Posted on 12/26/2018 4:13:19 PM PST by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis
You don't really get the "The Torah was written entirely by G-d before the universe was created" thing, do you?
You believe that on faith.
Over a quarter of a century ago, I attended an 'Aish HaTorah Discovery Seminar at a university Hillel. The first three words out of the speaker's mouth was "faith is wrong." Why? Because one can believe anything on faith. I have tried to explain to you numerous times that the Revelation at Sinai is the only claim of Divine revelation in history in which G-d Himself (not a man claiming to represent or be G-d) manifested Himself and communicated to anywhere from two and a half to three million people at once. I have sent you a link to an article that goes to great lengths to demonstrate this. If you have ever read it and found holes in the argument I don't know, because you never have, and never will, respond to the article.
Fine, but other people have to take empirical facts into account.
My, that was a nice thing to say, wasn't it?
And when one does so, it becomes difficult to take the Bible as a wholly accurate scientific or historical source.
It all depends, first of all, as to whether or not one believes in G-d. You don't seem to do this, but this raises the question as to why you are active on an American conservative forum.
This forum is full of standard Fundamentalist Protestants who also take the Bible quite literally, and are just as stubborn in their beliefs as I am. Yet you never seem to get upset at them. Why? Why is it always and only me that you have to rag around? What's the difference between them and me? (Well, other than the fact that they can never give a single reason as to why they believe what they do.)
Is it because I actually insist my beliefs are objectively and exclusively true? Didn't almost all western religion believe this at one time? Even Darwin Incorporated (also known as the Catholic Church) once believed it was exclusively true. Yet for some reason my refusal to relegate my beliefs to "opinion" or "guess" or "this is the best I could come up with" drives you absolutely insane. Why in the world am I any worse than any other Fundamentalist on this site, especially since I'm the one who can give objective external reasons for what I believe while the chrstians can only endlessly repeat their truth claims?
Oh come on now. The Left has long ago jettisoned class based internationalism for indienous/people of color nationalism. This includes not only the obvious "Blacks and Hispanics" but also Polynesians, Eskimos, Africans, Australian aborigines, etc.
And Zionism too, at least originally, and for some time.
That's a long story.
But you don't show that Catholicism has been any great friend of North Korea or North Vietnam or Nasser or Nehru or the FLN, or that they've been great friends of Roman Catholicism. Anything but.
My primary point was that the Left is primarily nationalist rather than socialist, and nationalism has been the historic argument of these and other third world movements. I never claimed that Pius XII supported North Korea. However, ever since Vatican II the Catholic Church has supported third world "liberation" movements, which is simply a matter of history (ever hear of "liberation theology?"). Plus Irish nationalism is one of the primary focuses (foci?) of the Ancient Order of Hibernians who are Catholic to the core, supposedly "pro-life," but who support Sinn Fein which is pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, you name it. The original "rising" of 1916 was a coalition of Catholic mystics (Padraig Pearse) and Communists (James Connolly). Similarly Quebec nationalism was originally conservative and Catholic before taking a sharp left turn in the 60s. Basque nationalism was also originally conservative and Catholic before being radicalized by the Algerian war.
But I am making two points which you are conflating: the Left in our day is primarily nationalist, and the Catholic Church has for some time supported various third world liberation movements. This is not the same thing as saying "Pope Pius XII supported Mao Tse-tung," which is apparently what you thought I was saying.
And Catholicism is a very important part of both Hispanic, Irish, and Quebecois nationalism (all leftist).
A century ago. People who were undoubtedly oppressed held fast to their religion even as they embraced political ideas. But today, it's hard to see Irish or Quebec nationalism as any sort of friend to Roman Catholicism. You might want to look at what is actually going on now in Ireland and Quebec. Something similar may be true of "Hispanic Nationalism." Aztlan isn't a Catholic or a Christian idea.
No, but Catholicism is still very much of the "revolutionary" Hispanic identity--hence why Mexican immigrants bring statues of the virgin of Guadalupe with them to symbolize their conquest of new territory. As for the Irish and Quebecers, see above. But you've also forgotten "Palestinian" nationalism, which is supported by both the Left and Right in the Catholic Church, and chrstianity has always been used as a club by the PLO to knock Israel over the head.
I don't suppose you noticed the thread claiming that "science" somehow "proves" that the "holy house of Lareto" was taken by angels from Nazareth to that city . . . a post by people who dismiss Genesis 1-11 because that in the name of that same angel-discovering "science?"
But it's not the same people. Those who believe stories like that aren't criticizing Genesis, and those who point out that Genesis may not be a literal guide to how the world was created aren't necessarily putting much faith in miracle stories.
In a sane world, but that is not the situation. The whole thing centers around identity, and "our miracles are better than your miracles." The thread on science "proving" that angels carried a house from Nazareth to Lareto was started by a theistic evolutionist, and the "new testament" and medieval and modern miracles are not subject to the same withering scorn as greets the claim that Genesis is true. And why? "That's for those people who live in the trailer parks; WE don't believe that stuff." Plus you are ignoring the ridicule and bigotry with which theistic evolutionist miracle believers pour on people who believe Genesis. "The virgin birth is for intellectuals but Noah's Ark is for retards?" Really? I can hardly be blamed for responding to such hypocrisy.
It also looks like you are drawing too much of a line between Judaism and Catholicism or Christianity. I'm pretty sure that there are Jews who believe miraculous things happened in the past and will happen in the future without necessarily believing the world was literally created in six days.
Of course. But once one first admits that nature is not absolute, that miracles do indeed happen, one loses all logical reasons for objecting to Genesis and all that is left is hypocrisy.
Why of all the FReepers do only I live rent free in your head?
Don't flatter yourself. I have a few neo-Confederates and "they want to kill the White people" guys who trouble me more than you. Sometimes it does seem like you are more lost to rational argument than anybody else here, but you might be surprised at what some people keep on saying.
You have my deepest sympathies. But that does not explain why, out of all the "fundies" on this board, it is only I who put your knickers in twist. Your constant harassment of me makes absolutely no sense, other than as bullying.
All too true. I fear that Pope Francis is a lost cause and seems to be more an apostate than a genuine Vicar of Christ.
That is circular reasoning. You only know that there were that many people there because the text tells you so, but you use that mass apparition to prove the text. Many scholars will tell you that it is highly unlikely that such a large population could have sustained itself in such a barren environment over such a long period. Moreover, the Bible is unclear as to just what did appear in Sinai, and whether it was God that appeared or just signs of a god is also unclear.
It all depends, first of all, as to whether or not one believes in G-d. You don't seem to do this, but this raises the question as to why you are active on an American conservative forum.
Really? You send years attacking other people's religious beliefs and now suddenly anyone who doesn't see things as you do is irreligious. You contradict yourself.
This forum is full of standard Fundamentalist Protestants who also take the Bible quite literally, and are just as stubborn in their beliefs as I am. Yet you never seem to get upset at them.
In the beginning it may have been the typography. I understand that Jews don't write out the name of "God." But it is bizarre why someone would resist spelling out "Christianity" or "Christ" or "Jesus" if one doesn't believe in those things. It's also rather insulting to those who do share those beliefs.
But of course, you are much more dogged and aggressive in your views than other Fundamentalists. While there are threads where people routinely attack each others' religious views, nobody seems to be on the attack on so many varied threads, some of which don't have much to do with the standard religious topics.
Why in the world am I any worse than any other Fundamentalist on this site, especially since I'm the one who can give objective external reasons for what I believe while the chrstians can only endlessly repeat their truth claims?
The answer is in the question. The claim that only your beliefs are objectively grounded sets you apart. People who argue about scripture are part of an interpretive community (or set of communities). The person who arrogantly says, "My view (and only my view) is objectively grounded stand out (and not in a good way). So many years of religious wars and nobody's going to question you or argue with you or disagree with you? I guess you'd like that, but I suspect it's good for you to have to hear contradictory views sometimes.
And also, it's striking how you hide behind Fundamentalist Christians and express sympathy for them when you can barely conceal your contempt for what they believe. It's hard not to notice that, and it certainly sets you apart.
The original "rising" of 1916 was a coalition of Catholic mystics (Padraig Pearse) and Communists (James Connolly). Similarly Quebec nationalism was originally conservative and Catholic before taking a sharp left turn in the 60s. Basque nationalism was also originally conservative and Catholic before being radicalized by the Algerian war.
And Cromwell's Puritan Revolution was Protestant. Maybe the American Revolution was as well. So were the Civil Rights movement and (perhaps) the Confederacy. People have religious beliefs and those influence or seep into their political ideas. Don't be another of those people who thinks that because they received all their political rights by 1830 that every movement that arose afterwards is illegitimate or Communistic.
Plus you are ignoring the ridicule and bigotry with which theistic evolutionist miracle believers pour on people who believe Genesis. "The virgin birth is for intellectuals but Noah's Ark is for retards?" Really? I can hardly be blamed for responding to such hypocrisy.
I suspect that you are distorting and vulgarizing a much more complicated debate. Someone can believe that God brought plagues to Egypt and sent manna to the desert or that Elijah ascended to heaven on a chariot (so, no, it's not a Christian versus Jewish thing) and yet have trouble reconciling the account of Genesis with the fossil record and be honest enough to recognize and admit the contradiction. Someone who goes to the trouble to try to reconcile religion and empirical evidence probably isn't attacking other believers in such crude terms. If there is some "theistic evolutionist" who does, I suspect his or her opponents give as well as they get.
Your constant harassment of me makes absolutely no sense, other than as bullying.
You could call it trolling or teasing or the Socratic method. Bullying applies more to your general style of argument. You don't do it directly to individuals, but from a distance and to whole beliefs and traditions.
I don't hate you, though. You are certainly amusing in your own way. And you are intelligent and have obviously read much in fields that I am barely aware of. But nobody gets the last word, certainly nobody who claims that his beliefs about things that nobody knows about for sure are the one objective truth
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.