Top Ten Reasons to Believe in British Israelism
1. The Jewish people have a 50% intermarriage rate. There is overall success in these marriages. When marriages work out it is usually because of similar cultures and outlooks on life in the nuclear family. That means the Celts are similar to the Jews in ethics, suggesting a possible similar origin for Jews and Celts.
2. Nobility in Europe was never quite as gentile as the gentiles of Torah even though the nobility was not as moral as a nation of priests from Exodus onward. This indicates that the nation of Abraham had split, and not all of it received the Torah at Mt. Sinai, such that not all of Abraham is this nation of priests that Exodus refers to. What became European nobility is what split away before the book of Exodus.
3. The descent of American politicians from European queens indicates that even among the British matrilineal inheritance still applies. This is that the Y chromosome of European nobility is not as necessary to confer nobility as is descent from Sarah by Genesis. If the Bible is to be thought of as true, then the nobility and politicians must have Sarah as their ancestor. This partially explains the subjection of the group now known as Jews.
4. There is prevalent circumcision among non-Jews, especially Christians. This was to be something for the nation of Abraham alone, yet in America circumcision is ever popular, such that it is probably not even an indicator whether or not one is from the modern Jewish tribe. More than any non-Jewish people in America it is those with Celtic roots getting circumcised.
5. Prevalent support for Israel exists among non-Jews. This interest in Israel goes back to the crusades. If the British monarchy is not of Abraham, then one should have a very difficult time explaining their interest in Israel.
6. Disbelief in Christian fundamentalism in the North East is very common. It might even be said that Christians in the North East lack understanding in the New Testament trinity doctrine, which requires polytheism. Rather, the North East Christian faith is often actually emunah, which is Jewish faith. This emunah of Christians has confused many Jews in to becoming Jews for Jesus, while many of these Christians are alienated by Judaism and its strictness, but have reasoned their way out Christian faith, only to continue attending a Christian church for social purpose.
7. Leah and Rebecca are likely ancestors of those with more Jewishness, the Jews of modernity, but probably not so much Sarah, as Rebecca and Leah ran stricter households than Sarah. This idea is in the cabala, where chesed, which is mercy that is also associated with extroversion and lack of orderliness, is associable with Abraham. Everyone knows that matriarchs run households, such that inheritance of this sort of household would be by a descendent of Sarah. These households produce politicians where politicians often have questionable morals, yet Genesis 17:16 has chosen that these people descended of the womb of Sarah are the kings of this world.
Rebecca is the wife of Isaac, the patriarch cabbala associates with gevurah. Gevurah is essentially the opposite of chesed, as it is more legalistic and restrictive, such that the people receptive to it would be the priestly Jews. Priests generally have more rules. Also, Leah, the wife of Jacob is included, as she is the wife of Jacob, the patriarch associable with tiferet, which is the beautiful harmonization of chesed and gevurah. That is, I include Leah with the modern Jews, as a source for the more moderate personality types that Judaism is known for. I did not write Rachel, because she is associable with the lost tribes of Israel, where Judah, remains the known tribe of Israel through both British Israelism and the Jewish people.
8. 1 Macabees 12 records Darius was a Jew, while Genesis 17:16 says the idea of non-Jewish kings is antithetical to the Torah. The lineage of Darius, like the lineage of virtually all kings has its apparent origin in Torah. The kings of the world have come from the European noble family, and this idea has sound roots in historical doctrine.
9. Though there are some cultural differences with the Jews, the nation of priests, and the descendents of European nobility, they generally get along at college because of having more similar than different culture. This is especially true with denominations other than Orthodox, such as Reform Judaism. Primarily, the difference between these peoples inhabiting colleges comes down to minor issues, such as how to spell God, either as G-d or God.
10. The Bible is the most popular book in the world. Sure, the Christian Bible isn’t exactly the same as the Jewish Bible. I’ve heard that Christian Bibles are meant to read like Jesus is the messiah. The popularity and acceptance of the Bible among the British, to the extent that they wrote the King James Bible, complete with an “Old Testament” is evidence that the British in fact do belong to the nation of Abraham.
Friday, October 30, 2009
The Virtue of Free College
The Virtue of Free College
Some nations have free college, while some don’t. The USA offers state schools, which often cost much less than private schools, but education in America is still very expensive. There is a problem on the horizon with college education. It could cause the USA to become impossibly behind Europe. That problem is that college bachelor’s degrees aren’t very valuable. In fact, very few employers are interested in finding employees fresh out of college with only a bachelor’s degree. What this means is that fewer qualified students are going to be interested in footing the bill for college. Why pay so much for college, when it doesn’t pay to have a college degree? Because students don’t already have the advantage of free college education, this problem of worthless college educations could be a disaster for the USA’s rating among first world nations if nothing is changed.
The first problem people will usually think of when the idea of free college is mentioned is: Who is footing the bill? Maybe some people see free college as impinging on the freedom of the USA. These ideas that someone has to foot the bill for college are all contrived into the now outdated financial system of the USA. That is gold and silver currency and back up for currency is history. The only real purpose money serves now is in teaching management skills. Come on America, wake up! The currency itself is worthless. It’s imaginary value only, and that is the future of the USA. It is the road to progress. It is the road to getting beyond the limitations of money, and saying hello to sharing and socialist ethics.
College professors generally don’t make a lot of money. Though in some fields teaching is the only option that one has once they get their education, still in many fields educated individuals opt to be educators. There is an ethic that might be associated with this, and it’s also found among the researchers that are paid by the government. The ethic is; study, work hard, love what you do, and pray that you will have enough cash to cover the bills. Most researchers do what they do for the sake of doing it, itself. Money is not the object for many educated people even if it means being poor. There is a reason for this, and it is that as people become more intelligent socialism is also associable with that. The reason socialism and intelligence go hand in hand is that it takes intelligence to have empathy. Empathy is one reason why gay people are more likely to be accepted among more educated people. Empathy is the reason why those thumping Bibles with strong religious and judgmental ethics are kept out. So, there you have it, the formula for being socialist and intelligent also carries with it the idea of being a liberal. Massachusetts is no doubt one of the most intelligent states in the union, and I take it to our credit that we have the courage to elect a gay congressman, not because he is gay, but because he was the right man for the job.
So there you have it. Free college is a virtue. It is a liberal virtue. I have no problem as an anarchist touting it as a virtue because what could be more liberal than anarchy. Freedom starts with small or no government. Small government is not antithetical to the idea of free college for all. You see all you young liberals still wearing diapers, liberal and liberties go together. The problem is that the USA has a money addiction. The USA citizens don’t know how to barter in trade for goods. This is a practice that the citizens of any country should be fluent it. The citizens should not have to rely on money itself, as money by itself is worthless. So what if it is gold, silver, or just inked greenbacks? In an optimal world, the teachers would be fed because they are so valuable to society. In such a society, teacher is a lofty position, so valuable that one can earn a living for it without money. It’s not until the USA gets over its financial addiction to greenbacks and students seek education for the sake of education without money that the real teachers will no longer be humiliated for having no students outside college grounds.
Some nations have free college, while some don’t. The USA offers state schools, which often cost much less than private schools, but education in America is still very expensive. There is a problem on the horizon with college education. It could cause the USA to become impossibly behind Europe. That problem is that college bachelor’s degrees aren’t very valuable. In fact, very few employers are interested in finding employees fresh out of college with only a bachelor’s degree. What this means is that fewer qualified students are going to be interested in footing the bill for college. Why pay so much for college, when it doesn’t pay to have a college degree? Because students don’t already have the advantage of free college education, this problem of worthless college educations could be a disaster for the USA’s rating among first world nations if nothing is changed.
The first problem people will usually think of when the idea of free college is mentioned is: Who is footing the bill? Maybe some people see free college as impinging on the freedom of the USA. These ideas that someone has to foot the bill for college are all contrived into the now outdated financial system of the USA. That is gold and silver currency and back up for currency is history. The only real purpose money serves now is in teaching management skills. Come on America, wake up! The currency itself is worthless. It’s imaginary value only, and that is the future of the USA. It is the road to progress. It is the road to getting beyond the limitations of money, and saying hello to sharing and socialist ethics.
College professors generally don’t make a lot of money. Though in some fields teaching is the only option that one has once they get their education, still in many fields educated individuals opt to be educators. There is an ethic that might be associated with this, and it’s also found among the researchers that are paid by the government. The ethic is; study, work hard, love what you do, and pray that you will have enough cash to cover the bills. Most researchers do what they do for the sake of doing it, itself. Money is not the object for many educated people even if it means being poor. There is a reason for this, and it is that as people become more intelligent socialism is also associable with that. The reason socialism and intelligence go hand in hand is that it takes intelligence to have empathy. Empathy is one reason why gay people are more likely to be accepted among more educated people. Empathy is the reason why those thumping Bibles with strong religious and judgmental ethics are kept out. So, there you have it, the formula for being socialist and intelligent also carries with it the idea of being a liberal. Massachusetts is no doubt one of the most intelligent states in the union, and I take it to our credit that we have the courage to elect a gay congressman, not because he is gay, but because he was the right man for the job.
So there you have it. Free college is a virtue. It is a liberal virtue. I have no problem as an anarchist touting it as a virtue because what could be more liberal than anarchy. Freedom starts with small or no government. Small government is not antithetical to the idea of free college for all. You see all you young liberals still wearing diapers, liberal and liberties go together. The problem is that the USA has a money addiction. The USA citizens don’t know how to barter in trade for goods. This is a practice that the citizens of any country should be fluent it. The citizens should not have to rely on money itself, as money by itself is worthless. So what if it is gold, silver, or just inked greenbacks? In an optimal world, the teachers would be fed because they are so valuable to society. In such a society, teacher is a lofty position, so valuable that one can earn a living for it without money. It’s not until the USA gets over its financial addiction to greenbacks and students seek education for the sake of education without money that the real teachers will no longer be humiliated for having no students outside college grounds.
10 Flaws in Romans
10 Flaws in Romans
1. Jesus is a way to intercede with G-d. There is no need for any intercession between man and G-d.
2. Jesus is a human sacrifice. In the Torah, human sacrifice is not acceptable.
3. Paul correctly writes, “All Israel shall be saved.” These are the Israelites, the descendants of Jacob who became Israel. This verse is contradicted by Romans 3:25 that says Jesus is here for the purpose of G-d’s justice because he has left sins unpunished. This means that for a person under the Law, Jesus is here to punish, not to save from punishment.
4. Romans 3:24 says that the redemption happened already. There is no way to know if this happened. People born after the redemption have no way of knowing anything different, and cannot ascertain if redemption occurred. Rather than redemption occurring, it appears that the opposite happened as since Jesus came to earth there are more records of war than ever before.
5. Paul refers to Jesus as the deliverer of the Israelites. The historical record shows that nothing could be farther from this case. The Dark and Medieval ages were very hard times for the Jews, where Jews faced persecution after persecution.
6. Paul says that a resurrection occurred. I don’t believe Jesus was resurrected.
7. Paul says that he is observant of the commands of Moses (Romans 7:25), but then he falsely teachers that eating kosher is no longer important.
8. I don’t believe Paul actually believed Jesus was the messiah. Nowhere does he use the Hebrew word to state that he believes Jesus to be the messiah, but yet he does use Hebrew, such as Abba (8:15). If the whole point of Christianity is that Jesus is the messiah, why then does he leave out the Hebrew word for it? If nothing else, that’s confusing! Also, the Christian doctrine saying Jesus was G-d cannot be reconciled with Paul’s understanding of Jesus. In short, the New Testament contains many errors and contradictions, as these claims are made elsewhere, but before the canon was decided upon. Paul may not have wanted books in the canon that say Jesus was the messiah or G-d.
9. There is no original copy of this document. If you are to tell me that this is the inerrant word of G-d, yet don’t have the original, then how could it be lost? The idea Christians put out that God lived among humans, but yet all the original copies of the inerrant works were lost makes it seems rather foolish to believe that G-d coming to earth made a big impact upon humanity.
10. Paul writes of eternal life. It appears that he is being literal. I don’t believe eternal life on earth is possible. Paul mentions nothing of a heaven and an afterlife, so the idea that this in fact infers that is taking “eternal life” out of context. The concept is that sin causes humanity to literally die, and that Jesus is a way of interceding for humans, such that humans literally don’t have to die. He also effectively states that lawlessness through faith is the way to this eternal life, yet the Law of Moses and lack of lawlessness is the way of life by definition, a contradiction.
1. Jesus is a way to intercede with G-d. There is no need for any intercession between man and G-d.
2. Jesus is a human sacrifice. In the Torah, human sacrifice is not acceptable.
3. Paul correctly writes, “All Israel shall be saved.” These are the Israelites, the descendants of Jacob who became Israel. This verse is contradicted by Romans 3:25 that says Jesus is here for the purpose of G-d’s justice because he has left sins unpunished. This means that for a person under the Law, Jesus is here to punish, not to save from punishment.
4. Romans 3:24 says that the redemption happened already. There is no way to know if this happened. People born after the redemption have no way of knowing anything different, and cannot ascertain if redemption occurred. Rather than redemption occurring, it appears that the opposite happened as since Jesus came to earth there are more records of war than ever before.
5. Paul refers to Jesus as the deliverer of the Israelites. The historical record shows that nothing could be farther from this case. The Dark and Medieval ages were very hard times for the Jews, where Jews faced persecution after persecution.
6. Paul says that a resurrection occurred. I don’t believe Jesus was resurrected.
7. Paul says that he is observant of the commands of Moses (Romans 7:25), but then he falsely teachers that eating kosher is no longer important.
8. I don’t believe Paul actually believed Jesus was the messiah. Nowhere does he use the Hebrew word to state that he believes Jesus to be the messiah, but yet he does use Hebrew, such as Abba (8:15). If the whole point of Christianity is that Jesus is the messiah, why then does he leave out the Hebrew word for it? If nothing else, that’s confusing! Also, the Christian doctrine saying Jesus was G-d cannot be reconciled with Paul’s understanding of Jesus. In short, the New Testament contains many errors and contradictions, as these claims are made elsewhere, but before the canon was decided upon. Paul may not have wanted books in the canon that say Jesus was the messiah or G-d.
9. There is no original copy of this document. If you are to tell me that this is the inerrant word of G-d, yet don’t have the original, then how could it be lost? The idea Christians put out that God lived among humans, but yet all the original copies of the inerrant works were lost makes it seems rather foolish to believe that G-d coming to earth made a big impact upon humanity.
10. Paul writes of eternal life. It appears that he is being literal. I don’t believe eternal life on earth is possible. Paul mentions nothing of a heaven and an afterlife, so the idea that this in fact infers that is taking “eternal life” out of context. The concept is that sin causes humanity to literally die, and that Jesus is a way of interceding for humans, such that humans literally don’t have to die. He also effectively states that lawlessness through faith is the way to this eternal life, yet the Law of Moses and lack of lawlessness is the way of life by definition, a contradiction.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The Importance of Trying
The Importance of Trying
Yoda from Star Wars said, “Do or do not, there is no try.” I couldn’t disagree more. There is a place for a word called, “Try” even if someone fails. Do not is failure to attempt, but try is to attempt with intention of success. When I was a youngster I was taught, “If at first you don’t succeed, try again.” Failure does not need to be a waste. Though there is a time to give up, this simple statement shames the wisdom of Yoda. There is something to be gained from trying, but failing, and that is the knowledge of experience.
Judaism seems to have this same idea too, the Yoda idea, such that if a good deed isn’t done perfectly, then it isn’t a good deed. In Judaism, there is no credit for a partially done good deed. This is a rather strange attitude for this religion to take given that its spiritualists emphasize putting everything in a positive light. For example, Rabbis are for not allowing just anyone to consider him or herself a Jew for fear that a good deed might not be performed perfectly for lack of knowledge of how to do it properly. This is downright silly. The world would be a better place if the 613 Laws of Moses were taken to heart by all peoples, and one way to cause this to happen is to support these Laws as healthy actions for anyone to do, and even if failure occurs, “Try again,” and maybe humanity will all get it right someday.
In science, some of the greatest discoveries happened because someone tried and failed. These mistakes are often the building block for great ideas in science. In fact, this is how plastic was invented. Any good scientist looks at a mistake and says, “What can be redeemed from this?” Maybe the error occurred in such a way that it gives an idea. With this attitude, placing a strong attitude of motivation for recovering anything of value from a mistake sometimes it opens mental gateways that would have never been opened had the mistake not been made. These mental gateways only open sometimes when the monotony of a repetitive procedure is broken by mistake. Suddenly, what seemed like a worthless error can be arranged into a procedure, if the positive is considered primarily rather than the negative. The negative is to consider what was lost, and this is somewhat important, but to consider the positive is to ask, “How can this be beneficial?” By thinking, questioning in one’s mind how a mistake can be beneficial the doorway to improvement is often opened. This doorway, like the others is not opened by a simple, “Do not,” but it is opened by the word, “Try,” which is more of a mix.
Yoda from Star Wars said, “Do or do not, there is no try.” I couldn’t disagree more. There is a place for a word called, “Try” even if someone fails. Do not is failure to attempt, but try is to attempt with intention of success. When I was a youngster I was taught, “If at first you don’t succeed, try again.” Failure does not need to be a waste. Though there is a time to give up, this simple statement shames the wisdom of Yoda. There is something to be gained from trying, but failing, and that is the knowledge of experience.
Judaism seems to have this same idea too, the Yoda idea, such that if a good deed isn’t done perfectly, then it isn’t a good deed. In Judaism, there is no credit for a partially done good deed. This is a rather strange attitude for this religion to take given that its spiritualists emphasize putting everything in a positive light. For example, Rabbis are for not allowing just anyone to consider him or herself a Jew for fear that a good deed might not be performed perfectly for lack of knowledge of how to do it properly. This is downright silly. The world would be a better place if the 613 Laws of Moses were taken to heart by all peoples, and one way to cause this to happen is to support these Laws as healthy actions for anyone to do, and even if failure occurs, “Try again,” and maybe humanity will all get it right someday.
In science, some of the greatest discoveries happened because someone tried and failed. These mistakes are often the building block for great ideas in science. In fact, this is how plastic was invented. Any good scientist looks at a mistake and says, “What can be redeemed from this?” Maybe the error occurred in such a way that it gives an idea. With this attitude, placing a strong attitude of motivation for recovering anything of value from a mistake sometimes it opens mental gateways that would have never been opened had the mistake not been made. These mental gateways only open sometimes when the monotony of a repetitive procedure is broken by mistake. Suddenly, what seemed like a worthless error can be arranged into a procedure, if the positive is considered primarily rather than the negative. The negative is to consider what was lost, and this is somewhat important, but to consider the positive is to ask, “How can this be beneficial?” By thinking, questioning in one’s mind how a mistake can be beneficial the doorway to improvement is often opened. This doorway, like the others is not opened by a simple, “Do not,” but it is opened by the word, “Try,” which is more of a mix.
Liberals in Big Business a Must
Liberals in Big Business a Must
When anyone thinks of big business, generally liberal thinkers are not included in the thought. Big business and Republican go hand in hand. My guess is that the Republican thinkers on radio talk shows know who pays their check. Big business hardly has the family values of the Republican Party, yet Republicans support big business. The source of this support is probably because the leaders of the party have become a bunch of crooks, trading public service for lobbyist financial kick backs. The big government of the Republican George Bush Jr. era is a primary example of the Republican Party becoming something that they are not supposed to be, people that break ranks with family values and support the businesses making campaign contributions.
Rather than confront this situation, the takeover of America by big business, head on, liberals have instead fled to academia. I won’t criticize the much needed liberals that became medical doctors, but there is no need for liberals to downright avoid big business, hiding out at universities and research institutions. There needs to be big brains in the executive roles of big business, and big brains are primarily liberal. Maybe, the economy wouldn’t be in the mess that it is if America had more liberal executives that would look to adequately compensate their employees.
One fact is big business is essentially becoming an oligarchy in America. The power is held by corporations that can create smoke screen politics, swaying elections too easily. Members of the ruling class of this oligarchy have never had a financial worry in their life. They don’t need to worry because big businesses are becoming ever easier to run. The policies of companies in the oligarchy have been drawn up, such that one need only look to having a proper location for a business, while the rest of the company operates by itself. This means is that owners and people deciding the pay scale and prices for goods are increasingly out of touch with the plights of common men. If you are a part of the oligarchy, then your business is so established that it doesn’t matter if you sell goods anymore. The problem is that when companies don’t need to sell, prices stay high while stores are full of merchandise. This couples with the fact that other startup companies can’t compete with the oligarchy companies, such that small companies go down even if big companies become lazy.
Liberal thinkers have primarily socialist ethics. If their voice is to be heard for what they believe in, then they need to take the risk and work at one of these oligarchy companies where they don’t appear to belong. The hope is that through liberal thinkers climbing the company ladder, that businesses won’t lose their competitiveness, but that liberal thinkers might engage executives, such that wealth is spread. Only when the wealth is spread, such that the middle class dominates, can the USA be great among nations because as it is, in many ways the USA has fallen behind. This is that the USA needs to be great for a reason other than its size. The USA needs to be competitive among nations, and that requires liberals working in executive positions at big businesses.
When anyone thinks of big business, generally liberal thinkers are not included in the thought. Big business and Republican go hand in hand. My guess is that the Republican thinkers on radio talk shows know who pays their check. Big business hardly has the family values of the Republican Party, yet Republicans support big business. The source of this support is probably because the leaders of the party have become a bunch of crooks, trading public service for lobbyist financial kick backs. The big government of the Republican George Bush Jr. era is a primary example of the Republican Party becoming something that they are not supposed to be, people that break ranks with family values and support the businesses making campaign contributions.
Rather than confront this situation, the takeover of America by big business, head on, liberals have instead fled to academia. I won’t criticize the much needed liberals that became medical doctors, but there is no need for liberals to downright avoid big business, hiding out at universities and research institutions. There needs to be big brains in the executive roles of big business, and big brains are primarily liberal. Maybe, the economy wouldn’t be in the mess that it is if America had more liberal executives that would look to adequately compensate their employees.
One fact is big business is essentially becoming an oligarchy in America. The power is held by corporations that can create smoke screen politics, swaying elections too easily. Members of the ruling class of this oligarchy have never had a financial worry in their life. They don’t need to worry because big businesses are becoming ever easier to run. The policies of companies in the oligarchy have been drawn up, such that one need only look to having a proper location for a business, while the rest of the company operates by itself. This means is that owners and people deciding the pay scale and prices for goods are increasingly out of touch with the plights of common men. If you are a part of the oligarchy, then your business is so established that it doesn’t matter if you sell goods anymore. The problem is that when companies don’t need to sell, prices stay high while stores are full of merchandise. This couples with the fact that other startup companies can’t compete with the oligarchy companies, such that small companies go down even if big companies become lazy.
Liberal thinkers have primarily socialist ethics. If their voice is to be heard for what they believe in, then they need to take the risk and work at one of these oligarchy companies where they don’t appear to belong. The hope is that through liberal thinkers climbing the company ladder, that businesses won’t lose their competitiveness, but that liberal thinkers might engage executives, such that wealth is spread. Only when the wealth is spread, such that the middle class dominates, can the USA be great among nations because as it is, in many ways the USA has fallen behind. This is that the USA needs to be great for a reason other than its size. The USA needs to be competitive among nations, and that requires liberals working in executive positions at big businesses.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Junk Polytheism: A Christian Addiction
Junk Polytheism: A Christian Addiction
I’ve never met a Christian that will admit his or her religion is polytheist or idolatry, but it is. Worshipping Jesus as God is the equivalent of worshipping a stone, as far as the “Old Testament” reads. Read the Ten Commandments. Jesus can’t be God by the definition of idolatry in the Ten Commandments. I won’t quote it because it won’t get me anywhere, as Christians don’t really care about the doctrine of Christianity. It’s all about faith right? Make it simple, just faith in the idol, Jesus. I could say Jesus is an idol until I am blue in the face without anyone proving my argument to be bad, and most people would be rather unthankful, and wouldn’t change a single thing in their life.
Christians have the problem of a trinity. There is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and last I heard Christian teachers, the sane ones that is, teach that the trinity is a mystery. Nobody fully understands the trinity, and I’m not the first to say that it won’t ever be understood because it is nonsense.
The trinity has the problem of Jesus, a being considered as G-d, dying. This is the key message of Christianity, in fact, that Jesus died to wash away the sins of mankind. However, G-d is not only a forgiver of sins, but a sustainer by the Bible. For example, Jesus said, “I am the bread of life,” which is probably a claim of Jesus saying that he is a provisional deity food, which represents sustenance.
That is, G-d is omnipresent and sustains reality, by both Jesus and the claims of the Pharisees. Well, um, what happens when the Sustainer, Jesus, dies? Maybe you can guess that the death of Jesus should represent the death of everything sustained, the complete end of the world, leaving no spark to restart it. Death of The Sustainer should mean the total annihilation of everything that exists, if we are to believe God is omnipresent. In fact, it should even be the annihilation of heaven and hell, as if G-d is truly the Sustainer, then He sustains these things too.
With the death of the Sustainer it should it should be by a second G-d that reality is revived from its total collapse. This god is what Christians refer to as the Father, which logically can only be a different deity than Jesus, as when if G-d is one and G-d dies, then all of G-d should die or else one god is separate from the other. Christianity mandates that Jesus can’t be the sustainer, and for the Father or the Holy Spirit to take on that role can only be polytheism. For me, that is enough to close the book on Christianity, and write it off as a second rate religion, which is no different than worshipping Zeus.
We can be sure that this polytheism is not true, but it doesn’t matter. Christians will continue to be Christians. It doesn’t matter that the end of sustenance did not happen with the death or resurrection (if you believe in that) of Jesus because nobody that is Christian has any concern for religious accuracy. Rather, with the death and resurrection of Jesus we observe things carried on, much like they do today. Myths still form about individuals. There are still wars. There are still plagues, and disease. There is still the possibility of suffering for both believer and nonbeliever. This generally doesn’t concern people, and they still attend Church, as there are still pastors that want to believe this crap.
I’ve never met a Christian that will admit his or her religion is polytheist or idolatry, but it is. Worshipping Jesus as God is the equivalent of worshipping a stone, as far as the “Old Testament” reads. Read the Ten Commandments. Jesus can’t be God by the definition of idolatry in the Ten Commandments. I won’t quote it because it won’t get me anywhere, as Christians don’t really care about the doctrine of Christianity. It’s all about faith right? Make it simple, just faith in the idol, Jesus. I could say Jesus is an idol until I am blue in the face without anyone proving my argument to be bad, and most people would be rather unthankful, and wouldn’t change a single thing in their life.
Christians have the problem of a trinity. There is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and last I heard Christian teachers, the sane ones that is, teach that the trinity is a mystery. Nobody fully understands the trinity, and I’m not the first to say that it won’t ever be understood because it is nonsense.
The trinity has the problem of Jesus, a being considered as G-d, dying. This is the key message of Christianity, in fact, that Jesus died to wash away the sins of mankind. However, G-d is not only a forgiver of sins, but a sustainer by the Bible. For example, Jesus said, “I am the bread of life,” which is probably a claim of Jesus saying that he is a provisional deity food, which represents sustenance.
That is, G-d is omnipresent and sustains reality, by both Jesus and the claims of the Pharisees. Well, um, what happens when the Sustainer, Jesus, dies? Maybe you can guess that the death of Jesus should represent the death of everything sustained, the complete end of the world, leaving no spark to restart it. Death of The Sustainer should mean the total annihilation of everything that exists, if we are to believe God is omnipresent. In fact, it should even be the annihilation of heaven and hell, as if G-d is truly the Sustainer, then He sustains these things too.
With the death of the Sustainer it should it should be by a second G-d that reality is revived from its total collapse. This god is what Christians refer to as the Father, which logically can only be a different deity than Jesus, as when if G-d is one and G-d dies, then all of G-d should die or else one god is separate from the other. Christianity mandates that Jesus can’t be the sustainer, and for the Father or the Holy Spirit to take on that role can only be polytheism. For me, that is enough to close the book on Christianity, and write it off as a second rate religion, which is no different than worshipping Zeus.
We can be sure that this polytheism is not true, but it doesn’t matter. Christians will continue to be Christians. It doesn’t matter that the end of sustenance did not happen with the death or resurrection (if you believe in that) of Jesus because nobody that is Christian has any concern for religious accuracy. Rather, with the death and resurrection of Jesus we observe things carried on, much like they do today. Myths still form about individuals. There are still wars. There are still plagues, and disease. There is still the possibility of suffering for both believer and nonbeliever. This generally doesn’t concern people, and they still attend Church, as there are still pastors that want to believe this crap.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
The Iliad should follow Genesis instead of Exodus
The Iliad should follow Genesis instead of Exodus
Um Isn’t One In Greek and the Other in Hebrew?
Both of these books, the Torah and the Iliad are alike in origin. One is in Greek, while the other is in Hebrew, but aside from that this is relevant. Language aside, Genesis and the Iliad are penned stories from the ancient world that originated out of oral tradition. Later in this essay textual arguments will prove that the traditionally taught origin of the Torah is flawed. Most stories that are any good are actually real stories, often with some creative license, and this might account for any minor discrepancies between the Torah and the Iliad. Thus, it is hoped that the barriers won’t prevent one in his or her imagination of these books similar origins. Instead of the inspired word of G-d, that would make Genesis a book out of the Bible, where the author is uncertain. Wow, this is an outrageous claim to start off with! These origins are important if one is to be thought of as following the other, specifically the Iliad following Genesis rather than the Exodus.
Addressing Problems with Chronology
The Iliad and the Torah should be dated. Nobody can accurately say what is older, the penning of story of the Iliad or the penning of the Torah. In support of this claim:
Moses received the Torah in its entirety from G-d at Mt. Sinai, as the story goes. This can’t be true. The tradition isn’t accurate. Imagine how much stone Moses would have had to etch, only to break it, recopy it, and much less personally carry it down from Mt. Sinai. This would have taken far too long!
Realistically, the Torah originated around the time of King David, as Moses couldn’t have carried this massive stone document down from Mt. Sinai, and the Davidic Kingdom is realistically the only period of time where the Jews had a homeland and enough stability to study such a massive work. As it is, the story that Moses carried his stone tablets with him, and that they were maintained during the books of Exodus, Numbers, Joshua and Judges is unbelievable. Thus, the Davidic kingdom is the only realistic time period for the first appearance of the written Torah.
This can only be why the Tanach says the messiah is to be Davidic, and that dates the Iliad and the Torah to both being at about the same time in history. If this revelation to Moses is to be considered as true, then what Moses received were the Ten Commandments. There are no stone copies of the Torah, like the pyramids to indicate that it has been around for more than 3,000 Gregorian years. This is all the more reason for Greek philosophers and Jews to be like minded, which they are in their writings before the coming of Jesus. This like mindedness is one reason for including the Iliad among other biblical works.
There is Moses calling himself the most humble prophet. Maybe, he did that, but it is also evidence that someone else wrote this book, and that Moses was not the author. Who brags about themselves as being great, but someone that people generally don’t like. Maybe a miracle couldn’t have happened and G-d revealed to Moses that he was the humblest prophet, such that he wrote it, but come on, that is a hell of a lot of stone for Moses to etch!
I, suggest that this Exodus was much earlier, but after the Iliad. This allowed for the Hebrew, Celtic, people to multiply as the Bible says to do, and such as what happened with the people that became white people about 50,000 years ago. It may be strange to consider that both the Celts and the Jews are Israelites, but the argument gains speed through Genesis calling Abraham a Chaldean and the religion of Zoroastrianism, a Chaldean religion, that white people, such as the white man Darius the great followed. This would mean that during an ancient enslavement of the Hebrew people, the ones that became the nation of priests were separate from the rest of the tribe, and the rest of the tribe continued Hebrew practices such as a kingly line from Judah. Thus, as it is written, the Jewish people became that nation of priests that they were said to become during the time of the book of Exodus. If that is true, the Iliad would be for the tribe of Judah what the rest of the Bible would be for the people calling themselves Jews is today.
Consider this: perhaps all white people belong to the nation of Abraham, all having a common white ancestor some fifty thousand years ago, because Jewish people are white, except some converts. Possibly, the event of Miriam becoming white after rebuking Moses in the Exodus story reports when the white gene entered the Hebrew population, some 50,000 years ago. Maybe there through marriage it spread to the then partially separate Celtic people. How far back did Jewish people branch away from the Celtic people is unknown, but it’s been a long time, enough to consider that the entire Chaldean nation of Abraham became white. Before Moses, specifically during the slavery in Africa or Egypt, the Hebrew people may have been black. It is known that far enough back in history everyone has black ancestors.
Textual Support for the Iliad Actually Following Genesis Instead of Exodus
The major point of this argument, that the Iliad should follow Genesis instead of Exodus, is that if the Torah is to be taken seriously, then its words must match real life. There is nowhere in the Torah that says Moses received and wrote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, so there is no contradiction so far. That is for starters there must be some sort of mystical Y chromosome that is associable with the scepter. The Torah contains several gems and clues that might lead one to conclude the claim of this essay’s title by the claim of the scepter though it may leave modern Jews and Christians groaning for having superfluous inaccurate traditions associable with Torah. This essay addresses some Torah clues, Tanach clues, Apocrypha clues, and other clues that suggest Exodus isn’t an appropriate book to follow Genesis, and that the Iliad is more appropriate book to follow Genesis. The essay is by no means comprehensive.
In Torah, specifically Genesis, kings are to come from the womb of Sarah and the scepter or the right of kings is held by Judah. However, strangely in the second book of Torah, Exodus, there are no Jewish kings mentioned, but instead slavery. It therefore follows that if Genesis is to be thought of as true, what should directly follow is a book of kings, and not Exodus or slavery, as what is Judah’s scepter supposed to mean for the world if there are no examples of it in place in Torah. That is by Genesis the Hebrew people were to be either kings or among them, royalty, such as in the story of Joseph, and the story of the Exodus describes the exact opposite, such that it doesn’t really fit. The Iliad is a book of kings that fits that bill, such that it better follows Genesis than Exodus.
That is this is an the argument that these supposed gods in the Iliad were actual people, as they acted as such in the story of the Iliad, and even had a family tree. For example, the family tree of the Greek and Persian gods, the royal house of Troy, also connects with Icelandic mythology as the ancestors of European nobility. Strangely most every noted king in history is said to have descended from the god Zeus, but if these gods were actual people, then this is not so strange.
Most European kings are said to descend from Dardanus, a son of Zeus in the book of the Iliad. In order to consider Zeus as a person phonetics are important. Phonetics are valid because even as late as the Middle Ages words had phonetic spellings. There just wasn’t a correct way to spell a word outside of Judaism, which has proved to be a very accurate religion in the copying of its documents. This is why the Bible is to be considered as more accurate than the Iliad.
If Zeus is to be a king, it might be thought that the Bible should have a descendent of Judah that has a name that sounds like Zeus. That is if we are to have a book inserted in the Bible, the Iliad, there needs to be some continuity. Part of that continuity is possible in that very few descendents of Judah are mentioned in the Torah, such that a phonetic comparison should have some validity due to the unlikeness in statistics for phonetic comparison. The Genesis family tree extending from Judah is small, but it does have a person named Zerah. Zeus and Zerah actually sound alike. Could Zeus and Zerah be the same person? The first argument, already mentioned for that is that if this were true it would allow for continuity by a lineage of kings between the Iliad and Genesis. It would cause the story of Genesis to make sense in the light of its words.
The second argument, a phonetic one is a comparison of the book of Chronicles and the Iliad. There is some phonetic continuity already demonstrated through the words Zeus and Zerah, and it is unlikely to be due to randomness alone. However, there is more, the Chronicler knew of a son of Zeus with a similar name to that of a descendent of Zerah. This person is Dardanus, son or Zeus, or Dara or Darda son of Zerah. This further increases the possibility that these phonetic comparisons are by chance alone. Zeus has many offspring by the Iliad, so it is thought that this is weaker than the Zeus is Zerah argument.
Moreover, in the phonetics one might expect that the oldest God of the Iliad might be the God of the Bible. There are phonetic similarities between Jove, the God of Zeus and Jehovah the God of the people in the book of Genesis. Don’t laugh, as the original pronunciation for Jehovah has been lost. Perhaps, Jove was an accepted pronunciation for Jehovah. Zeus himself descends from Jove, just as Adam was formed from the dust of the earth by the God of Israel.
In summation, the phonetic argument is not only solid for continuity of story between the Iliad and Genesis, but it is also rich. In fact, it is so rich that it has been suggested that Greek is actually a Semitic language. That’s three phonetic similarities, but there are more than that when considering the descendents of those from the Iliad by the ancient Icelandic Langfedgatal book, where there is a Moda and a Magi. Moda, a descendent of the Iliad’s King Priam, is a full blown Hebrew word. Magi, a descendent of King Priam as well, also relates to Judaism through Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism was a religion of the Chaldeans, the ancient tribe of Abraham, the great grandfather of Judah, by Genesis.
After analysis of the historical data, one should be left asking: Why is it said that actual kings such as Darius the Great and Alexander the Great are said to descend from Zeus from ancient manuscripts? More than that, why are the people the descended from the gods’ part of a family, like the family in Genesis, where it is said ruling power belongs to the tribe of Judah? Taking this essay in its entirety, there is enough evidence that these facts can’t be coincidences. For instance, in the book of Macabees, king Darius the great is considered the brethren of Jews by the Jews. Thus, Macabees is a reference that Judah is the common ancestor for Darius and the Jews at that time. Kings were supposed to descend from Judah by Genesis, meaning that Jews and Darius the Great having common lineages should be no surprise to a keen reader. Chronologically it is known that Darius and Dardanus or Darda can’t be the same person though. Plato reports that Darius the Great descended from Zeus. Could Plato be right, meaning that Macabees is combinable with the Iliad in such a way that Zeus was a descendent of Judah? I argue that Plato was right, and that Zeus was a descendent of Judah, as the phonetics and continuity arguments that the Iliad is of Hebrew origin are very strong.
Throughout history rulers, whether descended from Zerah or Zeus, or if these people are one in the same, have also had affinities for things that are Jewish. This is not coincidence, and it is a third textual argument beyond phonetics and the actual continuity having the Iliad directly follow Genesis would allow for. Hints of traditions that rulers descended from Judah exist in the Flavian dynasty of Rome. One need only ask, why is Flavius Josephus, a relative of the emperors in Rome witting a Jewish history of the world, if he is not Jewish! The same is true of King James V and the King James Bible, complete with a full translation of the “Old Testament.” Being careful with ancestries, the Flavian Dynasty and King James V are genetically related. However, what this entails is that the Emperor of Rome during the time of Jesus would have been a Jew, invalidating the statement of the Talmud that the scepter was removed.
The next argument is that Exodus doesn’t belong after Genesis by the content of Exodus in relation to the scepter mentioned in Genesis. The Iliad is about kings, and Jewish kings should come before the removal of the scepter in Exodus. I’ve read several Jewish articles on the messiah, but what none of them address is the removal of the scepter. Judah was supposed to have the right to judicial authority and this is represented by the scepter mentioned in the book of Genesis. This scepter was removed far earlier than Christians say it was. Many Christians quote the Talmud, saying the line present in it, “Woe to us! The scepter has been removed, but there is no messiah.” Um! Excuse me! What was Exodus? I thought it was a period of enslavement of the Israelites! There was no scepter held by the Jews while they were slaves in Egypt. That would mean that if anyone is Shiloh, the messiah, it’s Moses, unless we take other biblical literature seriously saying that the messiah is to be a descendent of David, but one can be sure that the messiah, as the descendent of David won’t be coming because the expectations of him are far too great for any man to fulfill. It doesn’t make any sense, unless the rabbis are wrong and the Iliad follows Genesis, such that Shiloh doesn’t even have to be a descendent of Judah. Between Genesis and Exodus something major changed, and that was by Genesis there were specific tribes, where only the Levites were priests, but the people of the Exodus were to be a nation of priests, only, such that it is as if there is a missing book of kings prior to the removal of the scepter in Exodus.
The summation of the data, almost no kings coming from this nation of priests indicates that this group, now calling themselves Jews, cannot be looked to for reliably as the only people from the nation of Abraham. However, this is more than a case of the lost tribes of Israel, but a case of the lost Jews of the Torah. That is people that say that the Bible should not be looked to for accuracy can’t use the popular translations of the data, as I don’t use them here. It has to be that the Celtic people are the nation of Abraham, as this is the only way that allows for a reliable translation of Genesis, such that it is considered accurate. The actual data of the Jewish population, both DNA and history support this claim.
This national priesthood idea actually makes sense as priests inherit the absence of property while males that possibly made of this nation of priests were probably converts that had no inheritance among the Israelites. That is, if you can’t be anything else, then you can be among a nation of priests without property inheritance, and mostly separate from the priestly tribe of Levites scattered among other tribes! The book of Numbers supports this claim, as descendents of Esau are questionably priests, specifically Korech did not have a pure ancestry. This means that the people calling themselves Jews hijacked Judaism, as none can be sure if he or she is of any Israelite tribe, such that the Jews misnamed themselves.
Using the argument of royal DNA, then the people claiming to be Jews are probably not the Jews, as they descend genetically from four women. Granted, descent from Sarah is sufficient to convey kingship, but not Jewish kingship, and no Jew can do that much by ancestry, as converts can’t be kings. The Torah forbids appointing converts to the position of king. Since, there are four women known that Jews descend from by the DNA evidence, this excludes any male ancestors as being very prominent in the gene pool, such that is it unknown if a descendent of Judah is in it. Jews have no discernable ancestries that would allow individuals to be appointed to kingship over the Jewish tribe for lack of a discernable ancestry.
Traditional Jews have mucked themselves up into a legality pretzel for trying to be more accurate than Jewish documentation allows for. This argument gains speed if you consider that Genesis says Abraham’s nation is to be a great nation. If the Torah is to be taken seriously, then the Jewish people of today could not be this nation only, as they have no history of being great among the nations, kicked from country to country throughout known history.
Jews love to try to be super accurate with words. Surprisingly, that is the mark of a good priest, and it could be an inherited survival law for this tribe. It must be hard to survive as convert Levites, together among the nations rather than separate having no promised birthright given by Jacob in Genesis.
One reason I feel Celtic people neglect these birthrights, such as the scepter for Judah, is that in a mystical sense one does not have to worry about the promises of the Bible coming true, and that these promises simply happen, as there are no Laws to ensure that the tribe of Judah in particular has the scepter. It is not by law, but by mystical inheritance of Judah’s Y chromosome that one can become a king.
There is another possibility, that the scepter was never removed, such that there was an enslavement of some of the Israelites, but not the majority. What all the data adds up to is that though the scepter has been removed for Jews, but by the Iliad the scepter has never been removed for Celtic people, the nation of Abraham. There have been power shifts, wars, and short periods of anarchy during interregnum, but there has always been someone with an ancestry going back to Zeus that has been in charge for white people. This trend continues in America today.
Um Isn’t One In Greek and the Other in Hebrew?
Both of these books, the Torah and the Iliad are alike in origin. One is in Greek, while the other is in Hebrew, but aside from that this is relevant. Language aside, Genesis and the Iliad are penned stories from the ancient world that originated out of oral tradition. Later in this essay textual arguments will prove that the traditionally taught origin of the Torah is flawed. Most stories that are any good are actually real stories, often with some creative license, and this might account for any minor discrepancies between the Torah and the Iliad. Thus, it is hoped that the barriers won’t prevent one in his or her imagination of these books similar origins. Instead of the inspired word of G-d, that would make Genesis a book out of the Bible, where the author is uncertain. Wow, this is an outrageous claim to start off with! These origins are important if one is to be thought of as following the other, specifically the Iliad following Genesis rather than the Exodus.
Addressing Problems with Chronology
The Iliad and the Torah should be dated. Nobody can accurately say what is older, the penning of story of the Iliad or the penning of the Torah. In support of this claim:
Moses received the Torah in its entirety from G-d at Mt. Sinai, as the story goes. This can’t be true. The tradition isn’t accurate. Imagine how much stone Moses would have had to etch, only to break it, recopy it, and much less personally carry it down from Mt. Sinai. This would have taken far too long!
Realistically, the Torah originated around the time of King David, as Moses couldn’t have carried this massive stone document down from Mt. Sinai, and the Davidic Kingdom is realistically the only period of time where the Jews had a homeland and enough stability to study such a massive work. As it is, the story that Moses carried his stone tablets with him, and that they were maintained during the books of Exodus, Numbers, Joshua and Judges is unbelievable. Thus, the Davidic kingdom is the only realistic time period for the first appearance of the written Torah.
This can only be why the Tanach says the messiah is to be Davidic, and that dates the Iliad and the Torah to both being at about the same time in history. If this revelation to Moses is to be considered as true, then what Moses received were the Ten Commandments. There are no stone copies of the Torah, like the pyramids to indicate that it has been around for more than 3,000 Gregorian years. This is all the more reason for Greek philosophers and Jews to be like minded, which they are in their writings before the coming of Jesus. This like mindedness is one reason for including the Iliad among other biblical works.
There is Moses calling himself the most humble prophet. Maybe, he did that, but it is also evidence that someone else wrote this book, and that Moses was not the author. Who brags about themselves as being great, but someone that people generally don’t like. Maybe a miracle couldn’t have happened and G-d revealed to Moses that he was the humblest prophet, such that he wrote it, but come on, that is a hell of a lot of stone for Moses to etch!
I, suggest that this Exodus was much earlier, but after the Iliad. This allowed for the Hebrew, Celtic, people to multiply as the Bible says to do, and such as what happened with the people that became white people about 50,000 years ago. It may be strange to consider that both the Celts and the Jews are Israelites, but the argument gains speed through Genesis calling Abraham a Chaldean and the religion of Zoroastrianism, a Chaldean religion, that white people, such as the white man Darius the great followed. This would mean that during an ancient enslavement of the Hebrew people, the ones that became the nation of priests were separate from the rest of the tribe, and the rest of the tribe continued Hebrew practices such as a kingly line from Judah. Thus, as it is written, the Jewish people became that nation of priests that they were said to become during the time of the book of Exodus. If that is true, the Iliad would be for the tribe of Judah what the rest of the Bible would be for the people calling themselves Jews is today.
Consider this: perhaps all white people belong to the nation of Abraham, all having a common white ancestor some fifty thousand years ago, because Jewish people are white, except some converts. Possibly, the event of Miriam becoming white after rebuking Moses in the Exodus story reports when the white gene entered the Hebrew population, some 50,000 years ago. Maybe there through marriage it spread to the then partially separate Celtic people. How far back did Jewish people branch away from the Celtic people is unknown, but it’s been a long time, enough to consider that the entire Chaldean nation of Abraham became white. Before Moses, specifically during the slavery in Africa or Egypt, the Hebrew people may have been black. It is known that far enough back in history everyone has black ancestors.
Textual Support for the Iliad Actually Following Genesis Instead of Exodus
The major point of this argument, that the Iliad should follow Genesis instead of Exodus, is that if the Torah is to be taken seriously, then its words must match real life. There is nowhere in the Torah that says Moses received and wrote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, so there is no contradiction so far. That is for starters there must be some sort of mystical Y chromosome that is associable with the scepter. The Torah contains several gems and clues that might lead one to conclude the claim of this essay’s title by the claim of the scepter though it may leave modern Jews and Christians groaning for having superfluous inaccurate traditions associable with Torah. This essay addresses some Torah clues, Tanach clues, Apocrypha clues, and other clues that suggest Exodus isn’t an appropriate book to follow Genesis, and that the Iliad is more appropriate book to follow Genesis. The essay is by no means comprehensive.
In Torah, specifically Genesis, kings are to come from the womb of Sarah and the scepter or the right of kings is held by Judah. However, strangely in the second book of Torah, Exodus, there are no Jewish kings mentioned, but instead slavery. It therefore follows that if Genesis is to be thought of as true, what should directly follow is a book of kings, and not Exodus or slavery, as what is Judah’s scepter supposed to mean for the world if there are no examples of it in place in Torah. That is by Genesis the Hebrew people were to be either kings or among them, royalty, such as in the story of Joseph, and the story of the Exodus describes the exact opposite, such that it doesn’t really fit. The Iliad is a book of kings that fits that bill, such that it better follows Genesis than Exodus.
That is this is an the argument that these supposed gods in the Iliad were actual people, as they acted as such in the story of the Iliad, and even had a family tree. For example, the family tree of the Greek and Persian gods, the royal house of Troy, also connects with Icelandic mythology as the ancestors of European nobility. Strangely most every noted king in history is said to have descended from the god Zeus, but if these gods were actual people, then this is not so strange.
Most European kings are said to descend from Dardanus, a son of Zeus in the book of the Iliad. In order to consider Zeus as a person phonetics are important. Phonetics are valid because even as late as the Middle Ages words had phonetic spellings. There just wasn’t a correct way to spell a word outside of Judaism, which has proved to be a very accurate religion in the copying of its documents. This is why the Bible is to be considered as more accurate than the Iliad.
If Zeus is to be a king, it might be thought that the Bible should have a descendent of Judah that has a name that sounds like Zeus. That is if we are to have a book inserted in the Bible, the Iliad, there needs to be some continuity. Part of that continuity is possible in that very few descendents of Judah are mentioned in the Torah, such that a phonetic comparison should have some validity due to the unlikeness in statistics for phonetic comparison. The Genesis family tree extending from Judah is small, but it does have a person named Zerah. Zeus and Zerah actually sound alike. Could Zeus and Zerah be the same person? The first argument, already mentioned for that is that if this were true it would allow for continuity by a lineage of kings between the Iliad and Genesis. It would cause the story of Genesis to make sense in the light of its words.
The second argument, a phonetic one is a comparison of the book of Chronicles and the Iliad. There is some phonetic continuity already demonstrated through the words Zeus and Zerah, and it is unlikely to be due to randomness alone. However, there is more, the Chronicler knew of a son of Zeus with a similar name to that of a descendent of Zerah. This person is Dardanus, son or Zeus, or Dara or Darda son of Zerah. This further increases the possibility that these phonetic comparisons are by chance alone. Zeus has many offspring by the Iliad, so it is thought that this is weaker than the Zeus is Zerah argument.
Moreover, in the phonetics one might expect that the oldest God of the Iliad might be the God of the Bible. There are phonetic similarities between Jove, the God of Zeus and Jehovah the God of the people in the book of Genesis. Don’t laugh, as the original pronunciation for Jehovah has been lost. Perhaps, Jove was an accepted pronunciation for Jehovah. Zeus himself descends from Jove, just as Adam was formed from the dust of the earth by the God of Israel.
In summation, the phonetic argument is not only solid for continuity of story between the Iliad and Genesis, but it is also rich. In fact, it is so rich that it has been suggested that Greek is actually a Semitic language. That’s three phonetic similarities, but there are more than that when considering the descendents of those from the Iliad by the ancient Icelandic Langfedgatal book, where there is a Moda and a Magi. Moda, a descendent of the Iliad’s King Priam, is a full blown Hebrew word. Magi, a descendent of King Priam as well, also relates to Judaism through Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism was a religion of the Chaldeans, the ancient tribe of Abraham, the great grandfather of Judah, by Genesis.
After analysis of the historical data, one should be left asking: Why is it said that actual kings such as Darius the Great and Alexander the Great are said to descend from Zeus from ancient manuscripts? More than that, why are the people the descended from the gods’ part of a family, like the family in Genesis, where it is said ruling power belongs to the tribe of Judah? Taking this essay in its entirety, there is enough evidence that these facts can’t be coincidences. For instance, in the book of Macabees, king Darius the great is considered the brethren of Jews by the Jews. Thus, Macabees is a reference that Judah is the common ancestor for Darius and the Jews at that time. Kings were supposed to descend from Judah by Genesis, meaning that Jews and Darius the Great having common lineages should be no surprise to a keen reader. Chronologically it is known that Darius and Dardanus or Darda can’t be the same person though. Plato reports that Darius the Great descended from Zeus. Could Plato be right, meaning that Macabees is combinable with the Iliad in such a way that Zeus was a descendent of Judah? I argue that Plato was right, and that Zeus was a descendent of Judah, as the phonetics and continuity arguments that the Iliad is of Hebrew origin are very strong.
Throughout history rulers, whether descended from Zerah or Zeus, or if these people are one in the same, have also had affinities for things that are Jewish. This is not coincidence, and it is a third textual argument beyond phonetics and the actual continuity having the Iliad directly follow Genesis would allow for. Hints of traditions that rulers descended from Judah exist in the Flavian dynasty of Rome. One need only ask, why is Flavius Josephus, a relative of the emperors in Rome witting a Jewish history of the world, if he is not Jewish! The same is true of King James V and the King James Bible, complete with a full translation of the “Old Testament.” Being careful with ancestries, the Flavian Dynasty and King James V are genetically related. However, what this entails is that the Emperor of Rome during the time of Jesus would have been a Jew, invalidating the statement of the Talmud that the scepter was removed.
The next argument is that Exodus doesn’t belong after Genesis by the content of Exodus in relation to the scepter mentioned in Genesis. The Iliad is about kings, and Jewish kings should come before the removal of the scepter in Exodus. I’ve read several Jewish articles on the messiah, but what none of them address is the removal of the scepter. Judah was supposed to have the right to judicial authority and this is represented by the scepter mentioned in the book of Genesis. This scepter was removed far earlier than Christians say it was. Many Christians quote the Talmud, saying the line present in it, “Woe to us! The scepter has been removed, but there is no messiah.” Um! Excuse me! What was Exodus? I thought it was a period of enslavement of the Israelites! There was no scepter held by the Jews while they were slaves in Egypt. That would mean that if anyone is Shiloh, the messiah, it’s Moses, unless we take other biblical literature seriously saying that the messiah is to be a descendent of David, but one can be sure that the messiah, as the descendent of David won’t be coming because the expectations of him are far too great for any man to fulfill. It doesn’t make any sense, unless the rabbis are wrong and the Iliad follows Genesis, such that Shiloh doesn’t even have to be a descendent of Judah. Between Genesis and Exodus something major changed, and that was by Genesis there were specific tribes, where only the Levites were priests, but the people of the Exodus were to be a nation of priests, only, such that it is as if there is a missing book of kings prior to the removal of the scepter in Exodus.
The summation of the data, almost no kings coming from this nation of priests indicates that this group, now calling themselves Jews, cannot be looked to for reliably as the only people from the nation of Abraham. However, this is more than a case of the lost tribes of Israel, but a case of the lost Jews of the Torah. That is people that say that the Bible should not be looked to for accuracy can’t use the popular translations of the data, as I don’t use them here. It has to be that the Celtic people are the nation of Abraham, as this is the only way that allows for a reliable translation of Genesis, such that it is considered accurate. The actual data of the Jewish population, both DNA and history support this claim.
This national priesthood idea actually makes sense as priests inherit the absence of property while males that possibly made of this nation of priests were probably converts that had no inheritance among the Israelites. That is, if you can’t be anything else, then you can be among a nation of priests without property inheritance, and mostly separate from the priestly tribe of Levites scattered among other tribes! The book of Numbers supports this claim, as descendents of Esau are questionably priests, specifically Korech did not have a pure ancestry. This means that the people calling themselves Jews hijacked Judaism, as none can be sure if he or she is of any Israelite tribe, such that the Jews misnamed themselves.
Using the argument of royal DNA, then the people claiming to be Jews are probably not the Jews, as they descend genetically from four women. Granted, descent from Sarah is sufficient to convey kingship, but not Jewish kingship, and no Jew can do that much by ancestry, as converts can’t be kings. The Torah forbids appointing converts to the position of king. Since, there are four women known that Jews descend from by the DNA evidence, this excludes any male ancestors as being very prominent in the gene pool, such that is it unknown if a descendent of Judah is in it. Jews have no discernable ancestries that would allow individuals to be appointed to kingship over the Jewish tribe for lack of a discernable ancestry.
Traditional Jews have mucked themselves up into a legality pretzel for trying to be more accurate than Jewish documentation allows for. This argument gains speed if you consider that Genesis says Abraham’s nation is to be a great nation. If the Torah is to be taken seriously, then the Jewish people of today could not be this nation only, as they have no history of being great among the nations, kicked from country to country throughout known history.
Jews love to try to be super accurate with words. Surprisingly, that is the mark of a good priest, and it could be an inherited survival law for this tribe. It must be hard to survive as convert Levites, together among the nations rather than separate having no promised birthright given by Jacob in Genesis.
One reason I feel Celtic people neglect these birthrights, such as the scepter for Judah, is that in a mystical sense one does not have to worry about the promises of the Bible coming true, and that these promises simply happen, as there are no Laws to ensure that the tribe of Judah in particular has the scepter. It is not by law, but by mystical inheritance of Judah’s Y chromosome that one can become a king.
There is another possibility, that the scepter was never removed, such that there was an enslavement of some of the Israelites, but not the majority. What all the data adds up to is that though the scepter has been removed for Jews, but by the Iliad the scepter has never been removed for Celtic people, the nation of Abraham. There have been power shifts, wars, and short periods of anarchy during interregnum, but there has always been someone with an ancestry going back to Zeus that has been in charge for white people. This trend continues in America today.
Get Your Disorder Straight
Get Your Disorder Straight
By now I have said that I have autism, bipolar, and maybe I even thrown around the terms schizophrenia, ADD, and ADHD. What is it? Can’t I be straight? Truthfully, I walk home with a new diagnosis every month or so, and it’s always a bipolar one. That is that my bipolar likes to morph a lot, but there is some explaining to do.
I’ll mention schizophrenia occasionally because historically, autism was diagnosed as schizophrenia. That’s where the research comes in. Most of the research relative to the gluten and casein diet I have is relative to autism. I never walked home with that, autism, as a professional diagnosis though. Though I have had paranoia, I have never been diagnosed as a schizophrenic. However, I like to use the word schizophrenia because the most important early research for people that the gluten and casein diet works for were diagnosed schizophrenics.
I am also not the first paranoid person to benefit from the diet either. Mark Vonnegut, was diagnosed schizophrenic, and became so cured that he became a doctor afterwards and wrote a book on it, which inspired the doctor currently treating me with the gluten free and casein free diet. As it is, that disease is probably rare enough that nobody has yet given it a name. That rare one, I am cured from. Really, it’s not schizophrenia or autism because it can be cured. However, bipolar I am not cured from.
There is a problem though with the people those that get cured that need the gluten free and casein free diet. That problem is bipolar. It happens for a reason, and not necessarily because it’s in any sort of genetic makeup. Rather, the bipolar is a response to cutting out the gluten and casein. See, the way these compounds, gluten and casein, are diagnosable is as opiates in urine, specifically gliadorphin and casomorphin. Not everyone with autism or schizophrenia has this problem with the opiates though. Psychiatrists usually treat symptoms rather than underlying biochemical problems. Naturally, these two urine opiates are very similar words to gluten and casein because they are derivatives. In fact, I once bought a book on schizophrenia that noted how schizophrenics often appear very similar to opium addicts. Over twenty years of opiate in one’s body is bound to do a central nervous system some mood regulating damage, especially when I was developing as an infant.
There are many biochemical pathways in the body, and the dopamine pathway is one of them. For certain, the dopamine pathway in my body is damaged, which is probably a second enzyme, sort of relative to the first, the gluten and casein pathway, were the problem is an exorphin enzyme. I might also have bipolar because I was born with it, as I wouldn’t be the only family member to have it. Thus, the causes of my bipolar are definitely one fold, and possibly two fold, but both folds are to the dopamine or dopaminergic pathway. Dopamine is important in all these diseases of which now I only have bipolar.
For anyone that needs to know my present diagnosis, such as a doctor, it’s not important. All another doctor needs to know is that I have a mood disorder, bipolar. Autism is history, cured when it was first found, no need to diagnose me with an incurable illness when I have been cured thanks to alternative medicine.
ADD and ADHD are acronyms that I sometimes throw around. I once went to a seminar that said everyone with a mood disorder suffers from ADHD. This is true. I have bipolar. Attention deficit describes some of the symptoms I have, but it is not a diagnosis. The same is true with OCD, obsessive compulsive disorder. That is I experience some of the symptoms of this disorder, OCD, but it is not a diagnosis. In particular, the symptoms I suffer from are hypergraphia, writing too much and hyper-religiosity. I do these things obsessively. Sometimes I have panic attacks and anxiety if I don’t get to write, or if I don’t get to study religion. It’s also very hard for me to get out of obsessive writing and religiosity. It’s like I can’t switch gears because my focus on them becomes so strong. However, all that stuff for me is symptoms of bipolar, and not OCD, or ADHD.
By now I have said that I have autism, bipolar, and maybe I even thrown around the terms schizophrenia, ADD, and ADHD. What is it? Can’t I be straight? Truthfully, I walk home with a new diagnosis every month or so, and it’s always a bipolar one. That is that my bipolar likes to morph a lot, but there is some explaining to do.
I’ll mention schizophrenia occasionally because historically, autism was diagnosed as schizophrenia. That’s where the research comes in. Most of the research relative to the gluten and casein diet I have is relative to autism. I never walked home with that, autism, as a professional diagnosis though. Though I have had paranoia, I have never been diagnosed as a schizophrenic. However, I like to use the word schizophrenia because the most important early research for people that the gluten and casein diet works for were diagnosed schizophrenics.
I am also not the first paranoid person to benefit from the diet either. Mark Vonnegut, was diagnosed schizophrenic, and became so cured that he became a doctor afterwards and wrote a book on it, which inspired the doctor currently treating me with the gluten free and casein free diet. As it is, that disease is probably rare enough that nobody has yet given it a name. That rare one, I am cured from. Really, it’s not schizophrenia or autism because it can be cured. However, bipolar I am not cured from.
There is a problem though with the people those that get cured that need the gluten free and casein free diet. That problem is bipolar. It happens for a reason, and not necessarily because it’s in any sort of genetic makeup. Rather, the bipolar is a response to cutting out the gluten and casein. See, the way these compounds, gluten and casein, are diagnosable is as opiates in urine, specifically gliadorphin and casomorphin. Not everyone with autism or schizophrenia has this problem with the opiates though. Psychiatrists usually treat symptoms rather than underlying biochemical problems. Naturally, these two urine opiates are very similar words to gluten and casein because they are derivatives. In fact, I once bought a book on schizophrenia that noted how schizophrenics often appear very similar to opium addicts. Over twenty years of opiate in one’s body is bound to do a central nervous system some mood regulating damage, especially when I was developing as an infant.
There are many biochemical pathways in the body, and the dopamine pathway is one of them. For certain, the dopamine pathway in my body is damaged, which is probably a second enzyme, sort of relative to the first, the gluten and casein pathway, were the problem is an exorphin enzyme. I might also have bipolar because I was born with it, as I wouldn’t be the only family member to have it. Thus, the causes of my bipolar are definitely one fold, and possibly two fold, but both folds are to the dopamine or dopaminergic pathway. Dopamine is important in all these diseases of which now I only have bipolar.
For anyone that needs to know my present diagnosis, such as a doctor, it’s not important. All another doctor needs to know is that I have a mood disorder, bipolar. Autism is history, cured when it was first found, no need to diagnose me with an incurable illness when I have been cured thanks to alternative medicine.
ADD and ADHD are acronyms that I sometimes throw around. I once went to a seminar that said everyone with a mood disorder suffers from ADHD. This is true. I have bipolar. Attention deficit describes some of the symptoms I have, but it is not a diagnosis. The same is true with OCD, obsessive compulsive disorder. That is I experience some of the symptoms of this disorder, OCD, but it is not a diagnosis. In particular, the symptoms I suffer from are hypergraphia, writing too much and hyper-religiosity. I do these things obsessively. Sometimes I have panic attacks and anxiety if I don’t get to write, or if I don’t get to study religion. It’s also very hard for me to get out of obsessive writing and religiosity. It’s like I can’t switch gears because my focus on them becomes so strong. However, all that stuff for me is symptoms of bipolar, and not OCD, or ADHD.
Get Your Disorder Straight
Get Your Disorder Straight
By now I have said that I have autism, bipolar, and maybe I even thrown around the terms schizophrenia, ADD, and ADHD. What is it? Can’t I be straight? Truthfully, I walk home with a new diagnosis every month or so, and it’s always a bipolar one. That is that my bipolar likes to morph a lot, but there is some explaining to do.
I’ll mention schizophrenia occasionally because historically, autism was diagnosed as schizophrenia. That’s where the research comes in. Most of the research relative to the gluten and casein diet I have is relative to autism. I never walked home with that, autism, as a professional diagnosis though. Though I have had paranoia, I have never been diagnosed as a schizophrenic. However, I like to use the word schizophrenia because the most important early research for people that the gluten and casein diet works for were diagnosed schizophrenics.
I am also not the first paranoid person to benefit from the diet either. Mark Vonnegut, was diagnosed schizophrenic, and became so cured that he became a doctor afterwards and wrote a book on it, which inspired the doctor currently treating me with the gluten free and casein free diet. As it is, that disease is probably rare enough that nobody has yet given it a name. That rare one, I am cured from. Really, it’s not schizophrenia or autism because it can be cured. However, bipolar I am not cured from.
There is a problem though with the people those that get cured that need the gluten free and casein free diet. That problem is bipolar. It happens for a reason, and not necessarily because it’s in any sort of genetic makeup. Rather, the bipolar is a response to cutting out the gluten and casein. See, the way these compounds, gluten and casein, are diagnosable is as opiates in urine, specifically gliadorphin and casomorphin. Not everyone with autism or schizophrenia has this problem with the opiates though. Psychiatrists usually treat symptoms rather than underlying biochemical problems. Naturally, these two urine opiates are very similar words to gluten and casein because they are derivatives. In fact, I once bought a book on schizophrenia that noted how schizophrenics often appear very similar to opium addicts. Over twenty years of opiate in one’s body is bound to do a central nervous system some mood regulating damage, especially when I was developing as an infant.
There are many biochemical pathways in the body, and the dopamine pathway is one of them. For certain, the dopamine pathway in my body is damaged, which is probably a second enzyme, sort of relative to the first, the gluten and casein pathway, were the problem is an exorphin enzyme. I might also have bipolar because I was born with it, as I wouldn’t be the only family member to have it. Thus, the causes of my bipolar are definitely one fold, and possibly two fold, but both folds are to the dopamine or dopaminergic pathway. Dopamine is important in all these diseases of which now I only have bipolar.
For anyone that needs to know my present diagnosis, such as a doctor, it’s not important. All another doctor needs to know is that I have a mood disorder, bipolar. Autism is history, cured when it was first found, no need to diagnose me with an incurable illness when I have been cured thanks to alternative medicine.
ADD and ADHD are acronyms that I sometimes throw around. I once went to a seminar that said everyone with a mood disorder suffers from ADHD. This is true. I have bipolar. Attention deficit describes some of the symptoms I have, but it is not a diagnosis. The same is true with OCD, obsessive compulsive disorder. That is I experience some of the symptoms of this disorder, OCD, but it is not a diagnosis. In particular, the symptoms I suffer from are hypergraphia, writing too much and hyper-religiosity. I do these things obsessively. Sometimes I have panic attacks and anxiety if I don’t get to write, or if I don’t get to study religion. It’s also very hard for me to get out of obsessive writing and religiosity. It’s like I can’t switch gears because my focus on them becomes so strong. However, all that stuff for me is symptoms of bipolar, and not OCD, or ADHD.
By now I have said that I have autism, bipolar, and maybe I even thrown around the terms schizophrenia, ADD, and ADHD. What is it? Can’t I be straight? Truthfully, I walk home with a new diagnosis every month or so, and it’s always a bipolar one. That is that my bipolar likes to morph a lot, but there is some explaining to do.
I’ll mention schizophrenia occasionally because historically, autism was diagnosed as schizophrenia. That’s where the research comes in. Most of the research relative to the gluten and casein diet I have is relative to autism. I never walked home with that, autism, as a professional diagnosis though. Though I have had paranoia, I have never been diagnosed as a schizophrenic. However, I like to use the word schizophrenia because the most important early research for people that the gluten and casein diet works for were diagnosed schizophrenics.
I am also not the first paranoid person to benefit from the diet either. Mark Vonnegut, was diagnosed schizophrenic, and became so cured that he became a doctor afterwards and wrote a book on it, which inspired the doctor currently treating me with the gluten free and casein free diet. As it is, that disease is probably rare enough that nobody has yet given it a name. That rare one, I am cured from. Really, it’s not schizophrenia or autism because it can be cured. However, bipolar I am not cured from.
There is a problem though with the people those that get cured that need the gluten free and casein free diet. That problem is bipolar. It happens for a reason, and not necessarily because it’s in any sort of genetic makeup. Rather, the bipolar is a response to cutting out the gluten and casein. See, the way these compounds, gluten and casein, are diagnosable is as opiates in urine, specifically gliadorphin and casomorphin. Not everyone with autism or schizophrenia has this problem with the opiates though. Psychiatrists usually treat symptoms rather than underlying biochemical problems. Naturally, these two urine opiates are very similar words to gluten and casein because they are derivatives. In fact, I once bought a book on schizophrenia that noted how schizophrenics often appear very similar to opium addicts. Over twenty years of opiate in one’s body is bound to do a central nervous system some mood regulating damage, especially when I was developing as an infant.
There are many biochemical pathways in the body, and the dopamine pathway is one of them. For certain, the dopamine pathway in my body is damaged, which is probably a second enzyme, sort of relative to the first, the gluten and casein pathway, were the problem is an exorphin enzyme. I might also have bipolar because I was born with it, as I wouldn’t be the only family member to have it. Thus, the causes of my bipolar are definitely one fold, and possibly two fold, but both folds are to the dopamine or dopaminergic pathway. Dopamine is important in all these diseases of which now I only have bipolar.
For anyone that needs to know my present diagnosis, such as a doctor, it’s not important. All another doctor needs to know is that I have a mood disorder, bipolar. Autism is history, cured when it was first found, no need to diagnose me with an incurable illness when I have been cured thanks to alternative medicine.
ADD and ADHD are acronyms that I sometimes throw around. I once went to a seminar that said everyone with a mood disorder suffers from ADHD. This is true. I have bipolar. Attention deficit describes some of the symptoms I have, but it is not a diagnosis. The same is true with OCD, obsessive compulsive disorder. That is I experience some of the symptoms of this disorder, OCD, but it is not a diagnosis. In particular, the symptoms I suffer from are hypergraphia, writing too much and hyper-religiosity. I do these things obsessively. Sometimes I have panic attacks and anxiety if I don’t get to write, or if I don’t get to study religion. It’s also very hard for me to get out of obsessive writing and religiosity. It’s like I can’t switch gears because my focus on them becomes so strong. However, all that stuff for me is symptoms of bipolar, and not OCD, or ADHD.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Is It Poorly Chosen Loneliness?
Is It Poorly Chosen Loneliness?
A friend of mine claims to be Jewish. I assume that he is. He is not a liar. I didn’t bother to ask him if his mother is Jewish. I met him at a Christian Church. My first impression of him was over some Indian dream catchers on a children’s Sunday lesson. The church was set into uproar over it. There were the conservatives and the liberals arguing over a non religious item in church. His opinion of the church dropped just because there was this argument. That is my friend thought this was silly, and so did I.
I made my decision to leave the church, and not attend another at all. I’ve heard through the grapevine that there are several people that don’t believe that attended there. I was one of them. I attended a Christian church, but did not believe Jesus was G-d, just like my parents. My mom’s view on this might have changed though. Possibly, she has become more conservative in her Christian beliefs. However, she made it clear to me that she thought religion was a bunch of crap and that the job of pastor is a lowly position while I was living with her in my youth. Maybe, I should give her the benefit of the doubt and just say that she only reacted to my hyper-religiosity0, a symptom of my current diagnosis, bipolar. Dad says that he sees that Jesus made no personal claims to be G-d in the Gospels. Though Josh McDowell in his book, “The Evidence that Demands a Verdict,” emphatically shot this argument down, there are many intellectuals that were not convinced. Strangely, you might expect to hear these things, so liberal, of a Unitarian Church, but I was raised at an Evangelical Baptist church. I imagine few people there are actually evangelical, that is that they have actually evangelized to someone. Most people I know think evangelism is poor taste, including myself, but I admit trying on the evangelist idea at some time in my life. If the church ever became Unitarian, then I might attend as I did growing up. One of my recent blogs was a decision of mine to like the Unitarians.
There are twofold reasons why I don’t attend. The first is my own beliefs. I have moved on in my pursuit of religion from Christianity to Judaism. I have been studying Judaism for roughly ten years now. I studied Judaism with Christianity for roughly five years. That came first, and the reason I kept on with the Judaism rather than the Christianity was that I was able to tease apart the religion of Christianity first. Eventually, I teased apart a good portion of Judaism, but I see no reason to leave its study.
I wanted to start there, studies of both Judaism and Christianity because that is where my Granddad Hamilton left off. This is no easy feat, and I don’t really want my son to have to go through all of it, himself. Granddad Hamilton had only become religious in the late years of his life, studying Judaism mixed with Christianity just before he passed on. I honestly believe Granddad Hamilton would have left the faith of Christianity if G-d gave him enough time to analyze it. When he died, he was doing such things as keeping kosher. This was something totally not required from a Christian or Messianic Jewish point of view. Granddad Hamilton was still the same person though. It was just that he began to seriously study religion, and as I see it, he also began to see what he identified with.
My dad was very similar to Granddad. My dad believed in the “Old Testament” Law, but was very liberal. I was raised attending a Christian Church for the purpose of being social, not for the purpose of religion and Jesus. This leads me to the second reason why I am not attending church. I don’t want my child to go through the same confusion I went through for having parents that simply want to attend a place of belief for social reasons, but thumb their nose in secret at the exact words the pastor might say or what they sing in church.
This is where my Jewish friend at the church comes in. By the way I know that he is not the only Jew that has been there, as I once attended Christmas candlelight service there as a non-believer in Jesus with a different Jew. Attending facilitated social gatherings for Christmas time festivities of our rather non-religious household. We had sort of adopted him because he was new to the area. For me attending the Christmas service only was okay as a bean splitter because the history of Christmas really has nothing to do with Jesus. The day, Christmas, is really a borrowed pagan holiday, and it might as well be Halloween for all I am concerned from a historic point of view. But, no, this is my other friend, the one that claims to be Jewish, but I haven’t really verified it yet and for some reason that bothers me. This friend warned me not to shoot too high, as by the time I get there; I’ll be alone. He was right!
Alone is essentially where I am at now. I won’t attend a Jewish synagogue because to me it makes no sense. That is, I would have to drive a car there, and that is an infraction to the rules of Shabbat. The whole synagogue probably drives there though on Shabbat! There is a parking lot at this synagogue. I am also alone because I am self-righteous for not attending a religious gathering of Christians though I have no faith. Many would say that I am actually doing a good deed, and that you shouldn’t attend if you don’t have faith, and also have no intention of believing like a Christian. It’s different for me because I look down upon Christian faith.
At this point, I think the only reason I like Judaism is that there is a really good website, www.chabad.org where I study. If it hadn’t been for this website, then I might have a more distorted and also more perfect view of Judaism, but that would have only been for lack of study. That is correct, and what I wanted to say! This website enabled me to get past the introductory stuff that is impossible to tease apart, and into the human stuff, which is more arguable. At first, I thought Judaism was the perfect and flawless religion, but now I know better.
I want my son to study Judaism, and my wife doesn’t have a problem with that. Our family keeps kosher and observes most of the 613 commands of Judaism, so naturally my son will wonder why. I hope my son goes the extra step and goes into the mikvah to prove he is a Jew, but of course that will be his choice. My wife and I have never actually observed Shabbat in the traditional way though. She always said that the book of Genesis, in the Creation story where the idea of Shabbat arises puts forth the idea that G-d rests because He is, “Finished with the work.” For her that means humans should only rest if we are finished with the work, and there are usually dishes that need washed or something in our family. She comes home Friday nights and sees I haven’t finished the work, as usual. I never seem able to finish the work to her standards, so another Shabbat passes unobserved. As the saying goes, if only every Jew observed one Shabbat perfectly, then the Messiah would come.
I must be a zealot. I have heard it said that zealots are a curse, and perhaps that is me. I am the one taking everything more seriously than the rest of everyone else. This is where Granddad Hamilton, Harry, left off just before he died. Maybe some people were just meant to be that way. Strangely, I find it to be a good thing that my wife takes my son Alex to church. He, the baby, needs social contacts, so that he develops social skills. I feel bad that this might cause some confusion to our household, but I guess nobody has it perfect.
A friend of mine claims to be Jewish. I assume that he is. He is not a liar. I didn’t bother to ask him if his mother is Jewish. I met him at a Christian Church. My first impression of him was over some Indian dream catchers on a children’s Sunday lesson. The church was set into uproar over it. There were the conservatives and the liberals arguing over a non religious item in church. His opinion of the church dropped just because there was this argument. That is my friend thought this was silly, and so did I.
I made my decision to leave the church, and not attend another at all. I’ve heard through the grapevine that there are several people that don’t believe that attended there. I was one of them. I attended a Christian church, but did not believe Jesus was G-d, just like my parents. My mom’s view on this might have changed though. Possibly, she has become more conservative in her Christian beliefs. However, she made it clear to me that she thought religion was a bunch of crap and that the job of pastor is a lowly position while I was living with her in my youth. Maybe, I should give her the benefit of the doubt and just say that she only reacted to my hyper-religiosity0, a symptom of my current diagnosis, bipolar. Dad says that he sees that Jesus made no personal claims to be G-d in the Gospels. Though Josh McDowell in his book, “The Evidence that Demands a Verdict,” emphatically shot this argument down, there are many intellectuals that were not convinced. Strangely, you might expect to hear these things, so liberal, of a Unitarian Church, but I was raised at an Evangelical Baptist church. I imagine few people there are actually evangelical, that is that they have actually evangelized to someone. Most people I know think evangelism is poor taste, including myself, but I admit trying on the evangelist idea at some time in my life. If the church ever became Unitarian, then I might attend as I did growing up. One of my recent blogs was a decision of mine to like the Unitarians.
There are twofold reasons why I don’t attend. The first is my own beliefs. I have moved on in my pursuit of religion from Christianity to Judaism. I have been studying Judaism for roughly ten years now. I studied Judaism with Christianity for roughly five years. That came first, and the reason I kept on with the Judaism rather than the Christianity was that I was able to tease apart the religion of Christianity first. Eventually, I teased apart a good portion of Judaism, but I see no reason to leave its study.
I wanted to start there, studies of both Judaism and Christianity because that is where my Granddad Hamilton left off. This is no easy feat, and I don’t really want my son to have to go through all of it, himself. Granddad Hamilton had only become religious in the late years of his life, studying Judaism mixed with Christianity just before he passed on. I honestly believe Granddad Hamilton would have left the faith of Christianity if G-d gave him enough time to analyze it. When he died, he was doing such things as keeping kosher. This was something totally not required from a Christian or Messianic Jewish point of view. Granddad Hamilton was still the same person though. It was just that he began to seriously study religion, and as I see it, he also began to see what he identified with.
My dad was very similar to Granddad. My dad believed in the “Old Testament” Law, but was very liberal. I was raised attending a Christian Church for the purpose of being social, not for the purpose of religion and Jesus. This leads me to the second reason why I am not attending church. I don’t want my child to go through the same confusion I went through for having parents that simply want to attend a place of belief for social reasons, but thumb their nose in secret at the exact words the pastor might say or what they sing in church.
This is where my Jewish friend at the church comes in. By the way I know that he is not the only Jew that has been there, as I once attended Christmas candlelight service there as a non-believer in Jesus with a different Jew. Attending facilitated social gatherings for Christmas time festivities of our rather non-religious household. We had sort of adopted him because he was new to the area. For me attending the Christmas service only was okay as a bean splitter because the history of Christmas really has nothing to do with Jesus. The day, Christmas, is really a borrowed pagan holiday, and it might as well be Halloween for all I am concerned from a historic point of view. But, no, this is my other friend, the one that claims to be Jewish, but I haven’t really verified it yet and for some reason that bothers me. This friend warned me not to shoot too high, as by the time I get there; I’ll be alone. He was right!
Alone is essentially where I am at now. I won’t attend a Jewish synagogue because to me it makes no sense. That is, I would have to drive a car there, and that is an infraction to the rules of Shabbat. The whole synagogue probably drives there though on Shabbat! There is a parking lot at this synagogue. I am also alone because I am self-righteous for not attending a religious gathering of Christians though I have no faith. Many would say that I am actually doing a good deed, and that you shouldn’t attend if you don’t have faith, and also have no intention of believing like a Christian. It’s different for me because I look down upon Christian faith.
At this point, I think the only reason I like Judaism is that there is a really good website, www.chabad.org where I study. If it hadn’t been for this website, then I might have a more distorted and also more perfect view of Judaism, but that would have only been for lack of study. That is correct, and what I wanted to say! This website enabled me to get past the introductory stuff that is impossible to tease apart, and into the human stuff, which is more arguable. At first, I thought Judaism was the perfect and flawless religion, but now I know better.
I want my son to study Judaism, and my wife doesn’t have a problem with that. Our family keeps kosher and observes most of the 613 commands of Judaism, so naturally my son will wonder why. I hope my son goes the extra step and goes into the mikvah to prove he is a Jew, but of course that will be his choice. My wife and I have never actually observed Shabbat in the traditional way though. She always said that the book of Genesis, in the Creation story where the idea of Shabbat arises puts forth the idea that G-d rests because He is, “Finished with the work.” For her that means humans should only rest if we are finished with the work, and there are usually dishes that need washed or something in our family. She comes home Friday nights and sees I haven’t finished the work, as usual. I never seem able to finish the work to her standards, so another Shabbat passes unobserved. As the saying goes, if only every Jew observed one Shabbat perfectly, then the Messiah would come.
I must be a zealot. I have heard it said that zealots are a curse, and perhaps that is me. I am the one taking everything more seriously than the rest of everyone else. This is where Granddad Hamilton, Harry, left off just before he died. Maybe some people were just meant to be that way. Strangely, I find it to be a good thing that my wife takes my son Alex to church. He, the baby, needs social contacts, so that he develops social skills. I feel bad that this might cause some confusion to our household, but I guess nobody has it perfect.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Justice versus Fairness
Justice versus Fairness
Everyone likes the word justice, but my guess is that few people actually understand the word. In Plato’s Republic, Socrates proved justice is not when a person gets what is his or her due. Rather, justice is a gift. When one receives his or her due, then it is not always a gift. That is justice is a positive word, only. When someone gets his or her due it is not justice, but fairness.
Fairness is actually very different from justice. In all fairness, humans might say that we as a species deserve a few genocides, as we have caused these to other species. If the world were fair, then humans would be raised in pens like chickens and slaughtered for meat, as that is what we do to them.
Justice is very different from fairness. Justice does not require these inhumane slaughters of humans in order to make up for what we have done to the planet. In justice, we can justify eating meat, but also say that cannibalism is not just.
Perhaps, the greatest difference between justice and fairness is that justice knows of a G-d. Most importantly, when one observes reality the way of things indicates that reality is just. However, reality does not have the appearance of being fair. The most important attribute of justice is that it is severe. Observe the world. It is a severe world. Observance of the severity of reality, justice, leads to ideas such as survival of the fittest. This reality humans know of is easily observable as just because it is governed by the laws of science. That is through the laws of science G-d demonstrates his sovereignty to the world though some may cry foul that this world is not fair. Yet, justice is superior to fairness.
Fairness is entirely a human construct, a product of wisdom. Fairness is something humans have attempted to instate in our dominion to the world. I would argue that fairness is in fact important to the grand scheme of humanity, and that it is not a flawed idea in itself. Both justice and fairness are good, but fairness is a lot less deeply entrenched in reason than justice.
Justice does not include the idea of punishment. Punishment is hollow. It does not rehabilitate. Observe prisons. They do not rehabilitate the people within their ranks. In fact, prisons often make people worse. Prison is a byproduct of fairness. That is, it should be seen as fair that someone should be punished for a crime that he or she commits. This is not a bad thing though, but it is just not justice, as justice is always positive. Justice does not harm, as it creates discipline. Discipline is something helpful, as something such as survival of the fittest creates a disciplined species, and in fact it is more helpful than punishment, as punishment often makes people worse. It is fair to give someone their due, to make someone worse for having made someone else worse, but these actions fall short of the positive implications justice would have to creating discipline.
In order for something to be just, it needs more than just the wisdom of fairness. Most importantly there are building blocks that make up justice, and these include not only wisdom, but actual know how, full blown intelligence subjugated to the expansion and contractions of reason.
Justice must also be preceded by mercy. The USA court system knows this. It’s called innocent before proven guilty. That is mercy should know an end, as with endless mercy there is no justice. However, it should almost be that justice creeps in when one is at the limits of mercy. That is, mercy is also beneficial, but endless mercy is not. There comes a time when mercy runs out, such that it needs discipline. Those that have the knowledge to discern these points were mercy is no longer beneficial are judges.
Judges are only as good as their results. Thus, we can judge if something was in fact just by the fruits the action of judgment yields. A good judgment should always result in temperance of the scene of the infraction in question. That is in fairness, foul may be cried. Fairness may be too harsh, as it is only wise, and not necessarily merciful. Without mercy fouls are committed, as mercy could never allow genocide though fairness may mandate it. Since true justice is never without mercy, genocide is never just.Strangely, we have record of mass extinctions in the fossil record the byproduct of a just G-d. However, by the laws of physics governing the world these mass extinctions caused less suffering to the animals than would have happened if G-d were not merciful. That is genocide is far different from mass extinction. Genocide may only occur with human intent, and it can only be seen as inhumane, but mass extinction is what it is by the physics of death where death serves to end the pain. Conversely, in genocide humans proactively create pain that is senseless and impossible to be beneficial.
Everyone likes the word justice, but my guess is that few people actually understand the word. In Plato’s Republic, Socrates proved justice is not when a person gets what is his or her due. Rather, justice is a gift. When one receives his or her due, then it is not always a gift. That is justice is a positive word, only. When someone gets his or her due it is not justice, but fairness.
Fairness is actually very different from justice. In all fairness, humans might say that we as a species deserve a few genocides, as we have caused these to other species. If the world were fair, then humans would be raised in pens like chickens and slaughtered for meat, as that is what we do to them.
Justice is very different from fairness. Justice does not require these inhumane slaughters of humans in order to make up for what we have done to the planet. In justice, we can justify eating meat, but also say that cannibalism is not just.
Perhaps, the greatest difference between justice and fairness is that justice knows of a G-d. Most importantly, when one observes reality the way of things indicates that reality is just. However, reality does not have the appearance of being fair. The most important attribute of justice is that it is severe. Observe the world. It is a severe world. Observance of the severity of reality, justice, leads to ideas such as survival of the fittest. This reality humans know of is easily observable as just because it is governed by the laws of science. That is through the laws of science G-d demonstrates his sovereignty to the world though some may cry foul that this world is not fair. Yet, justice is superior to fairness.
Fairness is entirely a human construct, a product of wisdom. Fairness is something humans have attempted to instate in our dominion to the world. I would argue that fairness is in fact important to the grand scheme of humanity, and that it is not a flawed idea in itself. Both justice and fairness are good, but fairness is a lot less deeply entrenched in reason than justice.
Justice does not include the idea of punishment. Punishment is hollow. It does not rehabilitate. Observe prisons. They do not rehabilitate the people within their ranks. In fact, prisons often make people worse. Prison is a byproduct of fairness. That is, it should be seen as fair that someone should be punished for a crime that he or she commits. This is not a bad thing though, but it is just not justice, as justice is always positive. Justice does not harm, as it creates discipline. Discipline is something helpful, as something such as survival of the fittest creates a disciplined species, and in fact it is more helpful than punishment, as punishment often makes people worse. It is fair to give someone their due, to make someone worse for having made someone else worse, but these actions fall short of the positive implications justice would have to creating discipline.
In order for something to be just, it needs more than just the wisdom of fairness. Most importantly there are building blocks that make up justice, and these include not only wisdom, but actual know how, full blown intelligence subjugated to the expansion and contractions of reason.
Justice must also be preceded by mercy. The USA court system knows this. It’s called innocent before proven guilty. That is mercy should know an end, as with endless mercy there is no justice. However, it should almost be that justice creeps in when one is at the limits of mercy. That is, mercy is also beneficial, but endless mercy is not. There comes a time when mercy runs out, such that it needs discipline. Those that have the knowledge to discern these points were mercy is no longer beneficial are judges.
Judges are only as good as their results. Thus, we can judge if something was in fact just by the fruits the action of judgment yields. A good judgment should always result in temperance of the scene of the infraction in question. That is in fairness, foul may be cried. Fairness may be too harsh, as it is only wise, and not necessarily merciful. Without mercy fouls are committed, as mercy could never allow genocide though fairness may mandate it. Since true justice is never without mercy, genocide is never just.Strangely, we have record of mass extinctions in the fossil record the byproduct of a just G-d. However, by the laws of physics governing the world these mass extinctions caused less suffering to the animals than would have happened if G-d were not merciful. That is genocide is far different from mass extinction. Genocide may only occur with human intent, and it can only be seen as inhumane, but mass extinction is what it is by the physics of death where death serves to end the pain. Conversely, in genocide humans proactively create pain that is senseless and impossible to be beneficial.
Autism Spectrum and Mainstream Schooling
Autism Spectrum and Mainstream Schooling
This is in the first person because I had an autism spectrum disorder. Mine happened to majorly clear up with a gluten free and casein free diet. By now most parents of autistic children are aware of this diet. Many people say the diet is a crock, but really it works for some kids and it doesn’t work for others.
My gluten free and casein free diet became recommended to me by a urine test. However, many children may have had this test and been told that this diet will work for them when it won’t. This is because the test was found to return too many positives, but that old standard was simply changed. So, I can understand some people will get angry at some of the things above, but these I feel are more like frustrations of personal experience. Yet, understand me that not every case of autism is alike. I was high functioning, having a 120 IQ. However, my auditory comprehension scored on the level of an actual retard. There were other areas such as coding and short term memory where I lagged behind too. Perhaps, retard isn’t the proper word, but you know what I mean.
The first sign I know of that I had autism was back when I was a baby, but only because my mom told me. I received a vaccination and stopped talking for a year. Perhaps, something happened then to cause this. Perhaps, the vaccination timing happened to be a coincidence. However, I do not remember back that far. What I do remember was kindergarten, so I will speak of my own memories from now on and not my moms. Besides my mom is more inclined to lying than me. I rarely know if I get a truthful answer from her. I take everything she says with a grain of salt, and only listen to facts that I can check with a more reliable source. Having autism, I have also been known to have my own psychotic distortions. These really aren’t attempts to lie, but false information has been known to leak from my mouth by accident.
I’ll start with kindergarten for schooling. Most importantly, the public school teacher wanted me to be held back, but I was very intelligent. Usually, intelligent children are the ones to progress to first grade, but I wasn’t ready. I remember crying a lot during this period of time and experiencing a lot of fear. I was not ready like the other children. Something was wrong with me, and the teacher recognized this and wanted me to repeat the year. Instead, my mom very proactively sent me to a Montessori school.
If you aren’t familiar with Montessori schools, they tend to be small and offer lots of individual attention. This is what I needed. I learned very well with all that attention. There were also minimal situations where I was fearful or cried. I felt comfortable there. It was an excellent place to learn because every student gets the individual care he or she needs, but it is not special education. So, I was very fortunate to reenter public school at a time when I was ready for it, and my mom decided that was fourth grade. The name Montessori comes from its founder, Maria Montessori.
I attended fourth grade as part of an accelerated part of the public school. I was very intelligent, having a 120 IQ even with many deficiencies associable with autism. Sometimes people with 120 IQs do go on to get doctoral degrees. So the fact that I had autism meant I had to spend more time studying than most people, but once I learned something, I generally mastered it a lot better than most. This is why it is autism spectrum disorder. There is a whole spectrum of it. It does not necessarily mean stupidity. There has even been an autistic professor at college. Despite having high intelligence, I did have some problems. For example, one of my sixth grade teachers referred to me as, “The boy who couldn’t follow directions.” It was true, so I didn’t get angry. I had retardation level auditory comprehension skills measured by a professional, and this meant that I didn’t even understand the words or directions coming out of the teacher’s mouth. Most of my learning and study was done at home through reading the textbooks we had. Many people can’t do such a thing, but autism didn’t affect my ability to comprehend what I read. On the IQ test for reading comprehension, I scored none wrong, 95th percentile. I was also good at figuring things out on my own, scoring perfectly on the IQ block assembly test, as well. This essentially meant I had the ability to absorb and put things together on my own, and did not really benefit from having a teacher that I couldn’t understand the words coming out of his or her mouth. They simply came too fast. I would have had to have been talked to like a retarded person to understand the teacher.
This pattern held true in college. Classes were worthless. I learned everything at home, reading and doing homework. I remember one of the young ladies at college commenting that she was amazed at just how much I studied, but by now things were really competitive, and my marks weren’t very good. Around about my junior year of college I got the gluten free and casein free diet, but that wasn’t until I once dropped a lot of weight, and was unable to bathe and take care of myself. At home for schooling, mom had always cared for me, but when I was left to my own, even with exceptional discipline, I was unable to care for myself because of the autism.
This is in the first person because I had an autism spectrum disorder. Mine happened to majorly clear up with a gluten free and casein free diet. By now most parents of autistic children are aware of this diet. Many people say the diet is a crock, but really it works for some kids and it doesn’t work for others.
My gluten free and casein free diet became recommended to me by a urine test. However, many children may have had this test and been told that this diet will work for them when it won’t. This is because the test was found to return too many positives, but that old standard was simply changed. So, I can understand some people will get angry at some of the things above, but these I feel are more like frustrations of personal experience. Yet, understand me that not every case of autism is alike. I was high functioning, having a 120 IQ. However, my auditory comprehension scored on the level of an actual retard. There were other areas such as coding and short term memory where I lagged behind too. Perhaps, retard isn’t the proper word, but you know what I mean.
The first sign I know of that I had autism was back when I was a baby, but only because my mom told me. I received a vaccination and stopped talking for a year. Perhaps, something happened then to cause this. Perhaps, the vaccination timing happened to be a coincidence. However, I do not remember back that far. What I do remember was kindergarten, so I will speak of my own memories from now on and not my moms. Besides my mom is more inclined to lying than me. I rarely know if I get a truthful answer from her. I take everything she says with a grain of salt, and only listen to facts that I can check with a more reliable source. Having autism, I have also been known to have my own psychotic distortions. These really aren’t attempts to lie, but false information has been known to leak from my mouth by accident.
I’ll start with kindergarten for schooling. Most importantly, the public school teacher wanted me to be held back, but I was very intelligent. Usually, intelligent children are the ones to progress to first grade, but I wasn’t ready. I remember crying a lot during this period of time and experiencing a lot of fear. I was not ready like the other children. Something was wrong with me, and the teacher recognized this and wanted me to repeat the year. Instead, my mom very proactively sent me to a Montessori school.
If you aren’t familiar with Montessori schools, they tend to be small and offer lots of individual attention. This is what I needed. I learned very well with all that attention. There were also minimal situations where I was fearful or cried. I felt comfortable there. It was an excellent place to learn because every student gets the individual care he or she needs, but it is not special education. So, I was very fortunate to reenter public school at a time when I was ready for it, and my mom decided that was fourth grade. The name Montessori comes from its founder, Maria Montessori.
I attended fourth grade as part of an accelerated part of the public school. I was very intelligent, having a 120 IQ even with many deficiencies associable with autism. Sometimes people with 120 IQs do go on to get doctoral degrees. So the fact that I had autism meant I had to spend more time studying than most people, but once I learned something, I generally mastered it a lot better than most. This is why it is autism spectrum disorder. There is a whole spectrum of it. It does not necessarily mean stupidity. There has even been an autistic professor at college. Despite having high intelligence, I did have some problems. For example, one of my sixth grade teachers referred to me as, “The boy who couldn’t follow directions.” It was true, so I didn’t get angry. I had retardation level auditory comprehension skills measured by a professional, and this meant that I didn’t even understand the words or directions coming out of the teacher’s mouth. Most of my learning and study was done at home through reading the textbooks we had. Many people can’t do such a thing, but autism didn’t affect my ability to comprehend what I read. On the IQ test for reading comprehension, I scored none wrong, 95th percentile. I was also good at figuring things out on my own, scoring perfectly on the IQ block assembly test, as well. This essentially meant I had the ability to absorb and put things together on my own, and did not really benefit from having a teacher that I couldn’t understand the words coming out of his or her mouth. They simply came too fast. I would have had to have been talked to like a retarded person to understand the teacher.
This pattern held true in college. Classes were worthless. I learned everything at home, reading and doing homework. I remember one of the young ladies at college commenting that she was amazed at just how much I studied, but by now things were really competitive, and my marks weren’t very good. Around about my junior year of college I got the gluten free and casein free diet, but that wasn’t until I once dropped a lot of weight, and was unable to bathe and take care of myself. At home for schooling, mom had always cared for me, but when I was left to my own, even with exceptional discipline, I was unable to care for myself because of the autism.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
A Mostly Theoretical History of How the “Who Is a Jew?” Argument Became
A Mostly Theoretical History of How the “Who Is a Jew?” Argument Became
Jews today don’t know much about their ancestors. It’s not for lack of study though. All that is known to the family trees of Judaism has been lost to the tribe. What is known from the DNA is that most Jews descend from four different women. Right there, it is seen that Jews do not know if they descend from Judah, the son of biblical Jacob. Descended of a woman and a title of Jewish theoretically shouldn’t mix.
Okay, let’s get the words straight. I said Jews, and yet I write about how I am a Jew, more accurately quasi-Jewish. I know of no ancestral mother of mine that belongs specifically to the group of people commonly known as Jews. What I have done is to look at the ancestral charts and determine that if the Bible is true, then the European nobility and American Presidents are from the tribe of Judah. Judah was supposed to have the scepter, according to Genesis, and that means it was to be a tribe of rulers. These people are my relatives, so I say I am quasi-Jewish.
Huh? Why not be a pirate with the word Jew, and steal it all for myself. The word Jew comes from the word Judah though there is no J in Hebrew. My ancestors lost the Hebrew, so I’ll give the status of full Jewish to the people commonly known as Jews, and I’ll settle for quasi-Jewish. I doubt anyone will ever actually call me that though! There is something to be said for letting a bean slip here or there in counting, regarding the use of the word Jew. In the Talmud, a virtually endless bean counting commentary on the Jewish Bible, the Talmud itself sometimes settles disputes saying, “For heavens sake.” I’ll remember that one bean though, and say I let it go for heavens sake. Most people that call the British monarchy Jews are British Israelists, and they are a minority compared to the minority of Jews that most people know of as Jews. I’ll go with the majority there and forget the root meaning of the word Jew, where I would be likely called a Jew and Rabbis would be called quasi. Really, it is arbitrary who is a Jew. That word, Jew, can essentially be obliterated with reason. It is better to answer that question with whoever calls themselves a Jew is a Jew.
Possibly only a handful of the Jews actually don’t descend from converts. I say this because traditionally Judaism is conferred by matrilineal inheritance. According to Judaism, a female is Jewish simply because her mother is Jewish, but if the father is Jewish and intermarried, he doesn’t have Jewish offspring. This means Jews have lost their males over the years, and possibly for good reason. Possibly, this branch of Judaism had male converts, and their sincerity was questioned. Historically the Bible, the Jewish Bible, knows of no male converts. The story of Ruth in the Bible is about a woman convert.
Tribal identity is associable with male inheritance, but nobody knows what tribe of Israel they are from with any accuracy today. The information just simply isn’t available. Likewise, the Cohen to Levite ratio is outrageous. Though there are guidelines that generally accept this tribe and its families as legitimate by the standards of the oral tradition of the Mishnah, but it is likely that many errors are made in doing so. This is okay by me. I am in favor of leniency. Should there be a third Temple where Cohenim become very important again, I am not super concerned with this birthright and its importance for Temple positions. However, there should be far fewer Cohenim by the Bible than Levites, as the Cohenim are but one family of this Israelite tribe, but instead there are far greater numbers of them, and none of them can produce a reliable ancestry.
Another guess of mine is that initially male conversion was highly questionable. It was automatically assumed that if you were from the tribe of Judah, that Judah was your paternal ancestor. Consequently, in order to maintain tribal identity it became more important that the mother was sincere.
Judaism has long recognized that few converts actually take to the religion. Historically, it is likely that Jews may have only had for convert women in the entire history of Judaism that were sincere, including Sarah! That is Abraham is the first Jew, and his wife Sarah was the first convert. Really, the Bible says it was Abraham that founded the nation, so it should be highly questionable whether or not any male other than a descendent of Abraham can actually be Jewish. This might have changed with R. Hillel (~500 BCE) or with times of more liberal doctrine, such that males were allowed to convert.
Ruth could have been allowed to be a ger, a convert, because there was no tribal inheritance with her. However, the male descendents of Israel all had a male inheritance. The early ancestries seem to infer that the nation of Abraham was only continued by the son Isaac, not Ishmaelites for the purpose of religion. The same is true for Jacob, the father of the Israelite tribes, but not for his brother Esau, a rather despicable person whose descendents are to perish when the Jewish messiah or moshiach comes. Thus, it is easy to find a place for a female convert among the Israelites, as there need not be an inheritance associated with her in the Bible, as that was a male thing. That is there was no room for male converts. A convert male would have no place among the Israelites for lack of inheritance by the Torah.
Despite this, times have been very different for at least the group of people called the Jews. They have gone through several exiles, and have been bullied by many other nations historically. This may have been because the male tribal identity had become so strong that only maternal inheritance was acceptable to keep down the male population. This works great for polygamy. However, in neglecting male inheritance, and liberal acceptance of male converts, possibly all the original males married out, such that tribal inheritance became completely lost in times of exile. This might explain why the Jews, as we know them today are said to have descended from four women. My guess is that these women are Sarah, Rebecca, Laban’s wife, and Ruth. I say Laban’s wife because Rachel and Leah are said to be sisters, and would have one mother. Other women such as Keturah, Bilhah, and Zilpah were probably lost through the years. Maybe, with some lenience they will return. Surprisingly, all this is great for genetic diversity, which is something the nobility and the Jews seem to lack!
Jews today don’t know much about their ancestors. It’s not for lack of study though. All that is known to the family trees of Judaism has been lost to the tribe. What is known from the DNA is that most Jews descend from four different women. Right there, it is seen that Jews do not know if they descend from Judah, the son of biblical Jacob. Descended of a woman and a title of Jewish theoretically shouldn’t mix.
Okay, let’s get the words straight. I said Jews, and yet I write about how I am a Jew, more accurately quasi-Jewish. I know of no ancestral mother of mine that belongs specifically to the group of people commonly known as Jews. What I have done is to look at the ancestral charts and determine that if the Bible is true, then the European nobility and American Presidents are from the tribe of Judah. Judah was supposed to have the scepter, according to Genesis, and that means it was to be a tribe of rulers. These people are my relatives, so I say I am quasi-Jewish.
Huh? Why not be a pirate with the word Jew, and steal it all for myself. The word Jew comes from the word Judah though there is no J in Hebrew. My ancestors lost the Hebrew, so I’ll give the status of full Jewish to the people commonly known as Jews, and I’ll settle for quasi-Jewish. I doubt anyone will ever actually call me that though! There is something to be said for letting a bean slip here or there in counting, regarding the use of the word Jew. In the Talmud, a virtually endless bean counting commentary on the Jewish Bible, the Talmud itself sometimes settles disputes saying, “For heavens sake.” I’ll remember that one bean though, and say I let it go for heavens sake. Most people that call the British monarchy Jews are British Israelists, and they are a minority compared to the minority of Jews that most people know of as Jews. I’ll go with the majority there and forget the root meaning of the word Jew, where I would be likely called a Jew and Rabbis would be called quasi. Really, it is arbitrary who is a Jew. That word, Jew, can essentially be obliterated with reason. It is better to answer that question with whoever calls themselves a Jew is a Jew.
Possibly only a handful of the Jews actually don’t descend from converts. I say this because traditionally Judaism is conferred by matrilineal inheritance. According to Judaism, a female is Jewish simply because her mother is Jewish, but if the father is Jewish and intermarried, he doesn’t have Jewish offspring. This means Jews have lost their males over the years, and possibly for good reason. Possibly, this branch of Judaism had male converts, and their sincerity was questioned. Historically the Bible, the Jewish Bible, knows of no male converts. The story of Ruth in the Bible is about a woman convert.
Tribal identity is associable with male inheritance, but nobody knows what tribe of Israel they are from with any accuracy today. The information just simply isn’t available. Likewise, the Cohen to Levite ratio is outrageous. Though there are guidelines that generally accept this tribe and its families as legitimate by the standards of the oral tradition of the Mishnah, but it is likely that many errors are made in doing so. This is okay by me. I am in favor of leniency. Should there be a third Temple where Cohenim become very important again, I am not super concerned with this birthright and its importance for Temple positions. However, there should be far fewer Cohenim by the Bible than Levites, as the Cohenim are but one family of this Israelite tribe, but instead there are far greater numbers of them, and none of them can produce a reliable ancestry.
Another guess of mine is that initially male conversion was highly questionable. It was automatically assumed that if you were from the tribe of Judah, that Judah was your paternal ancestor. Consequently, in order to maintain tribal identity it became more important that the mother was sincere.
Judaism has long recognized that few converts actually take to the religion. Historically, it is likely that Jews may have only had for convert women in the entire history of Judaism that were sincere, including Sarah! That is Abraham is the first Jew, and his wife Sarah was the first convert. Really, the Bible says it was Abraham that founded the nation, so it should be highly questionable whether or not any male other than a descendent of Abraham can actually be Jewish. This might have changed with R. Hillel (~500 BCE) or with times of more liberal doctrine, such that males were allowed to convert.
Ruth could have been allowed to be a ger, a convert, because there was no tribal inheritance with her. However, the male descendents of Israel all had a male inheritance. The early ancestries seem to infer that the nation of Abraham was only continued by the son Isaac, not Ishmaelites for the purpose of religion. The same is true for Jacob, the father of the Israelite tribes, but not for his brother Esau, a rather despicable person whose descendents are to perish when the Jewish messiah or moshiach comes. Thus, it is easy to find a place for a female convert among the Israelites, as there need not be an inheritance associated with her in the Bible, as that was a male thing. That is there was no room for male converts. A convert male would have no place among the Israelites for lack of inheritance by the Torah.
Despite this, times have been very different for at least the group of people called the Jews. They have gone through several exiles, and have been bullied by many other nations historically. This may have been because the male tribal identity had become so strong that only maternal inheritance was acceptable to keep down the male population. This works great for polygamy. However, in neglecting male inheritance, and liberal acceptance of male converts, possibly all the original males married out, such that tribal inheritance became completely lost in times of exile. This might explain why the Jews, as we know them today are said to have descended from four women. My guess is that these women are Sarah, Rebecca, Laban’s wife, and Ruth. I say Laban’s wife because Rachel and Leah are said to be sisters, and would have one mother. Other women such as Keturah, Bilhah, and Zilpah were probably lost through the years. Maybe, with some lenience they will return. Surprisingly, all this is great for genetic diversity, which is something the nobility and the Jews seem to lack!
Inconsistencies: Understanding Christians and Biblical Law
Inconsistencies: Understanding Christians and Biblical Law
It is realistic to say that many Christians actually support only some parts of Bible, while saying that they support all of it. Though there are lies in the Bible, both the Jewish and Christian Bibles that is not to say that these people intend to lie in their claim of support for these sacred texts. Christians argue over the Old Testament, but all believe some parts of it were good. The ideas of Bibles are not reflected in the language of the followers of what is written in the Bibles.
Galatians says, “There is neither Jew nor gentile in Christ Jesus.” If you ask me that verse is a load of crap because the “Old Testment” describes a Jewish uniform, tefillin, that no Christian I have ever seen wears or defends wearing. Those Christians would pick and choose saying “That is only Old Testment,” but there is nothing in the New Testment saying that it is not a Christian obligation by the nullifications of Jewish Law Christianity has in its New Testament. That saying means, those ways are null and void, in other words, only for Jews. Ha! You just disproved your verse, “Neither Jew nor gentile,” as the sacred texts of Christianity recognize Jews that are under the Law by choice. No Christian can provide me, a Jewish thinker an explanation why they are null and void.
There are nullifications of some Jewish Laws in the New Testament. The going wisdom is that some of these are cultural, and some stand for all time. These nullifications are primarily in the book of Acts, and they were introduced to make it easier for gentile converts to Christianity. However, these laws don’t begin to explain the beginning of the amount of Laws of the Old Testament Christians one way or another deny, such as Jubilee or wearing a Jewish uniform.
Most every Christian I know of wants more Laws accepted than just the laws of Noah that the Jews recognize, all the while saying the ever popular “You can’t pick and choose” with the Bible. I don’t believe it is appropriate to point out the untruths of the New Testament here because that idea of the Bible, each religions respective copy, being truth is something both Jews and Christians would eagerly and incorrectly defend in naïve sincerity and fairness. Naivety is easily forgivable.
Christians support that lying and certain forms of cruelty to animals are sins, and those are “Old Testment” Laws. The Laws of Noah (gentile law) don’t include these Jewish laws though, but Christians would be quick to say that the Bible supports them, a contradiction to the common denial of Jewish Laws, such as “Don’t round the corners of your beard.”
I’ve never met one Christian that takes that Law seriously and I’ve attended a Christian College. Not one person there had a beard! Not one person there wore a Jewish uniform. There was no doctrine even supporting these actions. Yet, these are Laws Judaism still holds to dearly in its doctrine. That is Christians picking and choosing right there! There is no way around it! These are the literalists that deny evolution, and also hypocritically have no beard. Don’t even talk to me if you don’t have a beard and trumpet creation science! Only an idiot could do that!
My guess is that the Celtic peoples are the nation of Abraham, some of which received the Torah from Moses, and some of which didn’t, so if you read an earlier blog that seems contrary that was just me blowing smoke in the face of conservative Christians, and it is not necessarily what I believe. I have also written on the Celts as Jews in other blogs too, not yet this month though! That is I, myself, don’t like the idea of relegating people to just gentile law or just Jewish law, and though this seems rather Christian, along the lines of the verse I mentioned earlier in Galatians, I, especially don’t like the lines of heaven and hell Christians relegate to believers and nonbelievers. Those distinctions are worse than the bigotry of the Jew and gentile divide in Law. The point of the bigotry toward fundamentalists was to elucidate an inherent inconsistency in preaching common conservative views, such as that Celtic people descend from gentiles and the ignored consequences of gentile descent by literal translation of the “Old Testament” by conservative and fundamentalist preachers.
If you look in the Bible hard enough, there is a verse that can support just about anything. This makes arguing with believers hard, as you can tie them in a pretzel with their beliefs, but they aren’t intelligent enough to either realize it or see a way out of the knot, so they don’t change and later forget the entire argument. The way out of the pretzel is to not take the Bible literally and to think consistently, easily said but difficult to do.
It is realistic to say that many Christians actually support only some parts of Bible, while saying that they support all of it. Though there are lies in the Bible, both the Jewish and Christian Bibles that is not to say that these people intend to lie in their claim of support for these sacred texts. Christians argue over the Old Testament, but all believe some parts of it were good. The ideas of Bibles are not reflected in the language of the followers of what is written in the Bibles.
Galatians says, “There is neither Jew nor gentile in Christ Jesus.” If you ask me that verse is a load of crap because the “Old Testment” describes a Jewish uniform, tefillin, that no Christian I have ever seen wears or defends wearing. Those Christians would pick and choose saying “That is only Old Testment,” but there is nothing in the New Testment saying that it is not a Christian obligation by the nullifications of Jewish Law Christianity has in its New Testament. That saying means, those ways are null and void, in other words, only for Jews. Ha! You just disproved your verse, “Neither Jew nor gentile,” as the sacred texts of Christianity recognize Jews that are under the Law by choice. No Christian can provide me, a Jewish thinker an explanation why they are null and void.
There are nullifications of some Jewish Laws in the New Testament. The going wisdom is that some of these are cultural, and some stand for all time. These nullifications are primarily in the book of Acts, and they were introduced to make it easier for gentile converts to Christianity. However, these laws don’t begin to explain the beginning of the amount of Laws of the Old Testament Christians one way or another deny, such as Jubilee or wearing a Jewish uniform.
Most every Christian I know of wants more Laws accepted than just the laws of Noah that the Jews recognize, all the while saying the ever popular “You can’t pick and choose” with the Bible. I don’t believe it is appropriate to point out the untruths of the New Testament here because that idea of the Bible, each religions respective copy, being truth is something both Jews and Christians would eagerly and incorrectly defend in naïve sincerity and fairness. Naivety is easily forgivable.
Christians support that lying and certain forms of cruelty to animals are sins, and those are “Old Testment” Laws. The Laws of Noah (gentile law) don’t include these Jewish laws though, but Christians would be quick to say that the Bible supports them, a contradiction to the common denial of Jewish Laws, such as “Don’t round the corners of your beard.”
I’ve never met one Christian that takes that Law seriously and I’ve attended a Christian College. Not one person there had a beard! Not one person there wore a Jewish uniform. There was no doctrine even supporting these actions. Yet, these are Laws Judaism still holds to dearly in its doctrine. That is Christians picking and choosing right there! There is no way around it! These are the literalists that deny evolution, and also hypocritically have no beard. Don’t even talk to me if you don’t have a beard and trumpet creation science! Only an idiot could do that!
My guess is that the Celtic peoples are the nation of Abraham, some of which received the Torah from Moses, and some of which didn’t, so if you read an earlier blog that seems contrary that was just me blowing smoke in the face of conservative Christians, and it is not necessarily what I believe. I have also written on the Celts as Jews in other blogs too, not yet this month though! That is I, myself, don’t like the idea of relegating people to just gentile law or just Jewish law, and though this seems rather Christian, along the lines of the verse I mentioned earlier in Galatians, I, especially don’t like the lines of heaven and hell Christians relegate to believers and nonbelievers. Those distinctions are worse than the bigotry of the Jew and gentile divide in Law. The point of the bigotry toward fundamentalists was to elucidate an inherent inconsistency in preaching common conservative views, such as that Celtic people descend from gentiles and the ignored consequences of gentile descent by literal translation of the “Old Testament” by conservative and fundamentalist preachers.
If you look in the Bible hard enough, there is a verse that can support just about anything. This makes arguing with believers hard, as you can tie them in a pretzel with their beliefs, but they aren’t intelligent enough to either realize it or see a way out of the knot, so they don’t change and later forget the entire argument. The way out of the pretzel is to not take the Bible literally and to think consistently, easily said but difficult to do.
Failed Capitalism of the USA: Supply and Demand Ignored
Failed Capitalism of the USA: Supply and Demand Ignored
Supply and demand is one of the most important principles which are supposed to regulate prices under capitalism. Supply and demand is the idea that prices should fall if there is a great supply with less demand. Conversely, it is also the idea that prices should increase if there is a small supply and a greater demand.
Maybe, the problem is that in the USA money is only credit based on nothing. That is, when one shows up to make a purchase, he or she is not necessarily giving anything of any value. There is no reason why a quarter should be worth less than a dollar. There is no reason a dollar should be worth more than a dime. This is flawed currency. There is no reason for the decimal point in the money system either.
One problem with supply and demand in the USA is that it has come to mean people, and not goods. This is a disaster of dehumanization, something people have suffered since the beginning of time. That is there are plenty of people, so people can be laid off. The person working at the top of company ladders often has an outrageously huge salary, and has made up his mind not to share it so that people at the bottom of the ladder can be laid off if there are not as many buyers.
When there are plenty of people, it is not an excuse to treat people as supply! The same is true of animals. Supply is goods only. Supply and demand should not infer an ethic to living creatures, especially of it creates the idea that less obligation to ethical behavior is a possibility should there be many people.
When I walk through the average megastore, what I see is endless goods. That is I see virtually endless supply. Surely the store is not selling to capacity what it could possibly sell if it lowered prices and raised wages. Yes, the money to do such a thing has to come from somewhere, and it means that someone has to part with his or her money. When people don’t part with their money and they don’t part with their goods, there is a terrible situation of depravity. It is what Marx called, the haves and the have not’s. In this situation, the police merely function to protect laws that support the rich. The police are as a militia defending the inhumane abuses that people in power and out of touch with empathy for commoners give through not sharing.
See, these goods in these stores are the supply. It is endless, but the prices have not fallen. Companies become ever more cut throat, while the ones at the top of the chain stagnate. The companies at the top need not operate at capacity, having billions of dollars for financial cushions. The CEO of the leading brand needs not alter the amount of money he has, so it’s however much he can get. The stores fill up with goods, stocked, and the workers are no longer needed, eventually laid off.
It’s unbelievable to listen to the rich complain in a stagnated economy. They say, people aren’t buying, but the people are broke! The fact is that the rich can’t put themselves in other people’s shoes. The rich can’t see what it is like living a double life as a poor person, such that they have some empathy. The rich, out of touch, can’t see that money doesn’t grow on trees for common people, like it always has for them. All they see is more, and try to pass off they are a good person by donating to the arts or something. The average Joe, though he is probably less competent needs to be able to get his share and this requires that prices come down when there is a lot of supply. Stores need not be full! These megastores can take a hit for the sake of equipping people with the goods that they need.
Look at the surplus, it is everywhere. All that needs to happen is for people to share! There is no reason for the government or its people to be in debt. If a nation has enough to go around, then it should go around. When are the Scrooges of the USA in all their wealth going to help out the Tiny Tims? Supply and demand has become a theory, just like socialism, it works well on paper, but not in practice.
What of the people claiming to believe the Bible that don’t support having a year of Jubilee? Yes, this is the way out of the debt, simply forgive! Every ethicist has taught it since the beginning, and yet humans still don’t learn! The USA should just forgive its debts every seven years! The people would be a lot happier for it. I remember mentioning this year of Jubilee to people, but nobody thought it was a good idea. These are the same people that claim to love the Old Testament Laws of Moses. It just goes to show that if the preachers aren’t preaching it, then the people don’t open it up and read it themselves.
Look at history, and you will see that the greatest injustices come to ignorant societies. As far as I can tell, the USA is ignorant. Yes, Jubilee is a Jewish Law, but I believe many people are essentially Jewish converts in all but word. There is no Jubilee for nations other than Abraham’s, but that is a crock! Both Jews and gentiles pick and choose in their Bibles, and the year of Jubilee is a good one to choose. My guess is that the Celtic peoples are the Jews anyway, so if you read an earlier blog and think different that was just me blowing smoke in the face of conservative Christians, and it is not necessarily what I believe. The point of that was to elucidate an inherent inconsistency in preaching common conservative views, such as that Celtic people descend from gentiles and the ignored consequences of gentile descent by literal translation of the “Old Testament” by conservative and fundamentalist preachers.
Supply and demand is one of the most important principles which are supposed to regulate prices under capitalism. Supply and demand is the idea that prices should fall if there is a great supply with less demand. Conversely, it is also the idea that prices should increase if there is a small supply and a greater demand.
Maybe, the problem is that in the USA money is only credit based on nothing. That is, when one shows up to make a purchase, he or she is not necessarily giving anything of any value. There is no reason why a quarter should be worth less than a dollar. There is no reason a dollar should be worth more than a dime. This is flawed currency. There is no reason for the decimal point in the money system either.
One problem with supply and demand in the USA is that it has come to mean people, and not goods. This is a disaster of dehumanization, something people have suffered since the beginning of time. That is there are plenty of people, so people can be laid off. The person working at the top of company ladders often has an outrageously huge salary, and has made up his mind not to share it so that people at the bottom of the ladder can be laid off if there are not as many buyers.
When there are plenty of people, it is not an excuse to treat people as supply! The same is true of animals. Supply is goods only. Supply and demand should not infer an ethic to living creatures, especially of it creates the idea that less obligation to ethical behavior is a possibility should there be many people.
When I walk through the average megastore, what I see is endless goods. That is I see virtually endless supply. Surely the store is not selling to capacity what it could possibly sell if it lowered prices and raised wages. Yes, the money to do such a thing has to come from somewhere, and it means that someone has to part with his or her money. When people don’t part with their money and they don’t part with their goods, there is a terrible situation of depravity. It is what Marx called, the haves and the have not’s. In this situation, the police merely function to protect laws that support the rich. The police are as a militia defending the inhumane abuses that people in power and out of touch with empathy for commoners give through not sharing.
See, these goods in these stores are the supply. It is endless, but the prices have not fallen. Companies become ever more cut throat, while the ones at the top of the chain stagnate. The companies at the top need not operate at capacity, having billions of dollars for financial cushions. The CEO of the leading brand needs not alter the amount of money he has, so it’s however much he can get. The stores fill up with goods, stocked, and the workers are no longer needed, eventually laid off.
It’s unbelievable to listen to the rich complain in a stagnated economy. They say, people aren’t buying, but the people are broke! The fact is that the rich can’t put themselves in other people’s shoes. The rich can’t see what it is like living a double life as a poor person, such that they have some empathy. The rich, out of touch, can’t see that money doesn’t grow on trees for common people, like it always has for them. All they see is more, and try to pass off they are a good person by donating to the arts or something. The average Joe, though he is probably less competent needs to be able to get his share and this requires that prices come down when there is a lot of supply. Stores need not be full! These megastores can take a hit for the sake of equipping people with the goods that they need.
Look at the surplus, it is everywhere. All that needs to happen is for people to share! There is no reason for the government or its people to be in debt. If a nation has enough to go around, then it should go around. When are the Scrooges of the USA in all their wealth going to help out the Tiny Tims? Supply and demand has become a theory, just like socialism, it works well on paper, but not in practice.
What of the people claiming to believe the Bible that don’t support having a year of Jubilee? Yes, this is the way out of the debt, simply forgive! Every ethicist has taught it since the beginning, and yet humans still don’t learn! The USA should just forgive its debts every seven years! The people would be a lot happier for it. I remember mentioning this year of Jubilee to people, but nobody thought it was a good idea. These are the same people that claim to love the Old Testament Laws of Moses. It just goes to show that if the preachers aren’t preaching it, then the people don’t open it up and read it themselves.
Look at history, and you will see that the greatest injustices come to ignorant societies. As far as I can tell, the USA is ignorant. Yes, Jubilee is a Jewish Law, but I believe many people are essentially Jewish converts in all but word. There is no Jubilee for nations other than Abraham’s, but that is a crock! Both Jews and gentiles pick and choose in their Bibles, and the year of Jubilee is a good one to choose. My guess is that the Celtic peoples are the Jews anyway, so if you read an earlier blog and think different that was just me blowing smoke in the face of conservative Christians, and it is not necessarily what I believe. The point of that was to elucidate an inherent inconsistency in preaching common conservative views, such as that Celtic people descend from gentiles and the ignored consequences of gentile descent by literal translation of the “Old Testament” by conservative and fundamentalist preachers.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Thoughts on Liberal Minutia – Freedom to Think Like a Bean Counter
Thoughts on Liberal Minutia – Freedom to Think Like a Bean Counter
Conservative thinking is what it is. It isn’t really thinking at all. Rather, it is a way of coping with life. It can even be idealistic when life doesn’t seem all that conservative. It doesn’t take a genius to be a conservative. It is a simple way of doing. It doesn’t pay attention to whether or not something makes sense. It is riddled with contradictions. The answer is, of course it makes sense, it is what it is and there is no argument that could prove conservative thought wrong.
Thinking is a thing that humans do inside themselves. Sometimes it is constrained, but not always. If a person has no other freedom, then at least he or she has his or her mind to be free inside. This might be why the Orwellian idea of thought crime is so powerful. Jesus also conceived of the idea of thought crime. If a person can’t be free inside his or her own head, when can he or she be free? Conservatives tend to believe that conservatives are more morally correct, and as a result being conservative and religion go hand in hand.
Liberals usually attend church, or at least believe in God, like conservatives. However, conservatives tend to rely on a preacher or authority figure for ideas on what they should believe. If a preacher says, “This is what the Bible says,” then conservatives will say, “If the Bible says it, then I believe it.” Really, what most conservatives believe is not actually the Bible, but what the preacher says is in the Bible. Usually, preachers get ideas about what the Bible says from people with “big names.” Common thought is usually much more important than accuracy. That is not to say that all liberals like to be accurate. Many liberals rebel against accuracy. Some count every bean, like me.
Here this divergence in liberal thinking is very important. Some liberals simply want to rebel against accuracy. Usually, this type is merely the opposite of a conservative. I don’t really care much for these types. Other liberals are intellectuals, and get a kick out of making everything really complicated. I get a kick out of making everything really complicated. However, it saddens me that not all share with this way of thinking. It’s not that I intend to leave people out, yet it is addictive to try to perfect ones way of thinking.
In my world, there is a lifetime to study. There is a lifetime to improve on ideals. There is a lifetime to become the best person I can be in deed. I need not take the conservative quick route by letting someone else do the thinking for me. I am competent. In the thirty years of my life, I have constantly been improving my ideas. This means walking through some mental gateways that are bad decisions.
That is, if one is the captain of his or her own ship, then he or she is bound to make mistakes. Conservatives don’t back up and change their mind. For example, conservatives go to church. If all the churches are bad, then they still go to church. If the ship is sinking, then they sink with it. I, however, hop off any mental ship that is sinking and swim for shore. Conservative ways offers protection. It is a way tried and true. Being liberal generally offers no protection, so socialist liberals come up with ways to protect, such as social security. That is another can of worms. I won’t open it now.
I will say that I have no problem with social security though. It may be a big part of the national debt, but the last time I looked at the shelves of any store, there was plenty to go around. Enough to go around to me means that there is a problem if a nation doesn’t all have some. Aside from that, I accompany my liberal thinking with a liberal or anarchist ideal for government. I equate capitalism with big government, as big businesses need law enforcement to keep people from stealing. That is, if you get rid of the government, then the goods will really go around, as there will be no law or more importantly, law enforcement to stop that from happening. Anarchy is really the simplest way of life, as without government there can be no modernity, such as cell phones and television, which I see as things that take away from the family more than they add to it. There should be no need for these things to go around, but I don’t see them as evil, such that they need to be destroyed.
The leftist Amish are proof that leftists can have family values. As far as I know it, the Amish don’t pay attention to electing Presidents, but this group has a greater sense of family than conservatives high on the big business of capitalism. So there you have it, leftist can be associated with a strong sense of family. However, I am in favor of letting children run wild with minimalist behavior adjustments, rather than the totalitarian parentage of the Amish. That is, as a liberal and a right winger for government, I simply want the right to be a bean counting thinker, but I don’t expect other people to do the same. To each: his or her own. I am not into being the pilot of other people’s ships.
Minorities will gather round those that gain prominence in liberal thought. Liberal bean counters tend to be inclusive. That is, to a liberal that is willing to consider everything for the sake of accuracy, the bean counters, there are minorities to be considered. The true liberal thinkers are very few. Most people vote merely as followers. Most of these followers would call me a mixed bag, as I am a liberal with anarchist and libertarian values. For example, I don’t pay attention to actually supporting gay rights though I believe in them. I’ll write for fun about it, but beyond that sexuality is something entirely personal. If gay people don’t trumpet it, then there never was a problem, except for people in the spotlight, but usually that’s often because somebody else thought it was important to think about what somebody was doing behind closed doors without hurting anybody or animal.
Anarchy is okay, but if there is a government I don’t see any reason to overturn it, as this would result in instability. It wouldn’t really be humane for the greatest amount of people. Being humane is important to me. Anarchy is not necessarily humane. In fact, most anarchies have been inhumane, such that inhumane pops into mind to the common Joe. I look at my Bible for what humane is and isn’t, and Abraham comes to mind. He is the example of mercy among Cabbalists. He is the quintessential extrovert, so liberal that he nearly sins by slaughtering his own son Isaac. He is the proof to me that it is more important to be humane than it is to be liberal. God chose Abraham to be the founder of a nation of truth. Thus, I am a liberal with values highly centered on family ideals. Really, I believe I am what conservatives hoped to accomplish, but just simply can’t because they are entrenched in tradition. Conservative values are created not to change. My values are very modernist, but highly centered on sound family values, and I support small government because government already exists. Mainstream conservatives will write me off as a liberal though, not sensing the elegance of my thought.
I also look to the Bible for inhumane thought. Such thoughts as bigotry, especially against the children of Noah are in the Bible. Sell children of Noah, gentiles, that dead thing that you won’t eat yourself and don’t set them free if they are slaves. All ye conservatives; that is what your Bible really says! All ye conservatives, that law on homosexuality that you trumpet is technically just for the nation of Abraham! Read your Bible, it’s not for you gentiles, ha!
I do believe that the Bible says homosexuality is unacceptable. There is no way around it. The Bible doesn’t like gay people. Sorry, but um I no longer use the word homosexual, unless I am talking about a bigot’s point of view! It’s just that the Bible isn’t perfect. It’s the issue of the baby and the bathwater. Save the baby and throw out the bathwater, as the saying goes. The same is true of the Bible. It’s not all good, but it is a great starting ground for formulating an opinion, such as the very idea of what mercy is! Imagine a book that fails to be merciful, but it still contains the best idea of mercy, and you have the Bible!
Conservative thinking is what it is. It isn’t really thinking at all. Rather, it is a way of coping with life. It can even be idealistic when life doesn’t seem all that conservative. It doesn’t take a genius to be a conservative. It is a simple way of doing. It doesn’t pay attention to whether or not something makes sense. It is riddled with contradictions. The answer is, of course it makes sense, it is what it is and there is no argument that could prove conservative thought wrong.
Thinking is a thing that humans do inside themselves. Sometimes it is constrained, but not always. If a person has no other freedom, then at least he or she has his or her mind to be free inside. This might be why the Orwellian idea of thought crime is so powerful. Jesus also conceived of the idea of thought crime. If a person can’t be free inside his or her own head, when can he or she be free? Conservatives tend to believe that conservatives are more morally correct, and as a result being conservative and religion go hand in hand.
Liberals usually attend church, or at least believe in God, like conservatives. However, conservatives tend to rely on a preacher or authority figure for ideas on what they should believe. If a preacher says, “This is what the Bible says,” then conservatives will say, “If the Bible says it, then I believe it.” Really, what most conservatives believe is not actually the Bible, but what the preacher says is in the Bible. Usually, preachers get ideas about what the Bible says from people with “big names.” Common thought is usually much more important than accuracy. That is not to say that all liberals like to be accurate. Many liberals rebel against accuracy. Some count every bean, like me.
Here this divergence in liberal thinking is very important. Some liberals simply want to rebel against accuracy. Usually, this type is merely the opposite of a conservative. I don’t really care much for these types. Other liberals are intellectuals, and get a kick out of making everything really complicated. I get a kick out of making everything really complicated. However, it saddens me that not all share with this way of thinking. It’s not that I intend to leave people out, yet it is addictive to try to perfect ones way of thinking.
In my world, there is a lifetime to study. There is a lifetime to improve on ideals. There is a lifetime to become the best person I can be in deed. I need not take the conservative quick route by letting someone else do the thinking for me. I am competent. In the thirty years of my life, I have constantly been improving my ideas. This means walking through some mental gateways that are bad decisions.
That is, if one is the captain of his or her own ship, then he or she is bound to make mistakes. Conservatives don’t back up and change their mind. For example, conservatives go to church. If all the churches are bad, then they still go to church. If the ship is sinking, then they sink with it. I, however, hop off any mental ship that is sinking and swim for shore. Conservative ways offers protection. It is a way tried and true. Being liberal generally offers no protection, so socialist liberals come up with ways to protect, such as social security. That is another can of worms. I won’t open it now.
I will say that I have no problem with social security though. It may be a big part of the national debt, but the last time I looked at the shelves of any store, there was plenty to go around. Enough to go around to me means that there is a problem if a nation doesn’t all have some. Aside from that, I accompany my liberal thinking with a liberal or anarchist ideal for government. I equate capitalism with big government, as big businesses need law enforcement to keep people from stealing. That is, if you get rid of the government, then the goods will really go around, as there will be no law or more importantly, law enforcement to stop that from happening. Anarchy is really the simplest way of life, as without government there can be no modernity, such as cell phones and television, which I see as things that take away from the family more than they add to it. There should be no need for these things to go around, but I don’t see them as evil, such that they need to be destroyed.
The leftist Amish are proof that leftists can have family values. As far as I know it, the Amish don’t pay attention to electing Presidents, but this group has a greater sense of family than conservatives high on the big business of capitalism. So there you have it, leftist can be associated with a strong sense of family. However, I am in favor of letting children run wild with minimalist behavior adjustments, rather than the totalitarian parentage of the Amish. That is, as a liberal and a right winger for government, I simply want the right to be a bean counting thinker, but I don’t expect other people to do the same. To each: his or her own. I am not into being the pilot of other people’s ships.
Minorities will gather round those that gain prominence in liberal thought. Liberal bean counters tend to be inclusive. That is, to a liberal that is willing to consider everything for the sake of accuracy, the bean counters, there are minorities to be considered. The true liberal thinkers are very few. Most people vote merely as followers. Most of these followers would call me a mixed bag, as I am a liberal with anarchist and libertarian values. For example, I don’t pay attention to actually supporting gay rights though I believe in them. I’ll write for fun about it, but beyond that sexuality is something entirely personal. If gay people don’t trumpet it, then there never was a problem, except for people in the spotlight, but usually that’s often because somebody else thought it was important to think about what somebody was doing behind closed doors without hurting anybody or animal.
Anarchy is okay, but if there is a government I don’t see any reason to overturn it, as this would result in instability. It wouldn’t really be humane for the greatest amount of people. Being humane is important to me. Anarchy is not necessarily humane. In fact, most anarchies have been inhumane, such that inhumane pops into mind to the common Joe. I look at my Bible for what humane is and isn’t, and Abraham comes to mind. He is the example of mercy among Cabbalists. He is the quintessential extrovert, so liberal that he nearly sins by slaughtering his own son Isaac. He is the proof to me that it is more important to be humane than it is to be liberal. God chose Abraham to be the founder of a nation of truth. Thus, I am a liberal with values highly centered on family ideals. Really, I believe I am what conservatives hoped to accomplish, but just simply can’t because they are entrenched in tradition. Conservative values are created not to change. My values are very modernist, but highly centered on sound family values, and I support small government because government already exists. Mainstream conservatives will write me off as a liberal though, not sensing the elegance of my thought.
I also look to the Bible for inhumane thought. Such thoughts as bigotry, especially against the children of Noah are in the Bible. Sell children of Noah, gentiles, that dead thing that you won’t eat yourself and don’t set them free if they are slaves. All ye conservatives; that is what your Bible really says! All ye conservatives, that law on homosexuality that you trumpet is technically just for the nation of Abraham! Read your Bible, it’s not for you gentiles, ha!
I do believe that the Bible says homosexuality is unacceptable. There is no way around it. The Bible doesn’t like gay people. Sorry, but um I no longer use the word homosexual, unless I am talking about a bigot’s point of view! It’s just that the Bible isn’t perfect. It’s the issue of the baby and the bathwater. Save the baby and throw out the bathwater, as the saying goes. The same is true of the Bible. It’s not all good, but it is a great starting ground for formulating an opinion, such as the very idea of what mercy is! Imagine a book that fails to be merciful, but it still contains the best idea of mercy, and you have the Bible!
Friday, October 9, 2009
Gay Adoption
Gay Adoption
One of the big issues facing the USA is gay adoption. Should gay people be allowed to adopt? Most opponents are conservatives that trumpet family values. Some people might find distaste for this essay because it comes from the gay state, MA, which even has a gay Congressman, Barney Frank. This is why I don’t expect to change any of the religious right through writing or whatever means. Generally, I have distaste for the religious right, but I recall the days when I began to join ranks with them. I think every true liberal has considered the religious right, or he or she will at sometime. People leave the religious right as fast as they join. It is an entity that doesn’t go away. One person leaves, and then another person joins, so in that sense the argument of the religious right will never be silenced with regard to gay adoption.
I, myself, support gay adoption. I am not gay though. I am happy for the most part, but not gay. That old usage of gay is obsolete. There are reasons for this of course, and these are what I intend to put in this essay.
Gay adoption is as having any parents. All parents have their oddities. Of course, I am not saying parents have bisexual or gay tendencies, but I am saying is that humans are all somewhat weird. I never meet anyone that is straight up normal in every sense of the word. Maybe such things aren’t true in other states. Take for instance me, I am bipolar. Take for instance my wife. She has problems with spending. Take for instance obese or diabetic people, which now possibly make up the majority of the population. Gay is just another one of these oddities. It should not dictate whether or not one should be able to adopt a child, just as mental illness should not be a reason for not letting someone own a gun.
There may be a correlation with improper behavior, even sexual molestation and gayness. I don’t know, and I don’t really care. Take for instance Congressman Frank, mentioned above. Certainly, he would be a good parent. Why would we base actions on something based upon a correlation if that is true? Such thinking can only be far too liberal for legislation, as there also might be a correlation between mothers being better parents then fathers, but nobody says because of that fathers should not be able to adopt! Whatever happened to innocent before proven guilty? That is, liberal in thinking should also lead to allowing liberal actions under the law.
Could it possibly be traumatic if the rest of the class finds out that two men are parenting a boy? I believe that this could provoke some classmate ridicule, but that’s what authoritarian teachers are for; to punish kids that misbehave. This sort of ridicule should not be reason to prevent a child from having a father or a mother! I should think the adopted child would be happier to have a mother and a father that care for him or her than none at all. Again, all parents have oddities. There is always some confusion in every household. I don’t see any reason behind prying into people’s personal lives over an issue such as sexuality.
This leads to another issue. The stupid question of: What if the gayness rubs off on the child? Personally, I don’t believe that this can occur. I don’t believe gay fathers can condition a child to be gay, but even if a child became gay by the wishes of his fathers’: Would it be the worst thing in the world? There are enough people in this world that nobody has to worry about there not being enough humans! Another gay person is that many less children to worry about. I love children, but I don’t feel that there is any societal impending need for them that we have to worry about gayness. I certainly don’t believe the small minded idea that gayness is a sin.
One of the big issues facing the USA is gay adoption. Should gay people be allowed to adopt? Most opponents are conservatives that trumpet family values. Some people might find distaste for this essay because it comes from the gay state, MA, which even has a gay Congressman, Barney Frank. This is why I don’t expect to change any of the religious right through writing or whatever means. Generally, I have distaste for the religious right, but I recall the days when I began to join ranks with them. I think every true liberal has considered the religious right, or he or she will at sometime. People leave the religious right as fast as they join. It is an entity that doesn’t go away. One person leaves, and then another person joins, so in that sense the argument of the religious right will never be silenced with regard to gay adoption.
I, myself, support gay adoption. I am not gay though. I am happy for the most part, but not gay. That old usage of gay is obsolete. There are reasons for this of course, and these are what I intend to put in this essay.
Gay adoption is as having any parents. All parents have their oddities. Of course, I am not saying parents have bisexual or gay tendencies, but I am saying is that humans are all somewhat weird. I never meet anyone that is straight up normal in every sense of the word. Maybe such things aren’t true in other states. Take for instance me, I am bipolar. Take for instance my wife. She has problems with spending. Take for instance obese or diabetic people, which now possibly make up the majority of the population. Gay is just another one of these oddities. It should not dictate whether or not one should be able to adopt a child, just as mental illness should not be a reason for not letting someone own a gun.
There may be a correlation with improper behavior, even sexual molestation and gayness. I don’t know, and I don’t really care. Take for instance Congressman Frank, mentioned above. Certainly, he would be a good parent. Why would we base actions on something based upon a correlation if that is true? Such thinking can only be far too liberal for legislation, as there also might be a correlation between mothers being better parents then fathers, but nobody says because of that fathers should not be able to adopt! Whatever happened to innocent before proven guilty? That is, liberal in thinking should also lead to allowing liberal actions under the law.
Could it possibly be traumatic if the rest of the class finds out that two men are parenting a boy? I believe that this could provoke some classmate ridicule, but that’s what authoritarian teachers are for; to punish kids that misbehave. This sort of ridicule should not be reason to prevent a child from having a father or a mother! I should think the adopted child would be happier to have a mother and a father that care for him or her than none at all. Again, all parents have oddities. There is always some confusion in every household. I don’t see any reason behind prying into people’s personal lives over an issue such as sexuality.
This leads to another issue. The stupid question of: What if the gayness rubs off on the child? Personally, I don’t believe that this can occur. I don’t believe gay fathers can condition a child to be gay, but even if a child became gay by the wishes of his fathers’: Would it be the worst thing in the world? There are enough people in this world that nobody has to worry about there not being enough humans! Another gay person is that many less children to worry about. I love children, but I don’t feel that there is any societal impending need for them that we have to worry about gayness. I certainly don’t believe the small minded idea that gayness is a sin.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Quasi-Jewish II
Quasi-Jewish II
Judaism views people as either gentile or Jew. Judaism does recognize a period of time where one can be a convert, but has not yet gone to the mikvah and received the commandments of Moses. That is one can be a ger if he or she identifies with the Jews as a tribe. There is a period of time where one can be a ger, but can still leave Judaism. Only after the mikvah, there is no way out. Rabbis are not required to recognize this status of quasi-Jewishness because such a person has not yet received the Torah. Rabbis are more concerned with officiated conversion where there is an immersion in a mikvah, and whether or not a ger is sincere to Judaism.
It’s sort of like marriage. The Mishnah or the Oral Law of Judaism records that sexual intercourse is one way to produce marriage. This is that no ceremony is needed, but most people want the ceremony. Historically, people were married at younger ages, and a more age appropriate time for marriage, and as a result premarital sex was less of a factor. In the modern world of the USA, people are more eager to test each other as sexual partners first, though this is not the norm. Rabbis though are usually not concerned with sexual intercourse making marriages. They are concerned with marrying people by ceremony in the traditional way. The Talmud also knows of a way to convert without the blessing of a Rabbi. In order for a conversion to be official, it has to be officiated.
Now on to my own story... I haven’t gone in a mikvah, nor do I plan on it. It’s not because I don’t believe that the mikvah or the tradition is a bad idea. It’s not because I want to be able to have a way out of Judaism. It is because I disagree with parts of Judaism, especially that I consider myself a Jew by ancestry though Christianity has invalidated that according to my heritage. I don’t believe Christianity can invalidate one’s Judaism, but rather for me it meant that I operated in stealth mode, never really accepting Christianity, but accepting it for having nothing better to do socially. I believe this is very common, and I have observed many Christians with similar ancestries to my own that I might consider as identifying more with the Torah than the nonsense of Christianity, but just not knowing it. These sorts of things have to happen by someone being very religiously bookish, like myself, while others are less, and thus don’t see the contradictions in Christianity though being very intelligent. Thus, I don’t see Christianity as making me perpetually unclean that I need to do something to make me symbolically clean. Symbolically clean doesn’t really mean anything to me.
Not hoping in the mikvah is partly because it won’t make my son Jewish. I am poor, and don’t want to be a burden to anyone. If I were converted, then it might mean that there wouldn’t be enough money for my son to do that at a future date. Why would I convert and make it official? To me it seems very selfish to desire at that ritual for myself. I would rather be assisting someone in need. Thus, not hopping in the mikvah is also partly because I don’t really feel that it is important in order for me to be an ethical person by observing parts of Jewish Law as I ordain, and not because I feel God has mandated that I do so.
I am quasi-Jewish because I do identify with the nation or tribe of Jews. I feel very comfortable with this because I don’t accept all of Judaism. Immersing in the mikvah for a conversion requires that one receives the entire Jewish Law. I don’t accept the entire Jewish law.
Partly, I won’t immerse because I feel that the Torah is bigoted. First, there is the issue over who is a Jew. That does not bother me, but making it difficult for people to convert officially does. I say this because theoretically by the Torah, gentile slaves never have to be freed, but Jewish slaves have to be freed at certain intervals. There are other reasons too. I also say this because there are Jewish Laws, such as feeding or selling a thing found already dead to the alien or gentile. Historically, I see this Law as outdated. I feed my pets such things, but I wouldn’t feed something like that to a human, nor do I consider doing so to be humane.
This surfaces an entirely new subject. Things aren’t as they have always been. History has progressed. Judaism has progressed in many ways too. Yet, what it is failing to recognized is that oodles of people identify with Jewish Law, many without knowing it, but do not consider themselves Jewish. As a quasi-Jew, I am more in the majority of people that identify more with Judaism than the mere seven Noachide Laws.
It’s not that I think someone that only observes these laws is bad though. Yet, in popular Judaism it seems that many Jews naively think that the Torah is not bigoted to gentiles or the sons of Noah. There is no reason for me to desire to receive this bigotry from the Torah, which I consider to be imperfect, but one of the best writings ever. Thus, I put myself to being quasi-Jewish.
Judaism views people as either gentile or Jew. Judaism does recognize a period of time where one can be a convert, but has not yet gone to the mikvah and received the commandments of Moses. That is one can be a ger if he or she identifies with the Jews as a tribe. There is a period of time where one can be a ger, but can still leave Judaism. Only after the mikvah, there is no way out. Rabbis are not required to recognize this status of quasi-Jewishness because such a person has not yet received the Torah. Rabbis are more concerned with officiated conversion where there is an immersion in a mikvah, and whether or not a ger is sincere to Judaism.
It’s sort of like marriage. The Mishnah or the Oral Law of Judaism records that sexual intercourse is one way to produce marriage. This is that no ceremony is needed, but most people want the ceremony. Historically, people were married at younger ages, and a more age appropriate time for marriage, and as a result premarital sex was less of a factor. In the modern world of the USA, people are more eager to test each other as sexual partners first, though this is not the norm. Rabbis though are usually not concerned with sexual intercourse making marriages. They are concerned with marrying people by ceremony in the traditional way. The Talmud also knows of a way to convert without the blessing of a Rabbi. In order for a conversion to be official, it has to be officiated.
Now on to my own story... I haven’t gone in a mikvah, nor do I plan on it. It’s not because I don’t believe that the mikvah or the tradition is a bad idea. It’s not because I want to be able to have a way out of Judaism. It is because I disagree with parts of Judaism, especially that I consider myself a Jew by ancestry though Christianity has invalidated that according to my heritage. I don’t believe Christianity can invalidate one’s Judaism, but rather for me it meant that I operated in stealth mode, never really accepting Christianity, but accepting it for having nothing better to do socially. I believe this is very common, and I have observed many Christians with similar ancestries to my own that I might consider as identifying more with the Torah than the nonsense of Christianity, but just not knowing it. These sorts of things have to happen by someone being very religiously bookish, like myself, while others are less, and thus don’t see the contradictions in Christianity though being very intelligent. Thus, I don’t see Christianity as making me perpetually unclean that I need to do something to make me symbolically clean. Symbolically clean doesn’t really mean anything to me.
Not hoping in the mikvah is partly because it won’t make my son Jewish. I am poor, and don’t want to be a burden to anyone. If I were converted, then it might mean that there wouldn’t be enough money for my son to do that at a future date. Why would I convert and make it official? To me it seems very selfish to desire at that ritual for myself. I would rather be assisting someone in need. Thus, not hopping in the mikvah is also partly because I don’t really feel that it is important in order for me to be an ethical person by observing parts of Jewish Law as I ordain, and not because I feel God has mandated that I do so.
I am quasi-Jewish because I do identify with the nation or tribe of Jews. I feel very comfortable with this because I don’t accept all of Judaism. Immersing in the mikvah for a conversion requires that one receives the entire Jewish Law. I don’t accept the entire Jewish law.
Partly, I won’t immerse because I feel that the Torah is bigoted. First, there is the issue over who is a Jew. That does not bother me, but making it difficult for people to convert officially does. I say this because theoretically by the Torah, gentile slaves never have to be freed, but Jewish slaves have to be freed at certain intervals. There are other reasons too. I also say this because there are Jewish Laws, such as feeding or selling a thing found already dead to the alien or gentile. Historically, I see this Law as outdated. I feed my pets such things, but I wouldn’t feed something like that to a human, nor do I consider doing so to be humane.
This surfaces an entirely new subject. Things aren’t as they have always been. History has progressed. Judaism has progressed in many ways too. Yet, what it is failing to recognized is that oodles of people identify with Jewish Law, many without knowing it, but do not consider themselves Jewish. As a quasi-Jew, I am more in the majority of people that identify more with Judaism than the mere seven Noachide Laws.
It’s not that I think someone that only observes these laws is bad though. Yet, in popular Judaism it seems that many Jews naively think that the Torah is not bigoted to gentiles or the sons of Noah. There is no reason for me to desire to receive this bigotry from the Torah, which I consider to be imperfect, but one of the best writings ever. Thus, I put myself to being quasi-Jewish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)