like to delve in the tiny influence Nietzsche has had on a few antisemitic thinkers, which is based on some shallow accusations found in literature made by people who hardly studied the subject matter properly.

It is interesting to me, Diebert, that in February of 2008 I would receive from you PMs with such praise for what I write, but that now I have fallen so out of favor with you. It is true that I respect much of what you write, and you are quite welcome to say, now, that my view of you 'is romanticized because I engage you once in a while intellectually and referentially' (insert *smiley with wink*) I don't have any problem with it. I write what I write and think what I think and try not to politique with others. I am completely happy with what is going on inside of me spiritually and intellectually.

May I quote from a few of the PMs? (I wouldn't do it unless I had your permission).

"I have way different ideas than you on what is health and wholesomeness, what is development, and I believe the 21st century will have different requirements than the 19th century when it comes to topics as development. That's why Herr Nietzsche isn't an obvious judge here."

Sounds so interesting, I can't wait for you to decide---one day---to begin to express some of this.

"Of course there is, what you state openly is mere opinion. You are avoiding topics of logic, historical research, textual analysis and keep on retreating in the vague space of decelerations. It seems that whatever the topic is, you are staying at the surface, not willing to go deeper. Instead we see a surface of feelings, a surface of name dropping, a surface of common place thoughts, a surface of bold declarations."

What isn't 'mere opinion'? What a useless critique! As to 'topics of logic', perhaps you mean with Kelly Jones? The game of 'logic', on this forum, is little more than a game, Diebert, with little formal connection with logic. This is so obvious, anyone should be able to see it. If I stay on the surface (ironic or mocking, or just avoiding certain conversations altogether) it is rather because it does not make sense to go on scuba-diving missions with the spiritually and emotionally afflicted. Not to mention ill-prepared intellectually. But, it is true, there is a great deal of theatrics in my whole shtick. If I couldn't have at least some fun too I would likely have bugged out of here long ago.

"For example, it's way more interesting and backed by actual events to describe the influence early 20th century fascist philosophies [of ethnic or racial purity, homelands and national identities in a time or crisis] had on the rise of Zionism as influential body of thought with its culmination in the creation of the Jewish state of Israel."

Oh sure, Diebert. This would be a really interesting one, wouldn't it! We could bring Faust, Leyla, Dan, Trevor and many others (sincere, probing intellects!) from the Hitler's Ovens thread and we could have a really probing, intellectually inspired conversation on the theme you have outlined, and I am sure we'd stumble into vast caverns of 'truth'. It would be very revealing and we'd come away CHANGED PERSONS!The problem, Diebert, to which you seem quite blind---it surprises me---is that there is in truth no one here who is capable of having that conversation (no one among the main players I mentioned), insofar as they have little more than a base project in mind when it comes to a discussion of Jews, Judaism and Israel.

"But instead you like to delve in the tiny influence Nietzsche has had on a few antisemitic thinkers, which is based on some shallow accusations found in literature made by people who hardly studied the subject matter properly.

I said, a few posts back, that there were some suspicious influences at work in the thinking and general philosophical program of the 'QRS'. I also said that Nietzsche is a kind of intellectual dynamite that explodes both ways, if you will permit me to state it like that. I wrote that Nietzsche in some of his formulations described very strange ideas about society, about aristocracy, and about power, and also about Jews and Judaism (and Christianity), that were picked up by fascistic thinkers, that dovetailed very nicely with their programs, which did not originate in Nietzsche. Much of Nietzsche (and certainly a slanted reading of Zarathustra) can go that way.

I also observe and sincerely believe that that is not all Nietzche is good for, and I am aware of the 'better' side of him as expressed in many artists and intellects I tremendously admire.

All that I wrote, I stand behind. The best I could likely do, though, is to quote a few parts from Nietzsche that illustrate ambiguity in his ideas.

Don't take a week to get back to me...

;-)

PS: As to why I write, and why I write so much, it is only for my own purposes. I am here on this forum to maximize my gains, to learn as much as I can, and to practice expressing my ideas. I don't care if you or anyone else likes or doesn't like it. If you want, you could work behind the scenes and get me banned. I have no problem with that and you will never hear me complain. (Sort of Samadhi's Fate for ole Alex?)

(Dan, what do you think? Have I said enough now?)

Alex Jacob wrote:You wax paranoid.

That was so funny I nearly threw up.

Alex,

In the 'defense' I posted, you can see that Israelis often object to the singular sort of criticism they receive. Please read it and locate that part, I don't have the energy to write it out. You comments above are filled with your own prejudices and conclusions, and you accept them as totally true. But there is another side to the story, and you don't seem to be aware of it. I suggest that if you knew that fuller picture, your general treatment of Israel would be different.

I am not sure what defense, or what you mean by singular criticism. I did read through a good bit of the page you posted. It does have some good points, and some I disagree with.

This is a very strange idea to respond to in a serious way. On the one hand, the way that this Yahweh is portrayed, he is a little like a Space-God from afar, and even the notion of God is so tied to an elaborate metaphysic that you could, as you seem to have done, replace 'him' with a strange Lizard God from another galaxy. How though could anyone actually respond to this idea? How could it ever be discussed? One could describe 'Yahweh' as a God of the desert who traveled on the winds, a sort of forbidding and terrible spirit, but I just don't know what to think about the Deep Space theory. He obviously would have had to have touched down and scooped up some New World Indian lasses around the same time, and maybe shared a cup of Chocolate with Montezuma, so I sort of see where it is going...

And yet, when once you have read sufficiently so that my opinion makes sense, you can hardly go back to the odd fairy tales that are passed off as valid history. You really could start with Zecharia Sitchin, a Russian born, Israeli Jew, perhaps Genesis Revisited or The 12th Planet. Or, I could perhaps PM you an essay or two from a writer who I find amusing, and who might summarize it a bit.
Nothing about lizards by the way.

Why doesn't he just pop in again and set the record straight? Where is he now? I was going to build an Alien Attractor Beacon from a mail-order kit, is this recommended? Has Yahweh learned anything or is he the same asshole as always?

A very interesting question, a puzzle. And, I think, there are forlorn references in the world literature about such things as "the lost voice of Yahweh" or the gods. Why did they disappear? Sitchin doesn't know but disappear they did. Now, we may or may not be getting visited by all manner of other beings, but the stuff I am talking about is flesh and blood people who looked a lot like us (made us in their image) and who landed in space ships, jump started civilization, built buildings and ran city states.
Unfortunately, the service to them and the worship of true divinity, became confused in the minds of humanity, most especially in those areas where their influence was strongest - the middle east. And especially after they left and clear memories were muddied.

Don't know whether Yahweh learned anything or where he is.

What, you say their God is a Martian Invader and you expect me to think you have no strange ideas about the Jews?? Did this Captain Nemo of Alpha Centauri happen to sell fabric? Is that why so many of his spiritual progeny were tailors?

Strange is in the eye of the beholder. Certainly the Biblical accounts are not of God, of that we can be sure. No, we have to put the whole picture together, all the ancient mythology, and start also believing that the ancient people were not silly children any more than we are, and that they were not howling with superstition at every moment of their lives. If they said Gods came from the sky and taught them writing and wine making, or the Mayan calendar, or built the pyramids, we should perhaps consider it. The Sumerian stuff is the real key, though. Have you heard of the cargo cults?

If you ever get around to researching anti-Semitism, you will see that arises from other roots than mere disdain of grating characteristics.

I don't buy it and I think that Jews have made a bugaboo, something mysterious about antisemitism. They have experienced a lot of it, no doubt in part because people aren't always that tolerant, and the Jews lived among others, and got scapegoated a lot. On the other hand, they might have behaved badly some times. And perhaps no more badly than the countrymen among whom they lived, but you know, when things get uncomfortable, the house guests might be told to leave.

Your theory about Yahweh is actually, I suggest to you, an expression of this core paranoia, a Medieval paranoia.

Oh, Alex, I said it would be difficult to become angry, but really here, this is getting to be too much. Please, I beg you for the third time, consider, just consider letting this idea to actually penetrate your brain as a possibility - that my dislike of Yahweh is well thought out and most certainly not medieval. It comes from reading the Bible. The behavior of Yahweh is so thoroughly unacceptable, and it gets pawned off somehow as the one true religion, and the damage it does and has done to humanity and to Jews themselves is tragic.

If you cannot tell the difference between good and evil you are not at the starting gate. This wisdom comes from the book of Isaiah. This is the dilemma of humanity, that we lack such basic judgment, that we cannot decide if something is good or not good. And so Jehovah hides behind convoluted and inconsistent biblical ramblings, and ingrained belief systems, safe from examination.

What could be more sad, more frustrating, more destructive of human potential, than to have a knee jerk inability to examine held beliefs? Why, in that circumstance they are hardly human. It is fundamentalism. That is the lifeblood of fundamentalism. Are you a fundamentalist, Alex?

As a teacher of humanity, a teacher of ethics, Jehovah falls short. He is cruel, petty, greedy, punitive, antiwoman, war mongering, and mentions almost no truly high or abstract ideals or divine understanding. He ruled by the sword and punished those who left his fold with death. He endorsed slavery and the murder of children.

The spiritual accomplishments of Jews are not because of Jehovah but despite him. And he is holding back the Christians. If you can't tell when your own god isn't good, then you are as lost as it is possible to be this side of hell. And as you may know, it is my opinion that we are in fact not really outside of hell. So this is serious. We need to get out, and we certainly can't get out until we see our predicament accurately. Nor do we deserve to.

Your Evil Space-God is just another version of Satan, or a Lizard Civilization that has taken over the planet. I also suggest that your conspiracy ideas MUST also hinge into the same mishegoss.

There is actually an interesting Biblical passage, perhaps I could find it, which makes it appear that Jehovah is none other than Satan. But things are pretty mixed up in the Bible...but I am not all about evil space gods. The gods do seem to have used us for ill to some extent, but not entirely. They gave us a lot, too, and some were rather benevolent. The worst of the lot seems to have been Jehovah.

And by the way, I said that the areas of the middle east were in the thick of this god-influence, and I mentioned the poison of exclusivity. Many peoples of the earth are not nearly so intolerant as seems to be the norm among the three peoples of the book. Do you realize, that according to the New Testament, the apostle Peter (St. Peter) would not even eat with gentiles who were in fact converts in their churches?

double post deleted

Heideggar was the Nazi ,not Nietzsche.

I guess I'm committed to going as far with this as patience will permit, though I really did think twice about it. If you begin something I guess you should try to finish it, right?

Let's start here:

Anna wrote: "Oh, Alex, I said it would be difficult to become angry, but really here, this is getting to be too much."

If you feel you want or need to get angry, to really stomp your feet, or to really provide me with a lesson here, by all means don't hold back! Don't feel constrained by any sense of propriety or a worry that you will offend. In this world, in the drama we are all living, it is much more interesting to really let it all hang out.

The basic ideas that you present about Jews, the 'understanding' you profess to have about the extra-terrestrial and diabolical origins of Yahweh, much of your notions about the role of Jews in Europe, is a direct expression of Medieval formulations. It is all the same material but it is tarted-up a little differently.

"What could be more sad, more frustrating, more destructive of human potential, than to have a knee jerk inability to examine held beliefs? Why, in that circumstance they are hardly human. It is fundamentalism. That is the lifeblood of fundamentalism. Are you a fundamentalist, Alex?"

This is not really the right question, and anyway it is more of a statement. You present a whole group of different ideas, some of them mere repeats of existing ideas (that arise from prejudice and paranoia) and others that seem to have an origin in science-fiction powered by Medieval-mythologic fuel, and you demand that I consider these ideas? Implying that if I don't I am a fundamentalist? Except perhaps for the space-god theory I have been down all these roads, I have traced them back and forth and have devoted considerable time to examining them (the main ideas you are presenting about Jews, i.e. the standard prejudices), and I reject them. Nevertheless, I certainly note their virulence and their capacity to go through endless cycles of reincarnation and resurrection. In a very real sense, then, I could reverse the question and ask you: Are you a fundamentalist? I suggest that that the evidence points more to you than to me.

"Certainly the Biblical accounts are not of God, of that we can be sure."

I think that the simplest way to approach the idea of a historical concept of God is to recognize that it is our perception of God (and all that can mean) that is evolving and growing. Just as an individual starts a sort of journey, a movement, a trajectory and a path through life and as he goes along, having received certain general ideas and impressions, modifies his understanding, reworks it, sees it tested and questioned, and receives, if you will, new 'revelations'. The Old Testament is a group of stories, of sketches of certain comprehensions of the order of things, that has all been cobbled together. These ideas began with a very primitive and typically aggressive and very tribal group of people whose God, as they conceived it was the God of a place. A tribal God, a protective spirit, and one that (in their conception of things) required and received blood offering, fat offerings, and who (it was conceived) enjoyed and was 'satisfied' with the smell of these offerings. Also, this 'God' could be moved and swayed by this bribery. He could be bought so to speak. He was the God of a specific people and he protected them, no matter if they were right or wrong in an ethical sense. These basic notions are at the core of all religions in their early stages.

Very clearly, in the historical trajectory of the Old Testament writings, one can make out the core ethical evolutions of the concept of God. The understanding of 'God' is no longer confined solely to the God of one people, but is seen as being the God of all. God starts to 'manifest himself' (to be perceived) as something other than was first conceived, and of course it is the prophets who are on the cutting edge of these new perceptions. Without going into all the specific and yet interesting details, the monotheistic understanding is worked out, and in comparison to the existing ideas about God and what God does, and why, and to what end, this monotheism stands very distinctly apart from common understandings, and the understanding of surrounding peoples in the region. The whole idea of 'selection', the idea of 'God' choosing a people is connected with this specific revelation. The 'vessel' through which these ideas are presented will have all the trappings of ancient history, all the crudities, all the rough edges, all the mistakes and wrong turns, but the major idea stands out in very bold lines, and it is this that is the main contribution of this people and nation to the whole European project.

Even with the early prophets---say Hosea---one can clearly distinguish quite elevated ideas about 'what God is', and what God wants, and it should not at all be a surprise that no one really wants to hear any of this, and that they would rather do away with the messenger. The messenger is seen, then, as the problem, and if you can get rid of the messenger then you should also get rid of the problem. But---and it is a huge, weird 'but'---this God, this Yahweh, is so strict and so unforgiving, and so set on his project, that he will use all means at his disposal to make this people, and through him (as the story goes) all people conform to his will. It is not an option to fail to rise to the occasion. It is a command. No one likes commands, it is simply a human characteristic, and yet it is almost undeniable that what we experience as 'life' is a cruel disciplinarian. Judaism asserts that in God is Life and outside of God is death and suffering. This is the core and very bright guiding idea. If one clearly grasps this one can better approach 'all of this'. It is an idea that has incredibly vast ramifications and implications for human consciousness and life on this planet. It is huge.

"I don't buy it and I think that Jews have made a bugaboo, something mysterious about antisemitism. They have experienced a lot of it, no doubt in part because people aren't always that tolerant, and the Jews lived among others, and got scapegoated a lot. On the other hand, they might have behaved badly some times. And perhaps no more badly than the countrymen among whom they lived, but you know, when things get uncomfortable, the house guests might be told to leave."

You know nothing about it, and you have not really looked into it, as I keep repeating. You'd rather that I accept your ideas of a harsh space-god from afar than to take the time to really move to the core of this problem. You seem, to me, very much on the outside looking in, but the chink through which you view things is narrow and insufficient and provides a limited view.

There are big difficulties associated with talking about the historical roles of Jews, and in broaching the subject of this weird and very difficult role they have served in what is a huge psycho-spiritual drama that extends across centuries. You could approach it all as an illusion, in the sense that, say, atheists and Marxists speak about it. You could speak about it as a sort of psychic arrogance of a people, the shocking and condemnable idea that they were 'chosen' by a God who preferred them over others, and you can see this as a foil to hide a more devious 'will-to-power' on the part of an invading people, cast out of their own land because of their sins. You could also see it as a huge set-up on the part of this very demanding God 'Yahweh' who is ruthlessly committed to his project and continues to use his selected people for a certain grand accomplishment. You could see Christianity rising to condemn Judaism, and you could see God himself shedding off a no longer useful stage-gear in favor of another, more modern one. Also, you can see Christianity as a snot-nosed little brute, a pious-violent and arrogant child who is going to punish those dastardly Jews for all their terrible crimes. There are infinite levels here, and almost innumerable ways to view these things. You could whip-saw Christians against Jews and see it all that way, but I think that is unproductive. Jews serve a psychological function for Christians, and all the stories and all the morality plays (of Medieval times I might add) clearly portray all this. These stories are still functioning in the minds of many people, and the 'grooves' in which these ideas run are so well established that in a moment's notice, it can all be brought out again and rehearsed.

To understand that this is so and why this is so, and to examine all the issues that surround it, is a 'task of modernity', and strangely enough seems (still and again!) connected to the main and core Project.

"If you cannot tell the difference between good and evil you are not at the starting gate. This wisdom comes from the book of Isaiah. This is the dilemma of humanity, that we lack such basic judgment, that we cannot decide if something is good or not good. And so Jehovah hides behind convoluted and inconsistent biblical ramblings, and ingrained belief systems, safe from examination."

The quickest and most direct way to answer you here---but you'll have to excuse me and you'll have to understand it is didactic theatrics---is to advise you not to piously lecture. You know next to nothing about how Judaism relates and engages with these issues of good and evil, right and wrong, and you seem to feel comfortable in providing a little ethical lecture to 'the Jews'? In so many different, specific and quantifiable ways, the rabbinical approach to dealing with these questions is quite a bit more advanced than in the Christian setting. You have not even the slightest idea how Jewish religion or theology approaches (and solves) the problem of Yahweh's ethical dealings.

You are just repeating the same old Christian-vs-Jew nonsense that really only points up your own ignorance.

"There is actually an interesting Biblical passage, perhaps I could find it, which makes it appear that Jehovah is none other than Satan. But things are pretty mixed up in the Bible...but I am not all about evil space gods. The gods do seem to have used us for ill to some extent, but not entirely. They gave us a lot, too, and some were rather benevolent. The worst of the lot seems to have been Jehovah."

I am reading now some Christian religionists and theologians, most of it from the early 1900s, and I find their grasp of the Bible many times superior to these half-baked ideas you are presenting, and much more useful to understanding. I must be frank with you to remain in 'intellectual integrity'.

The Pharisees by Travers Herford (1924) examines the harsh prejudices of Christians against the Pharisees (early rabbinical movement) and points out how utterly misunderstood is the rabbinical tradition by Christians. God in the Old Testament---Studies in Gradual Perception by Robert Aytoun (1923) offers a very complete view of the 'gradual perception' of what we now understand as 'God'. Dissolving Views in the History of Judaism (1888) by Solomon Schindler, while not a Christian, also examines the way that the God-idea has evolved and stays current with changing times. Any of the ideas presented in these books, which are now 'dated', more or less does away with your prejudicial and primitive views, in my (humble) opinion.

Oh shit! This is really weird, but...a spacecraft...yes, a spacecraft! has landed...on my fucking roof...and WHAT? Can it be?...I can't...It's Yahwey himself! He has come to visit and instruct me! ME! He seems to have...a communicator! Wait, my PHONE is ringing, this is getting weirder by the minute, hold on, hold on, I'll answer it, give me a fucking second already! (Oh man! I can't believe this is happening!)

"Yahwey, Yahwey, is that you?!"

Here, take a look.

Alex Jacob wrote:Critique of John Pilger's documentary.

You call that a critique??? Unbelievable.

Jews might be able to dictate what and when Jewish history is and began for Jews, but the day the world renounces it as world history is the day we all become sane.

Alex,

I'm trying to understand why and how you involve yourself in Judeo-Christian concepts. I'm taking the words of yours that I quote below as the springboard to my engagement with you in this thread. In this post I'll try to explain my fundamental reaction to your serious interpretation of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

I perceive in you the operation of a kind of a sifting process, a searching for the core and peripheral values which most appeal to you of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and an absorption of those values, which you then attempt to defend. I'm not quite sure on what basis you defend these values, though. It doesn't seem to be on the basis that the tradition itself represents absolute truth, because you seem to hold, for example, that the God concept has evolved over time - in other words that the original version of the tradition was incomplete, was not the whole truth. Yet the fact that these values are attributes of a tradition seems to be significant to you. I find this hard to reconcile with the ethos of this forum, which is to discover one's values through a process of rigorous individual rational thought. In one sense, you could be regarded on this forum as a heretic, but more likely, the prevailing winds of GF will simply characterise your approach as deluded. Why, Alex, oh why, should we occupy ourselves so assiduously with the search for the values of the dominant religio-social tradition of the age, rather than to use our reason and experience to forge our own values, which more than likely will be more relevant to the modern age? This, as I see it, is one of the questions that Jason has been implicitly raising in his engagements with you.

You seem to take the same perspective on the Old Testament that my father, a committed Christian, takes: namely, that it is a (largely historical) record of the evolution of a religion, and not, as more fundamentalist Jews/Christians would have us believe, the literal truth. This perspective deserves harsh criticism, as far as I'm concerned. The primary tenet of the tradition is that Jehovah, an all-powerful deity, purposefully involved Himself with humanity, in order to impart a way of life upon all of the peoples of the world. If this tenet is true, and if this Jehovah is as consistent and perfect as the tradition would have us believe, then His original dealings with humanity should have made manifest all of His character and purpose such that there would be no need for it to ever change. In other words, my second question to you, Alex, is why did the concept of God even have a chance to "evolve", if God Himself was involved from the very beginning?

It seems to me that the only way that we can accept an evolving conception of God is if God was not actually involved from the beginning, and if all of these beliefs about God were wholly man-made. If that is the case, then the whole thing was, is, and always has been a sham, and is no less of a sham now, all of those thousands of years later, just because our (man-made) conception of God has "evolved". Either God communicated Himself perfectly with the authors of the Bible, or He did not. If He did, then why does His character evolve throughout the Bible (the absolute is changeless)? If He did not, then all of those sacred texts are quite literally, merely stories. And "stories" is putting it mildly. More cynical folk might be inclined to refer to them as "lies". Why, Alex, are you willing to base your fundamental perspective on the world on a bunch of made-up stories, which, masquerading as absolute truth, demolish themselves by virtue of their changing nature? Don't you seek to know what is really true - that which is no mere man-made story, but an actual correspondence with reality?

Alex Jacob wrote:I think that the simplest way to approach the idea of a historical concept of God is to recognize that it is our perception of God (and all that can mean) that is evolving and growing. Just as an individual starts a sort of journey, a movement, a trajectory and a path through life and as he goes along, having received certain general ideas and impressions, modifies his understanding, reworks it, sees it tested and questioned, and receives, if you will, new 'revelations'. The Old Testament is a group of stories, of sketches of certain comprehensions of the order of things, that has all been cobbled together. These ideas began with a very primitive and typically aggressive and very tribal group of people whose God, as they conceived it was the God of a place. A tribal God, a protective spirit, and one that (in their conception of things) required and received blood offering, fat offerings, and who (it was conceived) enjoyed and was 'satisfied' with the smell of these offerings. Also, this 'God' could be moved and swayed by this bribery. He could be bought so to speak. He was the God of a specific people and he protected them, no matter if they were right or wrong in an ethical sense. These basic notions are at the core of all religions in their early stages.

Very clearly, in the historical trajectory of the Old Testament writings, one can make out the core ethical evolutions of the concept of God. The understanding of 'God' is no longer confined solely to the God of one people, but is seen as being the God of all. God starts to 'manifest himself' (to be perceived) as something other than was first conceived, and of course it is the prophets who are on the cutting edge of these new perceptions. Without going into all the specific and yet interesting details, the monotheistic understanding is worked out, and in comparison to the existing ideas about God and what God does, and why, and to what end, this monotheism stands very distinctly apart from common understandings, and the understanding of surrounding peoples in the region. The whole idea of 'selection', the idea of 'God' choosing a people is connected with this specific revelation. The 'vessel' through which these ideas are presented will have all the trappings of ancient history, all the crudities, all the rough edges, all the mistakes and wrong turns, but the major idea stands out in very bold lines, and it is this that is the main contribution of this people and nation to the whole European project.

Even with the early prophets---say Hosea---one can clearly distinguish quite elevated ideas about 'what God is', and what God wants, and it should not at all be a surprise that no one really wants to hear any of this, and that they would rather do away with the messenger. The messenger is seen, then, as the problem, and if you can get rid of the messenger then you should also get rid of the problem. But---and it is a huge, weird 'but'---this God, this Yahweh, is so strict and so unforgiving, and so set on his project, that he will use all means at his disposal to make this people, and through him (as the story goes) all people conform to his will. It is not an option to fail to rise to the occasion. It is a command. No one likes commands, it is simply a human characteristic, and yet it is almost undeniable that what we experience as 'life' is a cruel disciplinarian. Judaism asserts that in God is Life and outside of God is death and suffering. This is the core and very bright guiding idea. If one clearly grasps this one can better approach 'all of this'. It is an idea that has incredibly vast ramifications and implications for human consciousness and life on this planet. It is huge.

g_o_l wrote:Either God communicated Himself perfectly with the authors of the Bible, or He did not. If He did, then why does His character evolve throughout the Bible (the absolute is changeless)? If He did not, then all of those sacred texts are quite literally, merely stories. And "stories" is putting it mildly. More cynical folk might be inclined to refer to them as "lies".

The first sentence is true. The rest does not follow. The relationship of God toward Man is as a father to a child. The lessons imparted from one to the other are not perfectly absorbed. The entire process is evolving. A father does not tell his young son everything one time and expect the child to fully assimilate it. Rather it is an ongoing process. What is taught itself does not change, but the form may change to suit the receptiveness and capabilities of the one doing the learning.

Alex,

Patience? It was you who asked if I was coming back to the discussion.

I am frustrated by your broken record response to everything I say, that it is all medieval. That's just ridiculous, and furthermore, the reason I called you a fundamentalist is not your beliefs per se, but your inability to examine them, and your lack of realization that you lack said ability.

The extra-terrestrial Yahweh is medieval? C'mon man, it's Erik von Daniken more like.

You have no idea what you are responding to, and so there isn't any point to continuing to discuss the extra terrestrial idea.

As to your discussion of the compiling of the Old Testament, I have no argument with it, but the problem is much of humanity regards it as inspired by God.

And by the way, just because a people is tribal and primitive, does not mean that they should have an aggressive idea of God, nor that God is confined to a place. Most tribal people have a much more expansive and inclusive idea of a creator God than that. Why didn't the Jews? Well, why didn't the Greeks for that matter, or the Romans? I'll tell you why. Because their gods, little g gods, were high tech space aliens who genetically modified the human race and started city states, each with its own ruling god, giving rise to a thing called Henotheism, which the early Jews were along with most all the other peoples of that area and era - in direct contradiction to the rather universal inner spiritual intuition of the human race which you will find among Hawaiian islanders, blacks of Africa, the American Indians and so forth.

I think it is false that the Jews contributed monotheism. They may have shed their henotheism slowly, but monotheism is the natural human understanding, which was disturbed in the entire middle east and mediterranean region. The American Indians were monotheists, the Hindus are monotheists.

On the contrary, I do like to give credit to parts of the Old Testament. Jesus quoted Hosea, and an important quote it was too, giving the lie to the hideous Christian nonsense that God desired or required a sacrifice.

I don't know about the prophets progressing through time - that's an idea I'd have to look into.

this God, this Yahweh, is so strict and so unforgiving, and so set on his project, that he will use all means at his disposal to make this people, and through him (as the story goes) all people conform to his will. It is not an option to fail to rise to the occasion. It is a command.

That isn't God. That is evil. Very simple. Very simple.

Judaism asserts that in God is Life and outside of God is death and suffering. This is the core and very bright guiding idea.

That happens to be true - but God does not use force and intimidation. There's nothing bright about the idea if God is a despot.

You know nothing about it, and you have not really looked into it, as I keep repeating. You'd rather that I accept your ideas of a harsh space-god from afar than to take the time to really move to the core of this problem. You seem, to me, very much on the outside looking in, but the chink through which you view things is narrow and insufficient and provides a limited view.

It's not true that I know nothing about it nor have I looked into it, and your response says absolutely nothing to address what I thought was a rather reasonable paragraph, even an obvious one, in a common sense sort of way.

But you won't have it. There is no two-way street. Jews have never, ever played a role in causation to any antisemitism, no matter how small. And antisemitism is fundamentally a mysterious force, completely different in character than any other of the many examples of human intolerance. And you couldn't possibly consider that there is more to the world than your limited philosophy of history, one that perhaps could actually shed some light on the suffering of the Jews and unravel some of that big ball of misery?

Fine. Stay in hell. It is everyone's option to do so, and most choose it.
And you think we have a God of force!
God is so humble and gentle, you can't imagine.

... the historical roles of Jews, and in broaching the subject of this weird and very difficult role they have served in what is a huge psycho-spiritual drama that extends across centuries. ... You could speak about it as a sort of psychic arrogance of a people, the shocking and condemnable idea that they were 'chosen' by a God who preferred them over others, and you can see this as a foil to hide a more devious 'will-to-power' on the part of an invading people, cast out of their own land because of their sins. You could also see it as a huge set-up on the part of this very demanding God 'Yahweh' who is ruthlessly committed to his project and continues to use his selected people for a certain grand accomplishment. You could see Christianity rising to condemn Judaism, ...Christianity as a snot-nosed little brute, a pious-violent and arrogant child who is going to punish those dastardly Jews for all their terrible crimes. ... Jews serve a psychological function for Christians, ..

There are some very valid conspiracy theory, regarding world power, and Jews do seem to be involved, and if the idea that the Jews are chosen or preferred really does play a role in it, then it would certainly prove me right, that this is a diabolical (and I mean that literally) temptation to ensnare and enmesh a people in a spiritual labyrinth from which they will not soon escape.

If. I am not saying it is so. Check out Henry Makow. He calls it like he sees it, parents were in a concentration camp from Poland.

All I'm saying is that if a people got the idea that they were chosen by God for worldly power, to make all people subservient to them, then you really don't have too much trouble figuring out if that is a good or an evil, do you?

And you would want to liberate that people from their destructive path, one that surely will have lead them to endless suffering and frustration and neurosis, into the light and joy of universal love and acceptance of all beings?

The Christians likewise need to be liberated.

The quickest and most direct way to answer you here---but you'll have to excuse me and you'll have to understand it is didactic theatrics---is to advise you not to piously lecture. You know next to nothing about how Judaism relates and engages with these issues of good and evil, right and wrong, and you seem to feel comfortable in providing a little ethical lecture to 'the Jews'? In so many different, specific and quantifiable ways, the rabbinical approach to dealing with these questions is quite a bit more advanced than in the Christian setting. You have not even the slightest idea how Jewish religion or theology approaches (and solves) the problem of Yahweh's ethical dealings.

I am lecturing humanity, on a very dire problem, and one that is spoken of in the Old Testament, as I told you, Isaiah. We cannot tell good from evil. It's largely the crux of the human dilemma. And I know whom I need to lecture. You haven't seen it yourself, although I know you could, so you need the lecture.

I probably do know something about how Judaism relates to and engages with some of these questions, but it has been a long time since I read much on the topic. On the other hand, we can't say "Jews" do this or that, because there are several factions. I certainly hope their way of dealing with it is more advanced than the Christian ones, and I am quite eager for you to tell me where I can read about it. The christian excuses have all been lame, such as the pathetic one put forth by Brokenhead at the end of this thread.

Again, when you say I am spouting the same Christian versus Jew nonsense, I ask myself, have I really completely misread your intelligence and your flexible mind? Shudder the thought. Is it possible? Or is this topic one in which you become so threatened that you go all but unconscious and cannot think and respond? My ideas on many of these things are quite unique, and some of the ones that are not my own, are hardly mainstream, and for the most part, have nothing to do with Christian versus Jew.

brokenhead wrote:

g_o_l wrote:Either God communicated Himself perfectly with the authors of the Bible, or He did not. If He did, then why does His character evolve throughout the Bible (the absolute is changeless)? If He did not, then all of those sacred texts are quite literally, merely stories. And "stories" is putting it mildly. More cynical folk might be inclined to refer to them as "lies".

The first sentence is true. The rest does not follow.

Please note that the first sentence deals with whether God communicated Himself perfectly with the authors of the Bible, with the unstated understanding that those authors conveyed the message accurately. Perhaps I should have made that unstated understanding explicit, but I'm at least doing it now.

brokenhead wrote:The relationship of God toward Man is as a father to a child. The lessons imparted from one to the other are not perfectly absorbed. The entire process is evolving. A father does not tell his young son everything one time and expect the child to fully assimilate it. Rather it is an ongoing process. What is taught itself does not change, but the form may change to suit the receptiveness and capabilities of the one doing the learning.

Please. The early biblical image of God is of a warmongering, jealous, wrathful, unforgiving (to the point of drowning nearly all life on Earth) tyrant. Would it really have been so hard for God to have conveyed to His people from the very start that the whole idea behind His being was actually love, forgiveness and sacrifice? It's kind of strange that an omnipotent, omniscient being can't even communicate Himself effectively, wouldn't you say?

guest wrote:Please. The early biblical image of God is of a warmongering, jealous, wrathful, unforgiving (to the point of drowning nearly all life on Earth) tyrant. Would it really have been so hard for God to have conveyed to His people from the very start that the whole idea behind His being was actually love, forgiveness and sacrifice? It's kind of strange that an omnipotent, omniscient being can't even communicate Himself effectively, wouldn't you say?

That's why the OT does more harm than good. People do not know how to read it. It's a Jewish document. It is historically inaccurate, of course, but because it does contain some passages that are accurate as history, people often take the entire thing as a historical treatise. It is merely oral tradition that has been written down at one point and transcribed countless times thereafter. It represents chains to the past. If there is a God, he's not Jewish. The Jews are among the first to record humanity's contact with the gods.

Guest - you do know that Man is an evolved animal, do you not? That he is a creature of evolution?

brokenhead wrote: Guest - you do know that Man is an evolved animal, do you not? That he is a creature of evolution?

And, Guest, that his actual origin is off-planet?

Guest_of_Logic, other distinguished Denizens of GF, Friends, Enemies and still Undecided, good evening and thank you for the opportunity of appearing here and addressing this---if not August then, say, June or July---group of inquisitive minds.

You write: "I perceive in you the operation of a kind of a sifting process, a searching for the core and peripheral values which most appeal to you of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and an absorption of those values, which you then attempt to defend. I'm not quite sure on what basis you defend these values, though. It doesn't seem to be on the basis that the tradition itself represents absolute truth, because you seem to hold, for example, that the God concept has evolved over time - in other words that the original version of the tradition was incomplete, was not the whole truth. Yet the fact that these values are attributes of a tradition seems to be significant to you."

Regarding the question of 'values', there is no doubt that, at least at this point, I highly favor the values that are part and parcel of our Western traditions, and those of the Judeo-Christian tradition. I regard them as having supreme and transcendent value, of having a genuine virtue and a depth and reach that is unparalleled. My personal trajectory in ideas has been a very wide loop through many other foreign traditions, and a return to the core of my own tradition. But I would only use that word---tradition---in the widest and most flexible sense possible: something that is alive, growing, assimilating, changing, and never as something that is forced to come to rest in any one place, or that can be finally defined or contained. Our own traditions and what they have produced in all areas are rich, profound and varied, and are worthy of defense.

I don't seek after absolutes, myself. I just don't think I could ever express things in those terms. For example, in the Krishna tradition there very strongly is the notion of an Absolute. This absolute gave dispensations that are recorded in language. Everything was given, almost preformed you might say, and the object of one who wishes to 'know God' or serve God is simply to conform oneself to the revelation. The personality is an obstruction in the face of the Supreme Personality, and so the devotee must deface himself, become strangely neutral, absent, subservient, irrelevant. That is, I have learned, the way that any absolute formulation will function. This is something that Joseph Campbell talks about at least in the only book of his I've read: Myths to Live By. He draws this contrast between the two poles and he gives examples of the way the idea-conception functions, the way it filters down and terminates in behavior, our ethics, etc.

The fact that our tradition is infinitely more open, and can function quite well without an Absolute lording over everything, is to me precisely the advantage, the strength and the value. Just as an interesting aside, in the Jewish tradition you are offered the opportunity and the luxury of disagreeing with God. Arguing with God. The individual is not asked to step out of the picture, but really seems to be asked to step more and more into the picture. Involvement with God is a conversation. I think the Christian tradition, at its finest but even at its mediocre---is a tradition that empowers the individual, insofar as it places a great deal of the whole puzzle and problem of existence in his hands. There are some Jewish words that have to do with healing the rupture, or rectifying, by one's very existence, the ruptured and broken nature of our earthly life, the condition of the world. A lot of this is actually expressed through the Christian sacrifice (Christ's sacrifice), which though I know is supposed to have some exterior, metaphysical value (something that was done) I'd rather place stress on what it all means for the individual. So, I see the traditions as unified in this sense. I know plenty of Jews who don't have much to do with Jesus but in the way they live they are as 'Christian' as the most Christian, and sometimes they even seem better off since in Judaism not a great deal of weight is placed in doctrine, but rather in how you relate to the traditions that have delved into the ethical questions. You can be a 'believing Christian' and be more or less indistinguishable from anyone else. But Judaism (at its best, or more intense) demands a 24 hour engagement with an interpretation of the Law. If they would have been burning people at the stake not because of what they 'believed' or didn't believe, but rather based on what they did or didn't do, we would live in a very different present.

"It may be that universal history is the history of the different intonations given a handful of metaphors", wrote Jorge Luis Borges (Argentine poet) It is an idea that has very wide implications. The reason why I think that imagination, creativity, engagement, development, interpretation, reverie, and so many of these 'skills' that are rejected by some philosophers (and specifically exiled by the QRS), the reason I think these skills are of supreme value is because all the things that we could even think or imagine or hold in our minds, it is all constructed upon and built up though language. If there is no language, these is no ideation. So, where precisely are you going to locate 'absolutes'? Sometimes I think that a great part of the process has to do with building up language-pools that are sufficient to hold great ideas, great feelings, great intuitions about some of the eternal things that we sense around us, and which we are a part of. Obviously I mean more than dictionaries and lexicons. I mean whole networks of conceptual relationships. It is all very fine and intricate, and the best part of being human is to be able to participate in this.

So, in our traditions, we have our beginnings in stories, in words, in the relationships of meanings, and if one chooses one can become a part of that. Another way to understand what I am trying to present is to imagine what happens when 'words' collapse, when the fine network and fine structure of concepts collapses. It is the end of all possibilities! If you don't have all of that structure, you will have no way to really even begin to approach that 'are' or 'territory' where 'God' is. But I think one maturely has to surrender these adolescent notions of absolute-this and absolute-that.

I don't think that 'what we really are', I mean at some core level, is taking place within a definite plane or sphere, I think what characterizes 'it' is that it is just too vast and varied to even be locked down to some weak idea some human being got fixated on, because of his own insecurity, because he couldn't accept that this life is an unbelievable risk. The way I would define religion (which is higher than theology and even philosophy) is as a human being who becomes an enormous risk-taker and who casts his fate to winds or indefinite things. All that of course is in the very inner domain of personal faith and internal life---it is stuff that is acutely difficult to talk about, but most people really exist more in this place than anywhere else, if they really would look at it.

"Yet the fact that these values are attributes of a tradition seems to be significant to you. I find this hard to reconcile with the ethos of this forum, which is to discover one's values through a process of rigorous individual rational thought. In one sense, you could be regarded on this forum as a heretic, but more likely, the prevailing winds of GF will simply characterise your approach as deluded. Why, Alex, oh why, should we occupy ourselves so assiduously with the search for the values of the dominant religio-social tradition of the age, rather than to use our reason and experience to forge our own values, which more than likely will be more relevant to the modern age? This, as I see it, is one of the questions that Jason has been implicitly raising in his engagements with you."

I think it is hard for Jason to actually 'raise questions', and it is likely because of the placement of that vibrating butt-plug which seems to possess the poor boy. If, in some future, he ever removes it and begins to pose questions, I for one would welcome it. Some of us get stuck at what can only be called an 'anal' phase, which is of course associated with the growing up process. I am not altogether joking. Dicks and vaginae and vaginae and dicks and all that stuff only go so far.

I am certainly never going to advocate for ceasing 'rigorous individual rational thought', but I do understand that there are interests out there, both in our present and historically, that have big problems with it. 'Organized religion' could be one of them, or you could refer to obscurantism and all that stuff. Again, in Judaism, as distinct from Christianity, all the stuff of doctrine is 'haggadah' (what you think), and is the stuff of marvellous stories, wild and far-ranging speculations, flights of fancy. What has more relevance in the Jewish tradition is very basic facts of existence, and that is why 'halacha' is the predominant consideration (what you do). You could almost put it, 'that we exist'. Because Jewish 'reality' takes place within the acutely real---that is how it defines itself, in fact---it is just not that hard for it to deal with the most acid of acid thinking, this 'rigorous individual rational thought'. I don't think that 'we' have quite the problems with all this that you do.

"Why, Alex, oh why, should we occupy ourselves so assiduously with the search for the values of the dominant religio-social tradition of the age, rather than to use our reason and experience to forge our own values, which more than likely will be more relevant to the modern age?"

I cannot present to you any concrete reasons necessarily. I don't see the question quite a sharply as that, like one or the other. One thing is that, despite what any committed 'atheist' has to say (or could even say), there is simply no way to escape or sidestep or even fail to give expression to whole networks of concepts and ideas that are part of us at a cellular level, at least as far as our minds go, our language, our semantics, the very idea of meaning, our cultural accomplishments, concerns and preoccupations. Also, I don't see any part of QRS as having risen above 'all of that'.

I think though that most likely what you mean when you say 'forge our own values' could be something more akin to holding onto the will to live a naughty little existence. In a sort of Baudelairian sense, to seek to shake off the weight of a whole tradition (what we mean when we refer to our minds and consciousness), to feel justified in becoming petits satanistes, in love with personal voyages into rebellion, sexual libertinism, in short the freedom to declare the right to remain a child. Still, that existence is intimately tied to what it tries to get out from under. Many people when they 'liberate' themselves from the religious overlords, seem not to escape into greater freedom but into new levels of bondage.

(I would go through this and edit it better, clarify and expand, but my head is tired.)

brokenhead,

brokenhead wrote:That's why the OT does more harm than good. People do not know how to read it. It's a Jewish document. It is historically inaccurate, of course, but because it does contain some passages that are accurate as history, people often take the entire thing as a historical treatise. It is merely oral tradition that has been written down at one point and transcribed countless times thereafter. It represents chains to the past. If there is a God, he's not Jewish. The Jews are among the first to record humanity's contact with the gods.

So your opinion is that yes, God(s) spoke to (came into contact with) the Jews, but no, they didn't record His message accurately?

brokenhead wrote:Guest - you do know that Man is an evolved animal, do you not? That he is a creature of evolution?

All that I know is that evolution is currently the prevailing scientific understanding, but I've not done much research on the issue myself. It seems to me to have a reasonable degree of plausibility though - e.g. I've implemented a genetic algorithm on a computer to solve a mathematical problem and it worked pretty well - and I hear that there's a lot of evidence to support it. What's it got to do with the nature of God as recorded in the Bible though?

Alex,

You write that you don't believe in absolute values, but that you do believe in supreme and transcendent values. I don't see a significant difference.

You also don't seem to believe that Judeo-Christian values arrived fully formed from God Himself - because they're amenable to change - so presumably you believe that they are the result of human thought and striving, yet you believe that they are supreme and transcendent, so I'm wondering whether you believe that God has played any part in the journey by which humanity has achieved these values, and if so, what that part has been.

I think though that most likely what you mean when you say 'forge our own values' could be something more akin to holding onto the will to live a naughty little existence. In a sort of Baudelairian sense, to seek to shake off the weight of a whole tradition (what we mean when we refer to our minds and consciousness), to feel justified in becoming little satanists, in love with their personal voyages into rebellion, sexual libertinism, in short the freedom to declare the right to remain a child. Still, that existence is intimately ties to what it tries to get out from under.

This paragraph gives me the idea that you do believe that God has played a significant, and real role in shaping the values that you esteem so highly: to diverge from these values is to become in your words a "little satanist" - opposed to godliness. You write that you don't believe in absolutes, and yet you talk about these values being "supreme". I think that it might actually be fair to say that you believe in a set of values that most please God / reflect God's will, and that the Judeo-Christian tradition is evolving towards that set of values.

Bolstering my understanding that you are a "closet absolutist" is my impression that you are actually quite intolerant of alternate values. You seem to be strongly opposed to pornography, prostitution, masturbation, self-pleasuring through sex toys, and psychiatric medication, for example. My guess is that you believe that THE values (i.e. the true values of God, which the Judeo-Christian tradition is evolving towards) proscribe such acts, and that they are therefore "absolutely" (although you would never use that word) unjustifiable.

"Why, Alex, oh why, should we occupy ourselves so assiduously with the search for the values of the dominant religio-social tradition of the age, rather than to use our reason and experience to forge our own values, which more than likely will be more relevant to the modern age?"

I cannot present to you any concrete reasons necessarily. I don't see the question quite a sharply as that, like one or the other.

Clearly not. You seem to have forged your own values to some extent. By your own admission, you have slept with in the realm of hundreds of women. I doubt that this lifestyle would be supported by the Judeo-Christian values to which you seem to want to adhere. Perhaps it's a case of "that was then, this is now".

guest wrote:So your opinion is that yes, God(s) spoke to (came into contact with) the Jews, but no, they didn't record His message accurately?

There is no way it could have been recorded accurately. It is a living message. The Jews were not the only contact points between the human and the divine. Yet they are among the earliest of peoples who wrote down oral tradition. The problem is that the written word should not be where the process stops.

A parent may have one set of values. How he teaches these values to a son that is young becomes that son's interpretation of what he has been taught. No parent would teach a lesson once. Lessons get taught over and over again. The child can only absorb what it can. The next time, he may absorb a little more. And so it goes. Along the the way, mistakes are made that require the parent's attention. Sometimes, it seems like the child is regressing. But the parent knows better and will persist.

This is how the gods impart their wisdom to us as a race. We progress in steps because it is the only way we can. A parent does not refrain from teaching a lesson even when he knows the lesson will be promptly forgotten and will need to be repeated over and over. The answer is that we are loved.

I just want to state En passant that I regard any talk of a communication between the divine and human in the terms being considered here to be unspeakably fatuous, an insult even to children.

Carry on.

To say 'God speaks to man' is a metaphor, a language-construct, it is also prepositional, and has to borrow images from our own known. In stories, especially ancient stories, 'truths' are presented, or you could say speculations are presented, through stories, and there really wasn't someone there to critique them, to apply the kinds of analysis we use today. It sort of depends on where you are on the time line of ideas as to whether you will take this stuff 'literally' or in some other way. To my way of seeing things, this whole part of the conversation has to be gone through very carefully and very slowly, because now, as a result of our modernity, we have new ways to approach the same general pattern of idea. So, for example, and just one example, we recognize a certain structure of content to the things we dream, and it can be said that it is another part of ourselves and not our own, precise 'self' that comes up with these symbols and visual or feeling constructions, and they are presented to us 'for our consideration'. That right there opens up a whole new door to entertain the idea 'f God speaking to Man'.

There certainly must be many other ways to 'inflect the handful of metaphors that is universal history'.

guest_of-logic writes:

"You write that you don't believe in absolute values, but that you do believe in supreme and transcendent values. I don't see a significant difference."

I said I don't seek after absolutes, which is quite a bit different. And when I used the term 'supreme' and 'transcendent' I don't necessarily or precisely mean it in a metaphysical sense, as relating to a transcendent God, et cetera, et cetera. I am using these hyperbolic terms more in a comparative way, as comparing them to what comes from other traditions. I am supposing that they become 'supreme' within the human culture because they are recognized as having tremendous value, they are necessary.

G of L continues:

"You also don't seem to believe that Judeo-Christian values arrived fully formed from God Himself - because they're amenable to change - so presumably you believe that they are the result of human thought and striving, yet you believe that they are supreme and transcendent, so I'm wondering whether you believe that God has played any part in the journey by which humanity has achieved these values, and if so, what that part has been."

Look at what you have written and step back from it. The question is so bound to a group of definitions and locations that it is sort of unanswerable except in those terms. To get to understanding, or a more utilitarian understanding, I think one can change the terms a little. For example, what do you mean when you say God? It sounds like you mean it like it is presented in a group of stories, composed in Hebrew (with multi-layers of meaning in each loaded term), in which you have positioned this 'God' on the outside of an ant-colony, or a man shipwrecked on a desert isle with a beautiful, tropical landscape, like in the Eden story. But I don't necessarily perceive 'God' like that, and my language, my network of conceptual structures, is far wider, far deeper, and allows for so much more shading. I am not a theologian so I don't really have too much interest in defining or redefining 'God' and to providing a sort of operative conceptual model. Nevertheless, this 'God', the 'God' that I could allude to, is part and parcel of everything that appears before us, and in what we are taking place. It is a pretty radically different to approach the idea or the fact of God. And if one has this approach, one will naturally understand what messages come through the stories in different ways.

The way I see things there are certain cultural groups and certain periods of history where, who knows what the 'reasons' really are? who can say? certain idea-structures are born, certain broad and deep patterns which come into consciousness. How such things pop into our existence is at least a little bit of a mystery, isn't it? Where do these things come from? As I tried to express before, they are connected with human consciousness, human intelligence, but they are also intimately tied up with words, signs and meanings. A stone has no perception of this sort. And in a way an undeveloped human being is sort of like a 'stone'. Nothing is happening there and nothing may ever happen. What is the quickening agent? What sets consciousness in motion?

In this specific sense, I think, 'God spoke to the Hebrews'. Do you see what I mean? There is no 'speaking' and there is no 'hearing' apart from the human subject. So, any revelation of 'God' is occurring in some essential, core, mysterious and even 'magical' part of ourselves. Something gives birth to something. I do feel very strongly that the Hebrews recognized very clearly that in this process something very mysterious and meaningful was taking place. They gave to it 'transcendent value'. By doing so, they showed themselves to be, or they became, the appropriate vehicles and vessels for such a 'revelation'. And it is precisely that role that defines the Hebrew Project. There is both 'election' and 'self-selection' there, and as always 'God' is something pretty damned elusive, pretty hard to put your finger on.

Nevertheless, as an expression of what I personally perceive, the compilation that is the Bible, and the lives and consciousnesses that are expressed through it, the rich and varied relationship of meanings, of words, of concepts, metaphors, symbols and all that, stands quite apart in very unique ways from other traditions. I do attach to it transcendent value because I believe it has had, has now and continues to have an almost unreal impact on our lives, consciousness, etc. But I also do believe that it has to be gone through very carefully and can never be approached as a 'done deal'. It is there to be grappled with.

"Bolstering my understanding that you are a "closet absolutist" is my impression that you are actually quite intolerant of alternate values. You seem to be strongly opposed to pornography, prostitution, masturbation, self-pleasuring through sex toys, and psychiatric medication, for example. My guess is that you believe that THE values (i.e. the true values of God, which the Judeo-Christian tradition is evolving towards) proscribe such acts, and that they are therefore "absolutely" (although you would never use that word) unjustifiable."

This is another subject, really. It is connected I suppose, but I see it as separate from the really grand things we are talking about. To achieve a certain seriousness in life, the sort of seriousness and focus that allows for the achievement of great things, I think one has to 'tame' oneself and place oneself, of you will forgive me the term, under the yoke of 'higher consciousness'. The Roman religion conquered Europe and part of this 'civilizing' process is the whole unpleasant business of confronting the sexual habits of the natives. This is part-and-parcel of Pauline Christianity, for example. If you can pull people out, or entice them out, of these 'pits' where they will waste their life-energy in riotous, disordered living, and if you can get them to pick up a Psalter, to come to Mass on Sunday, to maybe consider a fixed relationship with one woman and not a loose relationship with dozens, and no fixed paternity, and if you can teach that native the A-B-Cs and begin to bring him into what we commonly call 'culture', after a few hundred years of that discipline you begin to get something like what we know as culture, and we generally consider it desirable, a good thing, etc. True, something is gained while something is lost, and those memories of forsaken pleasures are strong. It takes a few generations to domesticate a pig, but it takes just 3 generations for a domestic pig to return to a completely feral condition.

What I try to draw to everyone's attention is a culture-wide movement of rebellion against some of the constraints that had been inculcated in people as a result of the 'civilizing' process. As we have left, in so many ways, the value-structures of the Judeo-Christian traditions what we see, generally, is not intelligent persons who sincerely are interested in forging some new, modern values, but willful youngsters who have gotten out from under cultural authorities and who want to have fuck-parties, screw sheep, stick all sort of odd vibrating plastic devices up their orifices. There is no real concern for any sort of 'higher values', it is really just about having and enjoying certain pleasures. Now, it should be noted that this was one of the major criticisms of the Hebrews that came through the prophets. Just read Amos or Hosea. There is a whole group of activities and practices that were seen as being...destructive...or 'ungodly' if you want to use that word. Along with that criticism of wanton sexuality was also criticisms of social injustice, robbery and exploitation of the poor, etc. It comes all as a group.

I am opposed to adolescent rebellion against adult values that are necessary for the healthy development of children. It is as simple as that. I think there is a sane and 'correct' way to raise children and to channel them toward clean, healthy, productive pursuits, and it is exactly the same issue at stake in modern culture.

Once a rebellious child has indulged his will, it is very difficult to rein it in again. There is a line in the I-Ching that talks about that (first line of No 37). There are very good reasons why we have established orders.

But, it would be a mistake to take all that I write on the subject completely seriously.

Dan Rowden wrote:I just want to state En passant that I regard any talk of a communication between the divine and human in the terms being considered here to be unspeakably fatuous, an insult even to children.

Carry on.

Divine shorthand for the races of spiritual beings which have engineered us and who have fostered us. I am powerless to divorce it from its negative Judeo-Christian connotations, as those connotations exist in the minds of others, but I find it a perfectly good word nonetheless.

I find it unspeakably myopic to think that mankind is the most evolved intelligence in the cosmos, or that it is the only one. It is spiritually and intellectually claustrophobic.

En passant, of course.

En passant, I think a few bonus tracks are in order here...

Bonus track 1
Bonus track 2
Bonus track 3