Re: Prozak A) I'm arguing dogmas/doctrines, not social stereotypes. B) Wouldn't you say you're attempting to set up a stereotype here? Therefore we should tolerate them when enshrined in institutional religion, is that your argument? I think I need waste no more time on your message Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The random d00d's web page An article where the random d00d is mentioned. I thought these three quotes might be of interest as well so I am including them - they are from "Everyman's Talmud" by Abraham Cohen. "A bad action more than involved the Jew in personal guilt; it was treachery to his God and people. Therefore a distinction was drawn between a wrong done to a Gentile and to a co- religionist on that ground. 'More serious is the defrauding of a non-Jew than the defrauding of a brother Israelite on account of the profanation of the Name' (Tosifta B.K. x. 15)." "Another sin against which harsh things are said is dishonesty. A bold teaching on this subject is to the effect that when the human being presents himself before the heavenly tribunal to give an account of his life, the first question addressed to him is, "Hast thou been honest in they business transactions?" (Shab. 31a} 'Whoever robs his fellow-man of even what is worth a farthling is as though he had taken his life from him' (B.K. 119a)." "Note must, however, be taken of the assertion which is made that the law of love as expounded in the Talmud is limited to the members of the Israelite community. It is true that in commenting on the word 'neighbour' in connection with Biblical legislation, the Talmud frequently specifies that the Israelite is meant to the exclusion of the Gentile; but it does so because the Scriptural text is to be understood in that way. It cannot be logically or justly deduced from this fact that the Rabbis advocated the practice of ethical principals in none but co-religionists."
My problem with this is the clear bias on these sources: they're pro-religion. Can we find some objective study, please? Xenophobic also hinges on more than the definition of the word "goy." Any religion that refers to itself or its people as the chosen ones and claims that others are "wrong" is going to descend into xenophobia. And racism. Just look at Israel, for example. Or Christian history. Sick, sick, sick religions.
Israel Develops New Weapons LONDON (AP) -- Israel is trying to identity genes carried only by Arabs that could be used to develop a biological weapon that would harm Arabs but not Jews, the Sunday Times reported. The newspaper attributed its report to unidentified Israeli military and Western intelligence sources. It said Israeli scientists are working to create a genetically modified bacterium or virus that only attacks people who carry certain genes. The paper said the weapon is seen as Israel's response to the threat of chemical and biological warfare from Iraq and could be spread by air or through the water supply. The newspaper said the program is based at the biological institute in Nes Tziyona, which it described as the main research facility for Israel's chemical and biological weapons. According to the report, researchers have pinpointed ``a characteristic in the genetic profile of certain Arab communities, particularly the Iraqi people.'' The idea of such research has provoked controversy in Israel because of parallels with the genetic experiments at Auschwitz by Nazi scientist Dr. Josef Mengele during World War II, the paper said. ``Morally, based on our history, and our tradition and our experience, such a weapon is monstrous and should be denied,'' Israeli parliament member Dedi Zucker is quoted as saying. Officials at Porton Down, Britain's biological defense facility, said such weapons were theoretically possible, the newspaper said. http://www.konformist.com/1998/israel.htm
I do agree, Prozak, don't waste your time. Use it for something, anything. Sure. But as a side note, you may wish to support the basis of those dogmatic and doctrinal assessments. For instance, can find hundreds of pages of Catholic doctrine and dogma that, presented by itself, would lend to the question of what the hell I have against Catholicism. But not all of those doctrines and dogmas would be valid in application, and can only be explored as theoretical assertions in the resolution of odd side distractions. For instance, my own definition of God comes straight from Catholicism, but it's largely irrelevant to me that a Christian hit on the idea before me except that I'm glad someone figured it out. Why irrelevant? Because 99.999% of the Bible's Christian adherents ignore this idea of God in favor of something much smaller and much more confined. It's possible. If I might: You may want to consider outlining that stereotype. It seems that it could serve as an excellent example for this or even its own topic if it can be established as a stereotype. It is a far better thing to examine each in its own context than it is to write off entire institutions. I mean, theft becomes an argument against capitalism if you let it. How ridiculous should we get? Wasting is up to you. You could try putting that time toward some reasonably progressive use. But I do agree, as far as you wasting your time and mine, I think we've seen enough of that. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: I do agree, Prozak, don't waste your time. Use it for something, anything. It doesn't require an exploration with even that much in depth exploration. Think over the basic concepts of god, purity, holiness and dualism itself and you will see how eventually "bad" comes out of "go(o)d." Be negative if you wish, but I don't suffer the trivial lightly and if you're going to post in the same forum with me, you'll have to adapt Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why don't you go ask these guys all your questions. I am sure they have an email address somewhere on their page: http://www.tolerance.org You were the one that brought the word Goy up. Just for claritys sake: xenophobe: A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples. xenophobic: suffering from xenophobia; having abnormal fear or hatred of the strange or foreign Hatred is pretty sick, sick, sick. "What you do not see with your eyes, don't witness with your mouth." -Jewish proverb
Now that the cat is out of the bag, how long it will take before the Germans develop an anti-jew bacterium thinking that the Israelis probably working on a anti-German (make that anti-aryan) virus? And elsewhere in the world, anti-chinese, anti-japanese and so on....until we have an anti-human virus....wait a minute...somebody already developed one called HIV, I think.
Hey while were all posting about how much we all want the Jews to die id thought I would post a cool little fact: Cheese is good.
That's a great definition of xenophobic. It definitely applies to Judaism and Christianity, which I consider both hateful religions. Absolutist, racist, singularist, and all based on a weird mysticism involving dualism. Superstition. And hatred. Since you couldn't disprove anything I was saying, I guess you got upset. Too bad hatred got the best of you! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Dont tell me Jerry Falwell designed that in his basement....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Prozak Prozak Yes, and I also know that an airplane will fly, but I can't well tell you how beyond very basic physics. I would hope that if such ideas as you express have any personal value to you, that you would be better prepared to present those ideas than to expect me to perceive everything the same as you, which is, essentially, what you have asked. Well, you can write a complete sentence. By far, you won't be the dimmest light I've encountered here. But if you expect to make your case by asking me to view the world the same as you, you are going to have to adapt. Easy enough? thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You guessed wrong. You say my name and I am no longer there. What am I? If you can answer this riddle you will have the answer of how I will reply to all of your future posts that are addressed to me.
Nah. I think AIDS is naturally occurring. It saw a good opportunity and whammo! now it's a permanent resident.
Run away if you want. That's always a good way to increase learning, spread the good news, etc. Interesting how people zeroed in on the "Jews" but want to gloss over the fact that Judaism, like Christianity, is xenophobic and paranoid as a worldview. In fact, they even posted Judeo-apologism here in an attempt to clear up that view. Why the revisionism?
Re: Prozak I think you're missing the point and making the same mistake of which you accuse me. A middle ground must be found for discussion. And anything anyone will present will start small and slowly get more involved... that is, if people don't jump all over it looking for taboo -or- recharacterizing it within their own belief system.
I'm not going to do the work for you, Prozak Prozak Not quite. In order for me to look at a situation and reach the same conclusions as you with no other data to consider, I must interpret that data the same way. For instance, you see apologetics, and others see a topic post that originates with an idea expressed by a political group that wishes to see the extermination of Jews, e.g. Aryan Nation. One cannot prescribe enough generalizations for me to accept. For instance, you have advised: Think over the basic concepts of god, purity, holiness and dualism itself and you will see how eventually "bad" comes out of "go(o)d." Well, since I'm so obviously not you, it might be advisable that you tell people what you mean by that, since the reality of it is that many of the problems we accuse religions of are, in fact, human problems. I mean, look at liberty, freedom, strength, and union and you will see how "bad" comes out of "the United States". That's the problem. You have not yet established that such difficulties should be viewed as exclusive to religion because you cannot. You ought to try to make a clear point instead of telling people they will see if they just think like you do. They're human beings, not replicans. You cannot program them like that. One of the ways that idea will grow is if you support it with evidence and a coherent argument that places the phenomenon you describe squarely and exclusively on the shoulders of the Judeo-Christian institutions. Believe me, Prozak, I would love to see the Abramic religions gone from the earth, but I cannot imagine the conditions that would have to come about in order to accomplish it, so I generally work with the realistic. In the meantime, I will not lend my support to just any old argument that comes along. I would hope that such arguments are mature, reasonably constructed, and based in reality while not requiring a proscription thereof. So if you have an idea to build on, start building. In the meantime, realize that when you refer to apologetics and how people are posting on behalf of Judaism, you are, in fact, arguing on the side of this debate that takes its basis from the Aryan Nation, a group dedicated to the extermination of Jews and the supremacy of white, Christian society. So perhaps you would be so kind as to enumerate the revisionism and what about each of those points you reject. Hey, if you can be coherent in such an argument, it'll be more kindly received no matter how much I or others might disagree with it than if you continue to tell people to see things the same way you do. Convince them. Sell them. In other words, try having a mature, substantial argument. And try to know who and what you're directing it at, and also why. You look a lot less foolish when reacting dramatically to something directed at you, instead of simply assuming that someone is posting to you and how seriously do you expect to be taken when eight minutes is the total time you've devoted to reading a post, assuming it directed at you, and issuing as poor a response as you managed when you wrote, This is why I spoke [sic] about dogmas and not individuals. Furthermore I resent the suggestion that I could read your post, formulate a response, and post that response in less than a minute. While I wish that I could be that efficient, the sad fact is that I am not. Yet you continue with your presumption that you know what someone is talking about and continue to make a fool of yourself. It's not the Negroes, Prozak, that I worry about smoking crack and being retarded. If you're going to have the audacity to presume that I'm speaking to you and thus respond, I would hope you would have a better, more thoughtful, more educated response than eight minutes would allow you. And if you want to know, that's the only reason I find you annoying: your presumptuousness and your carelessness. If you're going to be presumptuous, put some effort into it. Beyond that, I have no idea what you're arguing because, well, you've done that poor a job convincing me that all I have to do is see the world just like you and I'll agree. Next time, try something that (A) isn't so silly, and (B) is at least possible. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: I'm not going to do the work for you, Prozak Let's just look at this: "Well, since I'm so obviously not you, it might be advisable that you tell people what you mean by that, since the reality of it is that many of the problems we accuse religions of are, in fact, human problems. I mean, look at liberty, freedom, strength, and union and you will see how "bad" comes out of "the United States". That's the problem. You have not yet established that such difficulties should be viewed as exclusive to religion because you cannot." With assumptions like this, it's hard to care what you think. Did ancient societies have the same problems to the same degree as we do now? Clearly not. Proof done. "In the meantime, realize that when you refer to apologetics and how people are posting on behalf of Judaism, you are, in fact, arguing on the side of this debate that takes its basis from the Aryan Nation, a group dedicated to the extermination of Jews and the supremacy of white, Christian society." One cannot criticize Judaism without being allied with the Aryan nations in your eyes? Uh-huh. Are there any people here who are trained in debate, or is this another internet chatroom-style "argument"?
still standing prozac? in here, we have bots to take care of arguments such as yours. i'm sure they will be deployed shortly
