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.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Sunday, October 4, 2009
My Quasi-Jewish Decision to Like the Unitarians
My Quasi-Jewish Decision to Like the Unitarians
It has occurred to me that Judaism has as many faults as Christianity. The naïve belief of perfect Judaism has long since worn off, but then the question remained: Where do I go from here? The Jewish idea of a Messiah or Moshiach among other things is as ridiculous as the trinity and other Christian beliefs. Islam was probably dead on about Jesus. He was not the antichrist, as the Talmud puts forth. He was not God, as the majority of Christians put forth. He was an important person to history, and to me that puts him on the level of Mohammed or Isaiah, as a prophet. This is the view many Unitarians hold is true. That is, most Unitarians would probably believe Jesus was a great teacher, but no more than that. I don’t know that he was a great teacher though I do think the subject of Jesus is very important to study, and worthy of elevating to that of religion.
The Unitarians have essentially broken away from Christianity. This attracts me to them. Really, all I look for is a social gathering and an intellectual discussion. That alienates me from Islam, which is far too well known for its zealots. I need a religion without required doctrine that accepts converts that believe the same.
Suddenly, I can’t be a Jew because more is expected of the converts. Strangely, I probably have a more Jewish ancestry than the majority of Jews though, but my Christian heritage would be what Rabbis would notice.
I LOVE to study Orthodox Judaism, Science and History. But, as of yet this has not been a social event for me. Additionally, more and more I see things such as the Talmud and Mishneh Torah as mere great books, not canon, which Judaism affords to them. I might say: What is canon anyway? I don’t really have any canon that I believe in. The problem is Orthodox Jews would turn me away if I said I was a potential convert. Additionally, I have my reservations over the truths of the Torah and the Tanach. There are certainly problems with Judaism, and I feel Unitarians would provide me the room to be comfortable with that. Wow! I applaud myself for obtaining the level of being super liberal there!
Already I have questioned and teased apart Christianity. I know it has problems. I don’t want to be like my parents. They teased it apart, but kept going. I don’t see how I can support a religion if I don’t believe in its God. That leads me back to the Unitarians. They aren’t really Christian at all, as Christ means anointed. It refers to the idea that Jesus was king, specifically king of the Jews. That idea to me seems to be Jew hatred, and I won’t have it.
Anti-Semitic is the wrong words because my guess is that the majority of Semites accept Jesus without breaking any Noachide Laws. Consider Christianity is the most popular world religion and that a third of those people are Semites. That is for those that believe in Jesus, while Jews say it is idolatry it is actually more just a church of a nonsense god idea. Most followers of Jesus probably have not conceived of the idea of God, and consequently there is no real problem with the fact that Christianity is idolatry by definition. Differently from Christianity, my belief in God is very Jewish.
In that last paragraph there was some accuracy. So it’s not that I believe religion is inaccurate. However, there is certainly no advantage to believing in one over any other. All religions have good points. It’s good that some people keep alive the traditions of old religions for the debutantes. Usually, it is best to go with the majority, not sweat the details, and definitely not be a zealot. One of my AOL friends used to always say, “Zealots are a curse.” I am probably too liberal to ever really be a zealot.
So it’s not like I’m leaving Judaism, and especially not like I am leaving Judaism for Christianity. Judaism will always be my foundation. However, I’ve grown up. There once was a time when I thought, if it’s Jewish then it has to be good. That time is no more. There are plenty of things in Judaism that aren’t really that good. I don’t think anything is really that bad in Judaism though.
Christianity has its share of things that are downright bad. Historically, it has been misused, but I doubt Jesus can be faulted for that. There is that verse, “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword,” but if the gospels are teased apart they are really rather weak. I am pretty sure that was the Gospel of Matthew, but I doubt Jesus in his humanity could be personally faulted for the Crusades or Constantine by a couple of words in that book. The book isn’t that great, especially under scrutiny that it should have been reason to blame either Matthew or Jesus.
I doubt the Jews of the future have much to fear from Christianity. Christianity already tried to snuff out Judaism and failed. It’s unlikely that it will be tried again. However, Islam may try to snuff the Jews, and somewhere between that and assimilation, the religion of Judaism could be lost. That’s future thinking, but as of today, Judaism is a very important religion to me. It offers a lot of good information, and if nothing else it provides me with relaxation time. Studying Judaism is a great way to relax, and it is very addictive. Television and video games don’t interest me that much. I imagine someone interested in watching great volumes of either of these will miss out on some great knowledge. I am a knowledge addict. Thus, Judaism fits me well, but only if I were born into it in the sense that Rabbis would simply accept me as a Jew, and not require anything from me as they do a convert.
I have no intention of converting to Judaism. That is I don’t believe a mikvah has any sort of power to confer Jewishness. Why would I convert? I am out of range of the local synagogue. That is, I can’t even attend a synagogue without breaking the rules of Shabbat by driving there in a car! Rabbis say, “Why bother?” to potential converts! I understand that. Knowing that it is forbidden to drive on Shabbat is nice though. That is if you like knowing things simply to know them.
Orthodox Judaism has always wanted to put its religion into practice though. That makes it not a very good thing for me. I tend to see the details of putting it into practice as flawed. I recently posted on www.chabad.org how I thought that it was rather silly of Orthodox deny some Israeli Jews the right to marry another Orthodox Jew. That is the Law of Return (to Israel) recognizes both Reform and Orthodox conversions, but Orthodox recognize only Orthodox conversions. These are the sorts of things that plague me, if I would convert. Why convert to an imperfect religion? One would think that humans could at least get the doctrine right, but there are these things such as the 13 points of Maimonides that are largely accepted as being important to ones status as a Jew. I find flaws in these thirteen points though I see nothing wrong with knowing them. This means to me that Judaism is not the right religion for me. I’ll go more liberal, as more exacting became more inexact, such is my case that the Unitarians and their moral relativism are the best fit for me.
It has occurred to me that Judaism has as many faults as Christianity. The naïve belief of perfect Judaism has long since worn off, but then the question remained: Where do I go from here? The Jewish idea of a Messiah or Moshiach among other things is as ridiculous as the trinity and other Christian beliefs. Islam was probably dead on about Jesus. He was not the antichrist, as the Talmud puts forth. He was not God, as the majority of Christians put forth. He was an important person to history, and to me that puts him on the level of Mohammed or Isaiah, as a prophet. This is the view many Unitarians hold is true. That is, most Unitarians would probably believe Jesus was a great teacher, but no more than that. I don’t know that he was a great teacher though I do think the subject of Jesus is very important to study, and worthy of elevating to that of religion.
The Unitarians have essentially broken away from Christianity. This attracts me to them. Really, all I look for is a social gathering and an intellectual discussion. That alienates me from Islam, which is far too well known for its zealots. I need a religion without required doctrine that accepts converts that believe the same.
Suddenly, I can’t be a Jew because more is expected of the converts. Strangely, I probably have a more Jewish ancestry than the majority of Jews though, but my Christian heritage would be what Rabbis would notice.
I LOVE to study Orthodox Judaism, Science and History. But, as of yet this has not been a social event for me. Additionally, more and more I see things such as the Talmud and Mishneh Torah as mere great books, not canon, which Judaism affords to them. I might say: What is canon anyway? I don’t really have any canon that I believe in. The problem is Orthodox Jews would turn me away if I said I was a potential convert. Additionally, I have my reservations over the truths of the Torah and the Tanach. There are certainly problems with Judaism, and I feel Unitarians would provide me the room to be comfortable with that. Wow! I applaud myself for obtaining the level of being super liberal there!
Already I have questioned and teased apart Christianity. I know it has problems. I don’t want to be like my parents. They teased it apart, but kept going. I don’t see how I can support a religion if I don’t believe in its God. That leads me back to the Unitarians. They aren’t really Christian at all, as Christ means anointed. It refers to the idea that Jesus was king, specifically king of the Jews. That idea to me seems to be Jew hatred, and I won’t have it.
Anti-Semitic is the wrong words because my guess is that the majority of Semites accept Jesus without breaking any Noachide Laws. Consider Christianity is the most popular world religion and that a third of those people are Semites. That is for those that believe in Jesus, while Jews say it is idolatry it is actually more just a church of a nonsense god idea. Most followers of Jesus probably have not conceived of the idea of God, and consequently there is no real problem with the fact that Christianity is idolatry by definition. Differently from Christianity, my belief in God is very Jewish.
In that last paragraph there was some accuracy. So it’s not that I believe religion is inaccurate. However, there is certainly no advantage to believing in one over any other. All religions have good points. It’s good that some people keep alive the traditions of old religions for the debutantes. Usually, it is best to go with the majority, not sweat the details, and definitely not be a zealot. One of my AOL friends used to always say, “Zealots are a curse.” I am probably too liberal to ever really be a zealot.
So it’s not like I’m leaving Judaism, and especially not like I am leaving Judaism for Christianity. Judaism will always be my foundation. However, I’ve grown up. There once was a time when I thought, if it’s Jewish then it has to be good. That time is no more. There are plenty of things in Judaism that aren’t really that good. I don’t think anything is really that bad in Judaism though.
Christianity has its share of things that are downright bad. Historically, it has been misused, but I doubt Jesus can be faulted for that. There is that verse, “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword,” but if the gospels are teased apart they are really rather weak. I am pretty sure that was the Gospel of Matthew, but I doubt Jesus in his humanity could be personally faulted for the Crusades or Constantine by a couple of words in that book. The book isn’t that great, especially under scrutiny that it should have been reason to blame either Matthew or Jesus.
I doubt the Jews of the future have much to fear from Christianity. Christianity already tried to snuff out Judaism and failed. It’s unlikely that it will be tried again. However, Islam may try to snuff the Jews, and somewhere between that and assimilation, the religion of Judaism could be lost. That’s future thinking, but as of today, Judaism is a very important religion to me. It offers a lot of good information, and if nothing else it provides me with relaxation time. Studying Judaism is a great way to relax, and it is very addictive. Television and video games don’t interest me that much. I imagine someone interested in watching great volumes of either of these will miss out on some great knowledge. I am a knowledge addict. Thus, Judaism fits me well, but only if I were born into it in the sense that Rabbis would simply accept me as a Jew, and not require anything from me as they do a convert.
I have no intention of converting to Judaism. That is I don’t believe a mikvah has any sort of power to confer Jewishness. Why would I convert? I am out of range of the local synagogue. That is, I can’t even attend a synagogue without breaking the rules of Shabbat by driving there in a car! Rabbis say, “Why bother?” to potential converts! I understand that. Knowing that it is forbidden to drive on Shabbat is nice though. That is if you like knowing things simply to know them.
Orthodox Judaism has always wanted to put its religion into practice though. That makes it not a very good thing for me. I tend to see the details of putting it into practice as flawed. I recently posted on www.chabad.org how I thought that it was rather silly of Orthodox deny some Israeli Jews the right to marry another Orthodox Jew. That is the Law of Return (to Israel) recognizes both Reform and Orthodox conversions, but Orthodox recognize only Orthodox conversions. These are the sorts of things that plague me, if I would convert. Why convert to an imperfect religion? One would think that humans could at least get the doctrine right, but there are these things such as the 13 points of Maimonides that are largely accepted as being important to ones status as a Jew. I find flaws in these thirteen points though I see nothing wrong with knowing them. This means to me that Judaism is not the right religion for me. I’ll go more liberal, as more exacting became more inexact, such is my case that the Unitarians and their moral relativism are the best fit for me.
Quasi-Jewish
All the indicators say that there is such a thing as quasi-Jewish, only the Orthodox minority denominations have the audacity to say quasi-Jewish is a lie. Gentiles commonly circumcise their young, and perform other Jewish mitzvahs. The 613 and the rabbinical commands are kosher for anyone, and it is hardly a tragedy if a gentile doesn’t properly perform a Jewish mitzvah. In the melting pot of America, Judaism is no longer as separate from other nations as it has been. Jews that don’t recognize “quasi-Jewish (more than Noah tzedeks)” are hijacking Judaism. Of course Jewish and Jewishness can exist as they have, but quasi-Jewish should be accepted for those people that feel a strong association with the Jewish tribe, but haven’t been in the mikvah.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Anarchy Essay: What It Is
Anarchy Essay: What It Is
Anarchy government USA reason Igor Panarin system capitalism socialism regulation mob rules martial law
People like to govern personal actions. Few are the men and women that are happy to be in diapers. Just as humans like control over bodily function, humans desire power. Perhaps government started through tribal chiefs. There became an important role for leaders. However, this is a very problematic role, as sometimes humans like to govern actions of others. That is, eventually most of humanity wants to be a leader, but as populations age to adulthood, it means increasing suppression. Suppression is the inherent problem with leadership, as with being lead it means someone is subordinate. Most people don’t like being subordinate.
Both separation and unity are forms of government. Separation is usually punishment, as humans are social. Unity is generally reward. However, to have the right to govern our own actions, means that it is imperative that the actions of others aren’t governed, so far as we can help it. Freedoms that one person takes away from another is as a spreading plague, as it is only human to desire something in return for giving up a freedom. This is the provisional aspect of government. The same is true with separation and unity. Anarchy is not a call to either, as every person has some beings he or she desires to be separate from, and some with which he or she desires a feeling of unification. However, to say anarchy is all separation or all unification neglects the jelly that is anarchy. There must be give and take, freedom from government so long as freedom, happiness, and punishment are reasonable.
With anarchy, there is of course give and take, and consequently a bottom line with both nations and people. That is there is not an exact form to anarchy. Anarchy would operate more like jelly than steel. Take for instance my jelly way of liberal thinking. Often I like 50% majorities, but that is entirely morally relativist. I also like weighting opinions, but 50% should suffice to overthrow any ruler. Sometimes I’ll gladly join a very small minority. I am writing this as a minority anarchist.
Anarchy is funny because it can’t be legislated. That is the hypocrisy of democrat liberals. Freedom knows no bounds. It is only in an anarchist environment that the crux liberty is possible to be lived. Anarchy must take with it a grain of salt. It will never be absolute. There will always be government, jelly not steel!
Similar to giving and receiving, both sustenance and lack of it are not imperative in anarchy, which is the ultimate freedom of choice. This is why there are nations in the first place. It is the idea of you and me, separation that is felt among nations. Nations take personal interest in their people, but less in others and such it is a grand scale similarity. Both individuals and nations desire freedom. It is also a fact that governments do not necessarily protect that freedom.
Humans are reasonable. Anarchy is not a chaos void of reason, but it is a place where reasoning skills become heightened, such is the playing field of the world’s rulers, the playing field of the stars of reason, hopefully! I say hopefully because nations get sick. Sometimes a nation’s leadership is poor, which is another problem with government, that leaders are just as fallible as everyone else. Consequently, there is time to pull the plug on a nation, just as sometimes a doctor pulls the plug on a person and cuts the feeding tube. Life and death decisions and decisions of a much lesser magnitude still would exist in anarchy. The future tense is used because anarchy is theoretical to the Western world, as more primal or brute instincts have long been lost to civilization. Aside from action and its subdivisions, with or without intent to control, there is greater ability for reasoning skills to flourish when government of the actions of others is reduced. This is only logic, proven from my argument.
This is definitely not to say that in anarchy minding one’s own business is imperative. Altruistic actions made in daily decision making are very important to an anarchist ideal, though one cannot say that they are mandatory though at least altruism serves as a means to subordinate oneself to another leaving the possibility of receiving something in return.
Are there any scoffers? Ye are only a product of sentiments your teachers had toward anarchy. These come out of the book of Judges in the Bible, which was a period of anarchy in the history of the nation of Israel. It’s generally not considered a great time, and so this opinion has influenced the human conception of anarchy ever since.
Government is not void of reason though perfection always seems to be hoped for in the next one established. Historically though establishing a government is as important as having an operating system for a computer this is not to say bigger operating systems are better. Windows Vista is proof of this. Perhaps, with the next government decisions will lead to doctrine as concerned with system repair, as it is with just making sure the system runs. Maybe, the USA operating system was too small to be rectified before it was too late. By now it is time to get new computer. I don’t see why the operating system is necessary, and that is why I am an anarchist. Yet, I am not against operating systems, imperatively, just as each individual program needs some sort of system.
It was said when the system was established that it needed to check and balance itself. I guess that would be RAM, ROM and a Processor. Okay, it wasn’t a perfect analogy. I can’t compare the branches of government to the parts of a computer using similarities. However, no one was able to conceive at the time the present need for a system overhaul. Consider the option: taking as much time with the mechanism for putting a leader into power, as removing him or her. A President might as well be as a crucial functional unit to a computer. If one can be voted in, then one should be able to be voted out. That’s IBM wisdom, not Macs!
See, anarchy is not devoid of leadership, nor is it devoid of interaction though it is inherent that all interactions are for the purpose of governing. Leadership is natural. Humans have to raise young in order to continue as a species and that means the young have to be lead, so it is true that humans naturally fall into leader and follower mentalities. With anarchy, though I don’t think if it is natural it has to be good, I am not trying to escape nature. The escapement of nature can only lead to dystopia.
Throw a tennis ball at a wall and watch it ricochet. That’s government! If you ask me, then I say that’s God at work. He caused the ball to ricochet, as he is the sustainer though I don’t like everything that He sustains. Government is as inescapable as the human master and slave relationship. Yet, many people try to escape this horrible institution! Anarchy is only void of imperative government, and by this I mean government which can exist over a majority of people that do not like it. To someone else it might mean something different. That is moral relativism is not an imperative, itself.
If a great amount of people don’t like the government, 50% or greater, then I say keep no president and have other branches work out the problems so that the nation is worthy of political representation. Who knows maybe then anarchy would exist as much as 50% of the time! I know that if my computer runs 50% slower because of overload that it is probably time to do some maintenance. The same should be true to states of anarchy.
Most people I’ve met don’t understand anarchy. I am probably not helping! Usually, the best word that comes to mind to describe their idea of anarchy is dystopia. The end of any big government is a dystopia. Folks like Igor Panarin say the USA’s time is almost up. The idea that comes to mind if you say anarchy is the end of the USA for most people. This is synonymous with a worthless dollar and food shortages. Also, there is this idea that anarchy is when people hoard resources, which can also be coupled with martial law where the military is more a source of fear to common citizens than a protection.
I want to dispel anyone’s idea that this is what I have in mind as an anarchist for utopia, food shortages and the like. Surely, quitting strong government through anarchy is not an ideal form of anarchy. If I believed that, then I would have to consider something such as quitting heroin to be ideal. Nationally, the end of a government could be likened to quitting heroin. Of course it isn’t ideal when there are sudden states of anarchy, but anarchy is a great idea, but like any idea it is not a god. It is not as if, if its anarchy, then it has to be good. Anarchy is not necessarily good. Even Igor Panarin says that this coming collapse of the USA government is not ideal. Nobody wants to deal with a giant person quitting heroine. It’s as much problem for the person as it is for the people around that person, especially those that live with the person, analogous to turmoil in international economic partnerships.
Anarchy should be thought of as the natural state of mankind even before the event of addiction to government, an idea as powerful as heroin. Given that government has been the norm, finding a place to implement that context might be impossible. Anarchy needs to have a proper context. Inherently, it is no more and no less evil than government, yet I espouse it, especially when it is coupled to socialist or communist values in the sense of the roots of the word, not Marxism. Keep fixing government and it might be in a utopia, but I can’t come up with a perfect government idea any more than others have historically. If there is that person with the perfect idea of government, then perhaps the people will give him or her a chance to prove it, but to me it seems more like an unlikely scenario. Just as there are parents, so will there be government.
A protector is someone that is comforted by control. He/she would likely oppose anarchist values. Some people will always believe control is good, and spare no expense so that control may be maintained, so hopefully such a person that likes control will see that anarchy is its own self regulating form of control. What? Definitely not in today’s thought climate, but that would be an optimal time for implementation, especially if this became the craving of the populace, as it is humanities protectors that stand to impede the implementation of anarchy the most. That is if the protectors say anarchy, surely the time for anarchy is here! Something of biblical proportions would need to happen to common thought. The protectors will be the last to change. There is no need to rush them, that wouldn’t be an anarchist value.
That’s right! Government is not needed to produce regulation, only taking initiative to be proactive to justice. It should happen, but it will only when humans are ready to be witnesses to crimes, and do something about it without the need for uniforms and badges. Uniforms and badges are gimmicks for monkeys. That is, Marx failed in his Communist Manifesto where government became the means to implement socialism. Government induced sharing doesn’t work.
Capitalism failed too. At its heart, all but greedy people, people on the level of two year olds need to have a sense of material worth that comes through capitalism. Capitalism is monkeys using green paper to go shopping. Capitalism also conjures up the idea of stores full of goods, but only a few people having the ability to purchase them. Capitalism certainly leads to material wealth, enough that humanity could all prosper by.
This is the proper context for anarchy implementation: if the people of a land are able to interact well enough, that is as well as that of the interactions’ of real nations, and then anarchy has a chance. Anarchism is separate from socialism and capitalism, but it is like an umbrella that can protect both these things. There are two problems anarchists may have. Capitalism without slavery is a lie. At the very minimum, this is the employer and employee relationship, the mildest form of slavery. Similarly, socialism without government to enforce it is a lie. Both of these things are not acceptable to anarchists. As an umbrella, within anarchy there is room to explore both slavery and government, yet there needs to be a phenomena such that these aren’t imperative to society, jelly not steel. That is people need to relate to each other in anarchy as nations relate to other nations in the global setting. Though jelly, a sense of justice needs to be greater than the sense of what is right by the law. That is there needs to be some benefit for the herd to turn to anarchy. Though some nations oppress others, anarchy holds that both socialism and capitalism could exist well enough simultaneously that a balance could be found, a balance where everyone is happier. That is capitalism seems to know of no need to give charity, while socialism is strongly charitable, perhaps too much so, but if a balance is to be found, it is in anarchy, where these two ideas intermingle.
There are all sorts of interactions nations have with each other, war, trade, the need to acquire resources, unequal levels of power and even a loose sense of mob rules justice. Take for instance the United Nations. This institution is a way nations can unite as a mob in international affairs. The people that lead these states and the way they interact with other states are as their brains. These brains are very similar to human brains. Sometimes they even malfunction. There are all sorts of things that can go right and wrong with the leaders of nations, such that a comparison might be made with interactions of nations, and interactions of individuals of an ideal anarchist society. That is anarchy is not a solution to problems, but it is an ideal.
Anarchy does not solve the problem that some nations oppress other nations, just as bullies develop in the school environment. There is no real answer to the problem: Why can’t we all just behave? However, that is not to say that minimal amounts of improvement are possible to behavior, primarily, government. The improvements anarchy can make are a sense of justice higher than that of law, a sense of regulation greater than that which government can provide, and a sense of wealth where capitalist hoarding no longer seems necessary.
Anarchy government USA reason Igor Panarin system capitalism socialism regulation mob rules martial law
People like to govern personal actions. Few are the men and women that are happy to be in diapers. Just as humans like control over bodily function, humans desire power. Perhaps government started through tribal chiefs. There became an important role for leaders. However, this is a very problematic role, as sometimes humans like to govern actions of others. That is, eventually most of humanity wants to be a leader, but as populations age to adulthood, it means increasing suppression. Suppression is the inherent problem with leadership, as with being lead it means someone is subordinate. Most people don’t like being subordinate.
Both separation and unity are forms of government. Separation is usually punishment, as humans are social. Unity is generally reward. However, to have the right to govern our own actions, means that it is imperative that the actions of others aren’t governed, so far as we can help it. Freedoms that one person takes away from another is as a spreading plague, as it is only human to desire something in return for giving up a freedom. This is the provisional aspect of government. The same is true with separation and unity. Anarchy is not a call to either, as every person has some beings he or she desires to be separate from, and some with which he or she desires a feeling of unification. However, to say anarchy is all separation or all unification neglects the jelly that is anarchy. There must be give and take, freedom from government so long as freedom, happiness, and punishment are reasonable.
With anarchy, there is of course give and take, and consequently a bottom line with both nations and people. That is there is not an exact form to anarchy. Anarchy would operate more like jelly than steel. Take for instance my jelly way of liberal thinking. Often I like 50% majorities, but that is entirely morally relativist. I also like weighting opinions, but 50% should suffice to overthrow any ruler. Sometimes I’ll gladly join a very small minority. I am writing this as a minority anarchist.
Anarchy is funny because it can’t be legislated. That is the hypocrisy of democrat liberals. Freedom knows no bounds. It is only in an anarchist environment that the crux liberty is possible to be lived. Anarchy must take with it a grain of salt. It will never be absolute. There will always be government, jelly not steel!
Similar to giving and receiving, both sustenance and lack of it are not imperative in anarchy, which is the ultimate freedom of choice. This is why there are nations in the first place. It is the idea of you and me, separation that is felt among nations. Nations take personal interest in their people, but less in others and such it is a grand scale similarity. Both individuals and nations desire freedom. It is also a fact that governments do not necessarily protect that freedom.
Humans are reasonable. Anarchy is not a chaos void of reason, but it is a place where reasoning skills become heightened, such is the playing field of the world’s rulers, the playing field of the stars of reason, hopefully! I say hopefully because nations get sick. Sometimes a nation’s leadership is poor, which is another problem with government, that leaders are just as fallible as everyone else. Consequently, there is time to pull the plug on a nation, just as sometimes a doctor pulls the plug on a person and cuts the feeding tube. Life and death decisions and decisions of a much lesser magnitude still would exist in anarchy. The future tense is used because anarchy is theoretical to the Western world, as more primal or brute instincts have long been lost to civilization. Aside from action and its subdivisions, with or without intent to control, there is greater ability for reasoning skills to flourish when government of the actions of others is reduced. This is only logic, proven from my argument.
This is definitely not to say that in anarchy minding one’s own business is imperative. Altruistic actions made in daily decision making are very important to an anarchist ideal, though one cannot say that they are mandatory though at least altruism serves as a means to subordinate oneself to another leaving the possibility of receiving something in return.
Are there any scoffers? Ye are only a product of sentiments your teachers had toward anarchy. These come out of the book of Judges in the Bible, which was a period of anarchy in the history of the nation of Israel. It’s generally not considered a great time, and so this opinion has influenced the human conception of anarchy ever since.
Government is not void of reason though perfection always seems to be hoped for in the next one established. Historically though establishing a government is as important as having an operating system for a computer this is not to say bigger operating systems are better. Windows Vista is proof of this. Perhaps, with the next government decisions will lead to doctrine as concerned with system repair, as it is with just making sure the system runs. Maybe, the USA operating system was too small to be rectified before it was too late. By now it is time to get new computer. I don’t see why the operating system is necessary, and that is why I am an anarchist. Yet, I am not against operating systems, imperatively, just as each individual program needs some sort of system.
It was said when the system was established that it needed to check and balance itself. I guess that would be RAM, ROM and a Processor. Okay, it wasn’t a perfect analogy. I can’t compare the branches of government to the parts of a computer using similarities. However, no one was able to conceive at the time the present need for a system overhaul. Consider the option: taking as much time with the mechanism for putting a leader into power, as removing him or her. A President might as well be as a crucial functional unit to a computer. If one can be voted in, then one should be able to be voted out. That’s IBM wisdom, not Macs!
See, anarchy is not devoid of leadership, nor is it devoid of interaction though it is inherent that all interactions are for the purpose of governing. Leadership is natural. Humans have to raise young in order to continue as a species and that means the young have to be lead, so it is true that humans naturally fall into leader and follower mentalities. With anarchy, though I don’t think if it is natural it has to be good, I am not trying to escape nature. The escapement of nature can only lead to dystopia.
Throw a tennis ball at a wall and watch it ricochet. That’s government! If you ask me, then I say that’s God at work. He caused the ball to ricochet, as he is the sustainer though I don’t like everything that He sustains. Government is as inescapable as the human master and slave relationship. Yet, many people try to escape this horrible institution! Anarchy is only void of imperative government, and by this I mean government which can exist over a majority of people that do not like it. To someone else it might mean something different. That is moral relativism is not an imperative, itself.
If a great amount of people don’t like the government, 50% or greater, then I say keep no president and have other branches work out the problems so that the nation is worthy of political representation. Who knows maybe then anarchy would exist as much as 50% of the time! I know that if my computer runs 50% slower because of overload that it is probably time to do some maintenance. The same should be true to states of anarchy.
Most people I’ve met don’t understand anarchy. I am probably not helping! Usually, the best word that comes to mind to describe their idea of anarchy is dystopia. The end of any big government is a dystopia. Folks like Igor Panarin say the USA’s time is almost up. The idea that comes to mind if you say anarchy is the end of the USA for most people. This is synonymous with a worthless dollar and food shortages. Also, there is this idea that anarchy is when people hoard resources, which can also be coupled with martial law where the military is more a source of fear to common citizens than a protection.
I want to dispel anyone’s idea that this is what I have in mind as an anarchist for utopia, food shortages and the like. Surely, quitting strong government through anarchy is not an ideal form of anarchy. If I believed that, then I would have to consider something such as quitting heroin to be ideal. Nationally, the end of a government could be likened to quitting heroin. Of course it isn’t ideal when there are sudden states of anarchy, but anarchy is a great idea, but like any idea it is not a god. It is not as if, if its anarchy, then it has to be good. Anarchy is not necessarily good. Even Igor Panarin says that this coming collapse of the USA government is not ideal. Nobody wants to deal with a giant person quitting heroine. It’s as much problem for the person as it is for the people around that person, especially those that live with the person, analogous to turmoil in international economic partnerships.
Anarchy should be thought of as the natural state of mankind even before the event of addiction to government, an idea as powerful as heroin. Given that government has been the norm, finding a place to implement that context might be impossible. Anarchy needs to have a proper context. Inherently, it is no more and no less evil than government, yet I espouse it, especially when it is coupled to socialist or communist values in the sense of the roots of the word, not Marxism. Keep fixing government and it might be in a utopia, but I can’t come up with a perfect government idea any more than others have historically. If there is that person with the perfect idea of government, then perhaps the people will give him or her a chance to prove it, but to me it seems more like an unlikely scenario. Just as there are parents, so will there be government.
A protector is someone that is comforted by control. He/she would likely oppose anarchist values. Some people will always believe control is good, and spare no expense so that control may be maintained, so hopefully such a person that likes control will see that anarchy is its own self regulating form of control. What? Definitely not in today’s thought climate, but that would be an optimal time for implementation, especially if this became the craving of the populace, as it is humanities protectors that stand to impede the implementation of anarchy the most. That is if the protectors say anarchy, surely the time for anarchy is here! Something of biblical proportions would need to happen to common thought. The protectors will be the last to change. There is no need to rush them, that wouldn’t be an anarchist value.
That’s right! Government is not needed to produce regulation, only taking initiative to be proactive to justice. It should happen, but it will only when humans are ready to be witnesses to crimes, and do something about it without the need for uniforms and badges. Uniforms and badges are gimmicks for monkeys. That is, Marx failed in his Communist Manifesto where government became the means to implement socialism. Government induced sharing doesn’t work.
Capitalism failed too. At its heart, all but greedy people, people on the level of two year olds need to have a sense of material worth that comes through capitalism. Capitalism is monkeys using green paper to go shopping. Capitalism also conjures up the idea of stores full of goods, but only a few people having the ability to purchase them. Capitalism certainly leads to material wealth, enough that humanity could all prosper by.
This is the proper context for anarchy implementation: if the people of a land are able to interact well enough, that is as well as that of the interactions’ of real nations, and then anarchy has a chance. Anarchism is separate from socialism and capitalism, but it is like an umbrella that can protect both these things. There are two problems anarchists may have. Capitalism without slavery is a lie. At the very minimum, this is the employer and employee relationship, the mildest form of slavery. Similarly, socialism without government to enforce it is a lie. Both of these things are not acceptable to anarchists. As an umbrella, within anarchy there is room to explore both slavery and government, yet there needs to be a phenomena such that these aren’t imperative to society, jelly not steel. That is people need to relate to each other in anarchy as nations relate to other nations in the global setting. Though jelly, a sense of justice needs to be greater than the sense of what is right by the law. That is there needs to be some benefit for the herd to turn to anarchy. Though some nations oppress others, anarchy holds that both socialism and capitalism could exist well enough simultaneously that a balance could be found, a balance where everyone is happier. That is capitalism seems to know of no need to give charity, while socialism is strongly charitable, perhaps too much so, but if a balance is to be found, it is in anarchy, where these two ideas intermingle.
There are all sorts of interactions nations have with each other, war, trade, the need to acquire resources, unequal levels of power and even a loose sense of mob rules justice. Take for instance the United Nations. This institution is a way nations can unite as a mob in international affairs. The people that lead these states and the way they interact with other states are as their brains. These brains are very similar to human brains. Sometimes they even malfunction. There are all sorts of things that can go right and wrong with the leaders of nations, such that a comparison might be made with interactions of nations, and interactions of individuals of an ideal anarchist society. That is anarchy is not a solution to problems, but it is an ideal.
Anarchy does not solve the problem that some nations oppress other nations, just as bullies develop in the school environment. There is no real answer to the problem: Why can’t we all just behave? However, that is not to say that minimal amounts of improvement are possible to behavior, primarily, government. The improvements anarchy can make are a sense of justice higher than that of law, a sense of regulation greater than that which government can provide, and a sense of wealth where capitalist hoarding no longer seems necessary.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Direct Descent from Antipater, Regent for Alexander the Great and the Seleucids
Direct Descent from Antipater, Regent for Alexander the Great and the Seleucids
Antipater (Regent for Alexander “the Great”)
Phila (Seleucid)
Antiochus I Soter m. Stratonice (Seleucid)
Antiochus II Theos (Seleucid)
ANTIOCHIS
PTOLEMY I, King of Commagene ca 163 BCE
SAMUS I, King of Commagene ca 140 BE
MITHRADATES I, King of Commagene (96-70 BCE)
ANTIOCHUS I, King of Commagene (69-39)
Dau m ORODES II, Arsacid Great King of Parthia (ca 55-38 BCE)
PHRAATES IV, Great King of Parthia (38-2 BCE when murdered by 5th son PHRAATACES) ,
had by wife THESMUSA (formerly an Italian slave-girl given him by Marc Antony)
PHRAATACES, Great King of Parthia (2 BCE -4 CE)
VONONES II, Great King of Parthia (51 CE)
VOLOGASES, Great King of Parthia (51-55 & 58-78)
PAKORUS II, Great King of Parthia (78-105)
MEHERDATES
SANATROIKES
VOLOGASES III, Great King of Parthia (105-147)
VOLOGASES IV, Great King of Parthia (148-190)
VOLOGASES V, Great King of Parthia (190-208) m dau of PHARASMENES, King of Iberia (132-82)
KHOSROES I, made King of Armenia (191-216 when kidnapped by Roman Emperor Caracalla)
TIRIDATES I (TRDAT), King of Armenia (217-222)
TIRIDATES II (TRDAT II), King of Armenia (238-52 & 279-85)
TIRIDATES III (TRDAT III), made King of Armenia in 288 by Roman Emperor Diocletian but became a Persian vassal when Armenia later came under Sassanid domination, d 342
KHOSROES II (KHOSROV II)"the Valiant", King of Western Armenia (285-297)
TIGRANES "Helios", 1st Christian King of Armenia (349-63), m PHARRANTSEM
Son 2
CHOSROES III, King of Armenia (390-92 & 412-13)
BAMBISHN, m ATHENOGARNES, greatgrandson of GRIGOR PARTEV (St. GREGORY the Illuminator, 1st Katholicos of the Armenia Church
St. NERSES, hereditary Katholicos of Armenia (355-73), m a Mamikonian princess
St. ISAAC, hereditary Katholicos of Armenia (378-438), founded separate Armenian church
SAHAKAMOYSH, the Gregorid heiress, m HAMAZASP I, Prince of the Mamikonids (387-432)
HAMAZASPIAN MAMIKONIAN, killed 451
HMAYCEK MAMIKONIAN, a Persian vassal
MUSHEL MAMIKONIAN, a Byzantine vassal alive 555
DAVID MAMIKONIAN, a Persian vassal alive ca 600
HAMAZASP II MAMIKONIAN, Ostikan of Armenia (655-8)
HRAHAT, a Mamikonid Prince under Arab suzerainty
DAVID, a Mamikonid Prince, d 744
SAMUEL, Prince of the Mamikonids, the Gregorid heir, killed 772
Dau, m SMBAT VI, Prince of the Bagratids
HAMYEAK, Prince of the Mamikonids, m dau of LEO V, Emperor of Byzantium
KONSTANTINOS, b 785, m PANCALO
BARDAS, a magistros
BASILEOS
GREGORIA, m NIKETAS SKLEROS
BARDAS SKLEROS, anti-Emperor (976-9, 987 & 989)
ROMANOS SKLEROS, m dau of ABU TAGLIB FAD’LALLAH of Mosul
BASILEIOS SKLEROS, magistros ca 1028, m PULCHERIA
ARGYRA, m Emp CONSTANTINE IX "Monomachus" (1042-55)
MARÍA, m VSÉVOLOD I, Great Prince of Kiev (1078-93)
VLADIMIR II, Great Prince of Kiev, d 1125, m GYTHA, dau of King HAROLD II of England
MSTISLAV I (Harald), Great Prince of Kiev & Novgorod, d 1132, m CHRISTINA
ISIASLAV II, d 1154
HELENA (EUPHRASYNA), m GEYSA II of Hungary
BÉLA III, King of Hungary, d 1196, m ANNE de CHÂTILLON
ANDREAS II, King of Hungary (1205-35), m 2ndly YOLANDE de COURTENAY
VIOLANTE, m JAYME I of Aragón and Majorca (1213-1276)
ISABELLA, m as 1st wife of PHILIPPE III "the Bold", King of France (1270-85)
PHILIPPE IV, "the Fair", King of France (1285-1314), b 1268, JEANNE, Queen of Navarre
ISABELLA, d 1357, m King EDWARD II of England (1307-27)
King EDWARD III (1327-77), m PHILIPPA of Hainault
JOHN "of Gaunt", Earl of Richmond, Duke of Lancaster, 3rdly m in 1396 KATHRYN de SWYNFORD. Before their marriage JOHN and KATHRYN had
JOHN BEAUFORT, Earl of Somerset, m MARGARET dau of Earl THOMAS de HOLLAND
JOHN BEAUFORT, Duke of Somerset, m MARGARET, dau of Baron JOHN BEAUCHAMP
MARGARET, m 2ndly EDMUND TUDOR 1st Earl of Richmond
HENRY VII, King of England (1485-1509), m ELIZABETH, dau of King EDWARD IV
MARGARET, b 1489, d 1541, m 1stly in 1503 JAMES IV, King of Scots (1488-1513)
Catherine Stewart and James Douglas,3rd Earl of Morton
Lady Margaret Douglas
Claud Hamilton 1st Lord Paisley
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn
Sir George Hamilton 1st Baronet, of Donalong
James Hamilton Groom of the Chamber to Charles II
Sir James Hamilton 6th Earl of Abercorn
James the seventh Earl of Abercorn, Lord Paisley
Hon. John Hamilton/Sgt. John O Hamilton Sr. in American Revolution
David/Jacob Hamilton
Levi Weirick Hamilton
William Newton Hamilton
Harry Hamilton
Howard Hamilton
Craig Hamilton
Antipater (Regent for Alexander “the Great”)
Phila (Seleucid)
Antiochus I Soter m. Stratonice (Seleucid)
Antiochus II Theos (Seleucid)
ANTIOCHIS
PTOLEMY I, King of Commagene ca 163 BCE
SAMUS I, King of Commagene ca 140 BE
MITHRADATES I, King of Commagene (96-70 BCE)
ANTIOCHUS I, King of Commagene (69-39)
Dau m ORODES II, Arsacid Great King of Parthia (ca 55-38 BCE)
PHRAATES IV, Great King of Parthia (38-2 BCE when murdered by 5th son PHRAATACES) ,
had by wife THESMUSA (formerly an Italian slave-girl given him by Marc Antony)
PHRAATACES, Great King of Parthia (2 BCE -4 CE)
VONONES II, Great King of Parthia (51 CE)
VOLOGASES, Great King of Parthia (51-55 & 58-78)
PAKORUS II, Great King of Parthia (78-105)
MEHERDATES
SANATROIKES
VOLOGASES III, Great King of Parthia (105-147)
VOLOGASES IV, Great King of Parthia (148-190)
VOLOGASES V, Great King of Parthia (190-208) m dau of PHARASMENES, King of Iberia (132-82)
KHOSROES I, made King of Armenia (191-216 when kidnapped by Roman Emperor Caracalla)
TIRIDATES I (TRDAT), King of Armenia (217-222)
TIRIDATES II (TRDAT II), King of Armenia (238-52 & 279-85)
TIRIDATES III (TRDAT III), made King of Armenia in 288 by Roman Emperor Diocletian but became a Persian vassal when Armenia later came under Sassanid domination, d 342
KHOSROES II (KHOSROV II)"the Valiant", King of Western Armenia (285-297)
TIGRANES "Helios", 1st Christian King of Armenia (349-63), m PHARRANTSEM
Son 2
CHOSROES III, King of Armenia (390-92 & 412-13)
BAMBISHN, m ATHENOGARNES, greatgrandson of GRIGOR PARTEV (St. GREGORY the Illuminator, 1st Katholicos of the Armenia Church
St. NERSES, hereditary Katholicos of Armenia (355-73), m a Mamikonian princess
St. ISAAC, hereditary Katholicos of Armenia (378-438), founded separate Armenian church
SAHAKAMOYSH, the Gregorid heiress, m HAMAZASP I, Prince of the Mamikonids (387-432)
HAMAZASPIAN MAMIKONIAN, killed 451
HMAYCEK MAMIKONIAN, a Persian vassal
MUSHEL MAMIKONIAN, a Byzantine vassal alive 555
DAVID MAMIKONIAN, a Persian vassal alive ca 600
HAMAZASP II MAMIKONIAN, Ostikan of Armenia (655-8)
HRAHAT, a Mamikonid Prince under Arab suzerainty
DAVID, a Mamikonid Prince, d 744
SAMUEL, Prince of the Mamikonids, the Gregorid heir, killed 772
Dau, m SMBAT VI, Prince of the Bagratids
HAMYEAK, Prince of the Mamikonids, m dau of LEO V, Emperor of Byzantium
KONSTANTINOS, b 785, m PANCALO
BARDAS, a magistros
BASILEOS
GREGORIA, m NIKETAS SKLEROS
BARDAS SKLEROS, anti-Emperor (976-9, 987 & 989)
ROMANOS SKLEROS, m dau of ABU TAGLIB FAD’LALLAH of Mosul
BASILEIOS SKLEROS, magistros ca 1028, m PULCHERIA
ARGYRA, m Emp CONSTANTINE IX "Monomachus" (1042-55)
MARÍA, m VSÉVOLOD I, Great Prince of Kiev (1078-93)
VLADIMIR II, Great Prince of Kiev, d 1125, m GYTHA, dau of King HAROLD II of England
MSTISLAV I (Harald), Great Prince of Kiev & Novgorod, d 1132, m CHRISTINA
ISIASLAV II, d 1154
HELENA (EUPHRASYNA), m GEYSA II of Hungary
BÉLA III, King of Hungary, d 1196, m ANNE de CHÂTILLON
ANDREAS II, King of Hungary (1205-35), m 2ndly YOLANDE de COURTENAY
VIOLANTE, m JAYME I of Aragón and Majorca (1213-1276)
ISABELLA, m as 1st wife of PHILIPPE III "the Bold", King of France (1270-85)
PHILIPPE IV, "the Fair", King of France (1285-1314), b 1268, JEANNE, Queen of Navarre
ISABELLA, d 1357, m King EDWARD II of England (1307-27)
King EDWARD III (1327-77), m PHILIPPA of Hainault
JOHN "of Gaunt", Earl of Richmond, Duke of Lancaster, 3rdly m in 1396 KATHRYN de SWYNFORD. Before their marriage JOHN and KATHRYN had
JOHN BEAUFORT, Earl of Somerset, m MARGARET dau of Earl THOMAS de HOLLAND
JOHN BEAUFORT, Duke of Somerset, m MARGARET, dau of Baron JOHN BEAUCHAMP
MARGARET, m 2ndly EDMUND TUDOR 1st Earl of Richmond
HENRY VII, King of England (1485-1509), m ELIZABETH, dau of King EDWARD IV
MARGARET, b 1489, d 1541, m 1stly in 1503 JAMES IV, King of Scots (1488-1513)
Catherine Stewart and James Douglas,3rd Earl of Morton
Lady Margaret Douglas
Claud Hamilton 1st Lord Paisley
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn
Sir George Hamilton 1st Baronet, of Donalong
James Hamilton Groom of the Chamber to Charles II
Sir James Hamilton 6th Earl of Abercorn
James the seventh Earl of Abercorn, Lord Paisley
Hon. John Hamilton/Sgt. John O Hamilton Sr. in American Revolution
David/Jacob Hamilton
Levi Weirick Hamilton
William Newton Hamilton
Harry Hamilton
Howard Hamilton
Craig Hamilton
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Conservatives on Mental Illness: Demons or Denial
Conservatives on Mental Illness: Demons or Denial
Why do religious conservatives have such a difficult time admitting mental illness exists? This question mystified me for a long time, until I asked my wife. Now, I get it. It goes back to demons. Conservatives generally support religion, while they tend to reject science. Poll how many conservatives believe in evolution and how many liberals believe in evolution. You get my gist. Some conservative still believe the earth is the center of the universe, but I doubt a single liberal does. Psychology is a science, and for that, I can see how it would alienate conservatives. Differently, religion and history go hand in hand. In religion, demons cause mental illness. Consequently, a brain that gravitates toward religion, specifically Christianity, will often explain mental illness through demons, rather than using the modern lingo.
Unfortunately, this has consequences. By neglecting the modern lingo, conservatives often neglect modern treatment for mental illness. It is as if the very idea of a psychiatrist is downright spooky to many conservatives. That is a shame because it results in denial of mental illnesses, especially untreated depression or bipolar.
Right away I’m sure many conservatives just wrote me off. I wrote bipolar, and for many conservatives, bipolar doesn’t exist. Perhaps, this is a result of failure of modern psychology. It got too complicated for the patient and families of the mentally ill to understand. Not everyone is capable being an expert on bipolar for sure. Not everyone needs to read a book on their illness to find out what is wrong. However, this is a minor error. The far greater error is to outright deny mental illness exists.
That is, I don’t care if you believe bipolar exists, but I do care if you believe mental illness is possible, specifically mental illness other than depression. This is because I care whether or not you are willing to step out of denial and treat a mental illness, not over some trifling words such as ADD, anxiety, or bipolar. No, I don’t believe that they are demons. I believe that these things are physiological problems that come from messed up metabolic pathways, and neurotransmitter function. That is, if you are mentally ill, then you need to go to your doctor and get and take your pills though not every doctor is a good one. Work with your doctor, and not against him or her, as they probably have a lot of education and you might even find that they actually do know what they are talking about.
The problem with mental illnesses is that some of them have stigma. Bipolar certainly does. Schizophrenia does. However, if you say you have some attention problems, then probably nobody will look at you funny. Yet, they may look at you funny if you say that you have ADHD. When you do have mental illness, then you are forced into trying to be politically correct about everything. Strangely, bipolar people rarely want anything to do with being politically correct. I know I don’t. That’s why I speak my mind in my blog. I no longer worry about people saying, I heard about you. I just go all out. I’ll tell anybody. I don’t care. It’s better than being paranoid that your past is coming to haunt you.
Maybe, with this attitude we see why conservatives don’t like words like bipolar. They say, is there such a thing as hyper-religiosity? Likewise, a common one is, isn’t hyper-religiosity a good thing? Then, the depression hits! All because the conservative could not recognize that hyper-religiosity is in fact a real problem! The doctor wasn’t listened to. Somebody in the family thought he or she knew best! This denial works until your loved one commits suicide, as bipolar depressions can often be prevented if the mania is prevented. You might wonder, as I do, how this sort of denial can help any family.
Why do religious conservatives have such a difficult time admitting mental illness exists? This question mystified me for a long time, until I asked my wife. Now, I get it. It goes back to demons. Conservatives generally support religion, while they tend to reject science. Poll how many conservatives believe in evolution and how many liberals believe in evolution. You get my gist. Some conservative still believe the earth is the center of the universe, but I doubt a single liberal does. Psychology is a science, and for that, I can see how it would alienate conservatives. Differently, religion and history go hand in hand. In religion, demons cause mental illness. Consequently, a brain that gravitates toward religion, specifically Christianity, will often explain mental illness through demons, rather than using the modern lingo.
Unfortunately, this has consequences. By neglecting the modern lingo, conservatives often neglect modern treatment for mental illness. It is as if the very idea of a psychiatrist is downright spooky to many conservatives. That is a shame because it results in denial of mental illnesses, especially untreated depression or bipolar.
Right away I’m sure many conservatives just wrote me off. I wrote bipolar, and for many conservatives, bipolar doesn’t exist. Perhaps, this is a result of failure of modern psychology. It got too complicated for the patient and families of the mentally ill to understand. Not everyone is capable being an expert on bipolar for sure. Not everyone needs to read a book on their illness to find out what is wrong. However, this is a minor error. The far greater error is to outright deny mental illness exists.
That is, I don’t care if you believe bipolar exists, but I do care if you believe mental illness is possible, specifically mental illness other than depression. This is because I care whether or not you are willing to step out of denial and treat a mental illness, not over some trifling words such as ADD, anxiety, or bipolar. No, I don’t believe that they are demons. I believe that these things are physiological problems that come from messed up metabolic pathways, and neurotransmitter function. That is, if you are mentally ill, then you need to go to your doctor and get and take your pills though not every doctor is a good one. Work with your doctor, and not against him or her, as they probably have a lot of education and you might even find that they actually do know what they are talking about.
The problem with mental illnesses is that some of them have stigma. Bipolar certainly does. Schizophrenia does. However, if you say you have some attention problems, then probably nobody will look at you funny. Yet, they may look at you funny if you say that you have ADHD. When you do have mental illness, then you are forced into trying to be politically correct about everything. Strangely, bipolar people rarely want anything to do with being politically correct. I know I don’t. That’s why I speak my mind in my blog. I no longer worry about people saying, I heard about you. I just go all out. I’ll tell anybody. I don’t care. It’s better than being paranoid that your past is coming to haunt you.
Maybe, with this attitude we see why conservatives don’t like words like bipolar. They say, is there such a thing as hyper-religiosity? Likewise, a common one is, isn’t hyper-religiosity a good thing? Then, the depression hits! All because the conservative could not recognize that hyper-religiosity is in fact a real problem! The doctor wasn’t listened to. Somebody in the family thought he or she knew best! This denial works until your loved one commits suicide, as bipolar depressions can often be prevented if the mania is prevented. You might wonder, as I do, how this sort of denial can help any family.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Conservatives: Big On Family or Big on Big Business. What’s it going to be?
Conservatives: Big On Family or Big on Big Business. What’s it going to be?
Most the paradoxes of the Republicans, particularly conservatives, stem from conflicting views on support of big business versus support of the family. The campaign funds have to come from somewhere. As a result, the republicans have ship wrecked their party in favor of big business. The values of big business are entirely antithetical to family values. Through being so competitive, businesses like Wal-Mart jeopardize the very idea of the family.
Big business is a reason for counterculture. People like Igor Panarin, a predictor the end of the USA, often site countercultures as a strong reason for their beliefs. We are Rome! The fights we see on television might as well be the fights of gladiators. These fights are brought to you by big business. The problem is lots of financial oppression and too much liberal thinking on subjects such as feminism and homosexuality. Historically attitudes toward homosexuality are important, and Igor Panarin agrees. People might say that we live well now. However, this neglects that we not only have things like cell phones, but that we also need them in order to function.
Big business supports the Marylyn Manson and Korn tour, “Family Values.” After all, a band like Korn is big business. These are not family values though, but if it sells, then big business will sell it. Korn is counterculture. It is not art. Counter culture is not kids wearing black clothes. That is just a trend. However, counterculture is prostituted art that has no talent. Big business is thus void of morals because it will support art that has no talent. It is greedy people simply wanting another dollar lining their pocket. Real family values have nothing to do with big business, so what is with neoconservatives supporting it? Such is my claim that the neoconservative ideal is just another brand of liberal thinking.
The USA is so liberal that even the conservatives split. Now there are the neoconservatives and the paleoconservatives. Don’t get me wrong I’m a liberal myself. However, there is such a thing as a culture that is too liberal, such as one that tolerates human fighting as a blood sport with fewer and fewer rules. The neoconservatives are the new political evil, as bad as a march for gay rights, and don’t get me wrong, I support gay rights, just not the outright picketing and parades. There is no heterosexual parade. I don’t see why there should be a parade in honor of gay people. Such a parade is moral corruption, and contrary to family values.
Neoconservatives are strongly in favor not regulating capitalism, laissez faire, but these fakes would just prefer to make any counter culture illegal. The core of conservative thinking is the family, not big business. Again, I am liberal. However, I see superfluous liberal activity as more of a symptom than anything else. Suppression is the way of the neoconservatives, and it is rather nonsensical, as big business is known for suppression, while neoconservatives seek to end counterculture by taking away outlets for the downtrodden. Why is it that neoconservatives make more outlets for the downtrodden and then ridicule the downtrodden for partaking in these outlets?
Another problem is that our country has a money plumbing problem, such that countercultures arose and then became mainstream. Morally, we’ve sprung a leak, and I don’t know how to fix it. The big business that supports Korn doesn’t support spreading the wealth and is anti-family. Capitalists simply don’t let people have money. You have to force them to pay their workers. More programs are not the answer, but perhaps less. Wealth redistribution needs to occur, living wage.
Most the paradoxes of the Republicans, particularly conservatives, stem from conflicting views on support of big business versus support of the family. The campaign funds have to come from somewhere. As a result, the republicans have ship wrecked their party in favor of big business. The values of big business are entirely antithetical to family values. Through being so competitive, businesses like Wal-Mart jeopardize the very idea of the family.
Big business is a reason for counterculture. People like Igor Panarin, a predictor the end of the USA, often site countercultures as a strong reason for their beliefs. We are Rome! The fights we see on television might as well be the fights of gladiators. These fights are brought to you by big business. The problem is lots of financial oppression and too much liberal thinking on subjects such as feminism and homosexuality. Historically attitudes toward homosexuality are important, and Igor Panarin agrees. People might say that we live well now. However, this neglects that we not only have things like cell phones, but that we also need them in order to function.
Big business supports the Marylyn Manson and Korn tour, “Family Values.” After all, a band like Korn is big business. These are not family values though, but if it sells, then big business will sell it. Korn is counterculture. It is not art. Counter culture is not kids wearing black clothes. That is just a trend. However, counterculture is prostituted art that has no talent. Big business is thus void of morals because it will support art that has no talent. It is greedy people simply wanting another dollar lining their pocket. Real family values have nothing to do with big business, so what is with neoconservatives supporting it? Such is my claim that the neoconservative ideal is just another brand of liberal thinking.
The USA is so liberal that even the conservatives split. Now there are the neoconservatives and the paleoconservatives. Don’t get me wrong I’m a liberal myself. However, there is such a thing as a culture that is too liberal, such as one that tolerates human fighting as a blood sport with fewer and fewer rules. The neoconservatives are the new political evil, as bad as a march for gay rights, and don’t get me wrong, I support gay rights, just not the outright picketing and parades. There is no heterosexual parade. I don’t see why there should be a parade in honor of gay people. Such a parade is moral corruption, and contrary to family values.
Neoconservatives are strongly in favor not regulating capitalism, laissez faire, but these fakes would just prefer to make any counter culture illegal. The core of conservative thinking is the family, not big business. Again, I am liberal. However, I see superfluous liberal activity as more of a symptom than anything else. Suppression is the way of the neoconservatives, and it is rather nonsensical, as big business is known for suppression, while neoconservatives seek to end counterculture by taking away outlets for the downtrodden. Why is it that neoconservatives make more outlets for the downtrodden and then ridicule the downtrodden for partaking in these outlets?
Another problem is that our country has a money plumbing problem, such that countercultures arose and then became mainstream. Morally, we’ve sprung a leak, and I don’t know how to fix it. The big business that supports Korn doesn’t support spreading the wealth and is anti-family. Capitalists simply don’t let people have money. You have to force them to pay their workers. More programs are not the answer, but perhaps less. Wealth redistribution needs to occur, living wage.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Who Is a Jew? Tribal Inclusion versus Exclusion
Who Is a Jew? Tribal Inclusion versus Exclusion
I hope Judaism can change so that it won’t be cut and dry as to who is Jewish and who is not Jewish. An important aspect of being a Jew is going beyond the letter of the Law. In this essay, I indicate that going beyond the letter of the law is synonymous with leniency and inclusion in the debate over who is a Jew. It is a reoccurring theme in Judaism that everything is perfect, while Jewish ancestries aren’t perfect, and neither are the histories for that matter, such as historicity of the Exodus from Egypt or the numbers in the desert census of Bamidbar. Thus, in the argument over who is a Jew why pretend like anything has the semblance of perfection in Judaism?
Issues over who is a Jew often stem from the origin of the mother. From what I read, all it says is that in intermarriage the father will turn away the son, but it doesn’t say that the son will actually be turned away in adulthood. What’s wrong with leaving that case open, saying some people pursue Judaism, while some don’t, rather than being so cut and dry, requiring a conversion? Over time, exclusion of children born to gentile mothers could hurt the cause of Judaism. People get angry when they are excluded over birth. Judaism shouldn’t make people angry.
It is also true that now many gentiles are circumcised. This dates Maimonides. His teachings are only relevant so much as they can be, and in the melting pot of cultures that is America, this has implications to Judaism. As a result, I feel comfortable disagreeing with him that one does not have an obligation to a non-Jew to observe Shabbat, nor hardly any other obligation at all. Because there are less cultural differences now between Jews and gentiles, Jews should feel an obligation to be more inclusive, and this already happens much more outside of synagogues.
Who should we help observe Shabbat, but anyone that wants to observe Shabbat? Though the popularity of Shabbat observance is waning, as more and more stores operate on Sunday, there is potentially the possibility that it becomes popular, especially since God rests a day in the story of the creation week. Yet, this is an opportunity for more people to observe on the proper day, Saturday, as not taking a weekly rest can only last so long. Eventually, some people will choose to take a rest, and some might even choose to observe Shabbat in the Jewish way.
As with Shabbat, the same with circumcision: where more and more Jews are opting not to circumcise. I don’t understand how a Jewish marriage where the parents do not circumcise results in a Jewish male, where a male that intermarries, but has his son circumcised results in a gentile male. That seems like a contradiction, and though now it is more and more a reality. There are certain truths in Judaism that are not absolute, and the issue of Jewish identity is one of them. It never has been, especially not since R. Akiva commented the lost tribes of Israel are lost forever due to assimilation. If Jewish identity were absolute, then the lost tribes could not lose their identity. Let’s not pretend like its absolute.
Historically, a non-circumcised male is cut off from his people, but there is no need for his people to make this happen. The same is true for people that are not Jewish, to cut them off from the Jewish people because of their mother. Importantly, in Maimonides time, the line over who is a Jew was more cut and dry, but now it is very blurred because there are so many intermarriages, and the popularity of Judaism in this melting pot America. Similarities in behavior mean that exclusive Jewish attitudes should be a thing of the past, as if the worst thing imaginable would be someone attempting to do a mitzvah and failing for lack of proper understanding of how to observe a tradition. For what purpose is exclusion, unless for elitism? The purpose of elitism was Maimonides thinking of the time back when only Jews were circumcised, but times are different! Jews now attend secular colleges, where these anachronistic separatist ideas no longer work or even seem reasonable.
The future promises that gentiles will often be circumcised because they feel it is important to their religion, Christianity or Islam, while more Jews will not circumcise. This is already happening today, as the amount of those getting circumcised decreases now that the medical establishment doesn’t support that circumcision is any better than not having it.
There is also the possibility of pockets of Judaism developing within Christianity, where people report that Jesus was only a human teacher, but will circumcise their young, as is the case with many in the Unitarian Church. This can only mean one thing. Judaism is more accepted, and this acceptance should be returned with more leniencies from rabbis on the issue over who is a Jew or it might mean more cults if Judaism does not make an effort to be more lenient, where observant gentiles might start a Jewish cult.
The line of thinking where obligations change according to whether or not one is Jewish or gentile in my opinion ought to be defined partly by behavior and partly by ancestry, and this much Torah supports. Rabbis can recognize Jewish behavior, but that should be more important to a rabbi rather than how one is behaving relative to the origin of that person’s mother. Judaism has always been a religion of behavior, and that should be a rabbis’ concern for adults. Obviously, one behaves like one’s parents, usually, so naturally there is parental inheritance of a Jewish idea and/or behavior. However, unless a person is a jerk, one does not enter a synagogue without intentions of learning Jewish behavior, where I think an attitude of including someone to Jewish behavior is important. After all, these behaviors are healthy for anyone to perform, not just Jews.
Tests for determining who is a sincere convert, or is sincere in behavior never work. People are fickle, one minute they appear sincere the next they don’t. There is no protection to this. Sure, rabbis hope to attain a natural push and pull with the subject matter, and if that is the goal, then go for it, but encouraging one to one’s national identity over Judaism is a fraud. Maybe we could do that if we could identify the other Torah nations, but as of now Jews have a lot to offer as a nation, and the event of the lost tribes is every reason to extend love to one’s neighbor, be he/she Jewish or not. What we don’t want are people that would pass the test for sincerity operating outside the religion, and that will happen if the wrong person is turned away.
Ruth had no mikvah in her conversion, but a mikvah can be valuable in demonstrating that one is sincere. The Torah also knows of half-tribes, and paternal ascent, such that in intermarriage, one should be able to indicate that they are Jewish, but not necessarily have to walk into the mikvah as a non-Jew, and emerge as a Jew. Bathing is more common these days, and the powers of a mikvah aren’t supernatural, as the ritual would have us believe. The lost and Christianized Ethiopian Jews will gain nothing supernatural from ritual immersion, except a firm belief that they are doing something Jewish. Yet, mikvahs are not a protection that future generations of Ethiopian Jews won’t convert back to Christianity, or face some other sort of assimilation, so let’s not pretend. Consequently, the Tanach’s idea of conversion is not what it is in modernity, and maybe it is time to revert to the historic idea of conversion, as it was with Ruth.
Though ritual purity, the laws of mikvah, is an entire volume of the Talmud, it is certainly not as important to be as one of the six pillars of Judaism, over history or Hebrew. My feeling is that most of R. Judah haNassi’s version of the Mishnah has its origins during the Davidic kingdom, which had also been combined with the words G-d gave to accompany the Torah at Mt. Sinai. Thus, the Mishnah largely represents the Jewish legal system during the first and second Temple periods. Before this it is likely Celtic people were Israelites, before there were laws of ritual immersion. Thus, there was a great period of time where the Israelites were tribes both before and after the Exodus. My reasoning is that Jews are white, and thus genetically probably have a common ancestor 50,000 years ago with Celtic people, according to science. In my theory, the Exodus occurred some 50,000 years ago. Maybe this date is exaggerated, but the point is made. White people have a recent origin in human DNA, most likely from living in Nordic areas and this includes both Celtic people and Jews. The nation of Abraham, the Chaldeans is white. Thus, at some time Celtic people separated from the people that became known as the Jews, and that this became very apparent during the Davidic kingdom in roughly 1,000 BCE. Additionally, there is genetic reason to believe in the Adam and Eve story, as genetically there is evidence that all humans descend from the same two humans and the Noah story, as there is historical evidence that at one time humans were an endangered species.
Jews that go to college are often more welcoming than traditional Judaism requires. This is the spirit of going beyond what the Law requires! More exclusion is not the spirit of Judaism, by its followers, though many rabbis seem unsure of this, but that is only a historical perspective and it no longer represents the modern reality. This is the modern reality. I would expect that if an average Jew observed Shabbat at a college that his door would not only be open, but he would be happy and thankful for any company, such that he would eagerly assist someone interested in joining him regardless of the origin that his fellow student’s mother. I use Shabbat as an example because the Talmud says that Shabbat observance is the barometer for determining who is a Jew. Consequently, Judaism should adapt by showing obligation to help any person that wants to observe Shabbat fostering an attitude of inclusion rather than exclusion, as this represents how the majority of Jews feel.
I hope Judaism can change so that it won’t be cut and dry as to who is Jewish and who is not Jewish. An important aspect of being a Jew is going beyond the letter of the Law. In this essay, I indicate that going beyond the letter of the law is synonymous with leniency and inclusion in the debate over who is a Jew. It is a reoccurring theme in Judaism that everything is perfect, while Jewish ancestries aren’t perfect, and neither are the histories for that matter, such as historicity of the Exodus from Egypt or the numbers in the desert census of Bamidbar. Thus, in the argument over who is a Jew why pretend like anything has the semblance of perfection in Judaism?
Issues over who is a Jew often stem from the origin of the mother. From what I read, all it says is that in intermarriage the father will turn away the son, but it doesn’t say that the son will actually be turned away in adulthood. What’s wrong with leaving that case open, saying some people pursue Judaism, while some don’t, rather than being so cut and dry, requiring a conversion? Over time, exclusion of children born to gentile mothers could hurt the cause of Judaism. People get angry when they are excluded over birth. Judaism shouldn’t make people angry.
It is also true that now many gentiles are circumcised. This dates Maimonides. His teachings are only relevant so much as they can be, and in the melting pot of cultures that is America, this has implications to Judaism. As a result, I feel comfortable disagreeing with him that one does not have an obligation to a non-Jew to observe Shabbat, nor hardly any other obligation at all. Because there are less cultural differences now between Jews and gentiles, Jews should feel an obligation to be more inclusive, and this already happens much more outside of synagogues.
Who should we help observe Shabbat, but anyone that wants to observe Shabbat? Though the popularity of Shabbat observance is waning, as more and more stores operate on Sunday, there is potentially the possibility that it becomes popular, especially since God rests a day in the story of the creation week. Yet, this is an opportunity for more people to observe on the proper day, Saturday, as not taking a weekly rest can only last so long. Eventually, some people will choose to take a rest, and some might even choose to observe Shabbat in the Jewish way.
As with Shabbat, the same with circumcision: where more and more Jews are opting not to circumcise. I don’t understand how a Jewish marriage where the parents do not circumcise results in a Jewish male, where a male that intermarries, but has his son circumcised results in a gentile male. That seems like a contradiction, and though now it is more and more a reality. There are certain truths in Judaism that are not absolute, and the issue of Jewish identity is one of them. It never has been, especially not since R. Akiva commented the lost tribes of Israel are lost forever due to assimilation. If Jewish identity were absolute, then the lost tribes could not lose their identity. Let’s not pretend like its absolute.
Historically, a non-circumcised male is cut off from his people, but there is no need for his people to make this happen. The same is true for people that are not Jewish, to cut them off from the Jewish people because of their mother. Importantly, in Maimonides time, the line over who is a Jew was more cut and dry, but now it is very blurred because there are so many intermarriages, and the popularity of Judaism in this melting pot America. Similarities in behavior mean that exclusive Jewish attitudes should be a thing of the past, as if the worst thing imaginable would be someone attempting to do a mitzvah and failing for lack of proper understanding of how to observe a tradition. For what purpose is exclusion, unless for elitism? The purpose of elitism was Maimonides thinking of the time back when only Jews were circumcised, but times are different! Jews now attend secular colleges, where these anachronistic separatist ideas no longer work or even seem reasonable.
The future promises that gentiles will often be circumcised because they feel it is important to their religion, Christianity or Islam, while more Jews will not circumcise. This is already happening today, as the amount of those getting circumcised decreases now that the medical establishment doesn’t support that circumcision is any better than not having it.
There is also the possibility of pockets of Judaism developing within Christianity, where people report that Jesus was only a human teacher, but will circumcise their young, as is the case with many in the Unitarian Church. This can only mean one thing. Judaism is more accepted, and this acceptance should be returned with more leniencies from rabbis on the issue over who is a Jew or it might mean more cults if Judaism does not make an effort to be more lenient, where observant gentiles might start a Jewish cult.
The line of thinking where obligations change according to whether or not one is Jewish or gentile in my opinion ought to be defined partly by behavior and partly by ancestry, and this much Torah supports. Rabbis can recognize Jewish behavior, but that should be more important to a rabbi rather than how one is behaving relative to the origin of that person’s mother. Judaism has always been a religion of behavior, and that should be a rabbis’ concern for adults. Obviously, one behaves like one’s parents, usually, so naturally there is parental inheritance of a Jewish idea and/or behavior. However, unless a person is a jerk, one does not enter a synagogue without intentions of learning Jewish behavior, where I think an attitude of including someone to Jewish behavior is important. After all, these behaviors are healthy for anyone to perform, not just Jews.
Tests for determining who is a sincere convert, or is sincere in behavior never work. People are fickle, one minute they appear sincere the next they don’t. There is no protection to this. Sure, rabbis hope to attain a natural push and pull with the subject matter, and if that is the goal, then go for it, but encouraging one to one’s national identity over Judaism is a fraud. Maybe we could do that if we could identify the other Torah nations, but as of now Jews have a lot to offer as a nation, and the event of the lost tribes is every reason to extend love to one’s neighbor, be he/she Jewish or not. What we don’t want are people that would pass the test for sincerity operating outside the religion, and that will happen if the wrong person is turned away.
Ruth had no mikvah in her conversion, but a mikvah can be valuable in demonstrating that one is sincere. The Torah also knows of half-tribes, and paternal ascent, such that in intermarriage, one should be able to indicate that they are Jewish, but not necessarily have to walk into the mikvah as a non-Jew, and emerge as a Jew. Bathing is more common these days, and the powers of a mikvah aren’t supernatural, as the ritual would have us believe. The lost and Christianized Ethiopian Jews will gain nothing supernatural from ritual immersion, except a firm belief that they are doing something Jewish. Yet, mikvahs are not a protection that future generations of Ethiopian Jews won’t convert back to Christianity, or face some other sort of assimilation, so let’s not pretend. Consequently, the Tanach’s idea of conversion is not what it is in modernity, and maybe it is time to revert to the historic idea of conversion, as it was with Ruth.
Though ritual purity, the laws of mikvah, is an entire volume of the Talmud, it is certainly not as important to be as one of the six pillars of Judaism, over history or Hebrew. My feeling is that most of R. Judah haNassi’s version of the Mishnah has its origins during the Davidic kingdom, which had also been combined with the words G-d gave to accompany the Torah at Mt. Sinai. Thus, the Mishnah largely represents the Jewish legal system during the first and second Temple periods. Before this it is likely Celtic people were Israelites, before there were laws of ritual immersion. Thus, there was a great period of time where the Israelites were tribes both before and after the Exodus. My reasoning is that Jews are white, and thus genetically probably have a common ancestor 50,000 years ago with Celtic people, according to science. In my theory, the Exodus occurred some 50,000 years ago. Maybe this date is exaggerated, but the point is made. White people have a recent origin in human DNA, most likely from living in Nordic areas and this includes both Celtic people and Jews. The nation of Abraham, the Chaldeans is white. Thus, at some time Celtic people separated from the people that became known as the Jews, and that this became very apparent during the Davidic kingdom in roughly 1,000 BCE. Additionally, there is genetic reason to believe in the Adam and Eve story, as genetically there is evidence that all humans descend from the same two humans and the Noah story, as there is historical evidence that at one time humans were an endangered species.
Jews that go to college are often more welcoming than traditional Judaism requires. This is the spirit of going beyond what the Law requires! More exclusion is not the spirit of Judaism, by its followers, though many rabbis seem unsure of this, but that is only a historical perspective and it no longer represents the modern reality. This is the modern reality. I would expect that if an average Jew observed Shabbat at a college that his door would not only be open, but he would be happy and thankful for any company, such that he would eagerly assist someone interested in joining him regardless of the origin that his fellow student’s mother. I use Shabbat as an example because the Talmud says that Shabbat observance is the barometer for determining who is a Jew. Consequently, Judaism should adapt by showing obligation to help any person that wants to observe Shabbat fostering an attitude of inclusion rather than exclusion, as this represents how the majority of Jews feel.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
My Relation to George III [American Revolution Loser] and Q. Elizabeth II
My Relation to George III [American Revolution Loser] and Q. Elizabeth II
Genealogy #1
King James II
King James III
James IV (common ancestor and my great x15 grandfather)
James V – associated with King James Bible (great x14 uncle)
Mary, Queen of Scots
James VI
Elizabeth
Sophia
George I
George II
Fredrick Louis prince of Wales
George III – Ruled over 13 American Colonies, Lost Power in American Revolution (9th cousin 6x removed)
Edward duke of Kent
Queen Victoria
Edward VII
George V
George VI
Elizabeth II – (15th cousin same generation or not removed), present monarch
Genealogy #2 – more distant relationship than above
King James II
James, 1st Lord Hamilton and Mary of Scotland (common ancestors)
Elizabeth Hamilton and Matthew Stewart 2nd Earl of Lennox
John Stewart 3rd Earl of Lennox
Matthew Stewart 4th Earl of Lennox
Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley and Mary Queen of Scots
James VI
Elizabeth
Sophia
George I
George II
Fredrick Louis prince of Wales
George III
Edward duke of Kent
Queen Victoria
Edward VII
George V
George VI
Elizabeth II
Note: Mary of Scotland is not Mary Queen of Scots
Genealogy #1
King James II
King James III
James IV (common ancestor and my great x15 grandfather)
James V – associated with King James Bible (great x14 uncle)
Mary, Queen of Scots
James VI
Elizabeth
Sophia
George I
George II
Fredrick Louis prince of Wales
George III – Ruled over 13 American Colonies, Lost Power in American Revolution (9th cousin 6x removed)
Edward duke of Kent
Queen Victoria
Edward VII
George V
George VI
Elizabeth II – (15th cousin same generation or not removed), present monarch
Genealogy #2 – more distant relationship than above
King James II
James, 1st Lord Hamilton and Mary of Scotland (common ancestors)
Elizabeth Hamilton and Matthew Stewart 2nd Earl of Lennox
John Stewart 3rd Earl of Lennox
Matthew Stewart 4th Earl of Lennox
Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley and Mary Queen of Scots
James VI
Elizabeth
Sophia
George I
George II
Fredrick Louis prince of Wales
George III
Edward duke of Kent
Queen Victoria
Edward VII
George V
George VI
Elizabeth II
Note: Mary of Scotland is not Mary Queen of Scots
Direct Descent from the semi-legendary King Arthur
Direct Descent from the semi-legendary King Arthur
Arthur of Dyfed ~590 CE
Nowy
Sanan
Elisedd
Brochfael
Cadell
Nest
Rhodri Mawr
Cadell
Hywel Dda
Owain
Einion
Cadell
Tewdwr
Rhys
Gruffydd
The Lord Rhys
Gruffydd
Owain
Maredudd
Owain
Llywellyn
Thomas
Margaret
Maredudd ap Tudor
Owen Tudor
Edmund Tudor
Henry VII
Margaret Tudor
Catherine Stewart and James Douglas,3rd Earl of Morton
Lady Margaret Douglas
Claud Hamilton 1st Lord Paisley
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn
Sir George Hamilton 1st Baronet, of Donalong
James Hamilton Groom of the Chamber to Charles II
Sir James Hamilton 6th Earl of Abercorn
James the seventh Earl of Abercorn, Lord Paisley
Hon. John Hamilton/Sgt. John O Hamilton Sr. in American Revolution
David/Jacob Hamilton
Levi Weirick Hamilton
William Newton Hamilton
Harry Hamilton
Howard Hamilton
Craig Hamilton
Arthur of Dyfed ~590 CE
Nowy
Sanan
Elisedd
Brochfael
Cadell
Nest
Rhodri Mawr
Cadell
Hywel Dda
Owain
Einion
Cadell
Tewdwr
Rhys
Gruffydd
The Lord Rhys
Gruffydd
Owain
Maredudd
Owain
Llywellyn
Thomas
Margaret
Maredudd ap Tudor
Owen Tudor
Edmund Tudor
Henry VII
Margaret Tudor
Catherine Stewart and James Douglas,3rd Earl of Morton
Lady Margaret Douglas
Claud Hamilton 1st Lord Paisley
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn
Sir George Hamilton 1st Baronet, of Donalong
James Hamilton Groom of the Chamber to Charles II
Sir James Hamilton 6th Earl of Abercorn
James the seventh Earl of Abercorn, Lord Paisley
Hon. John Hamilton/Sgt. John O Hamilton Sr. in American Revolution
David/Jacob Hamilton
Levi Weirick Hamilton
William Newton Hamilton
Harry Hamilton
Howard Hamilton
Craig Hamilton
2nd, 3rd and 4th descent from K. Henry II Anjou
2nd, 3rd and 4th descent from K. Henry II Anjou
Henry II Anjou (Descent #2 by Descent #2 from King James IV)
John
Henry III
Edward I
Edward II
Edward III
Lionel duke of Clarence and Elizabeth de Burgh
Philippa Edmund Mortimer 3rd Earl of March
Roger Mortimer 4th Earl of March and Eleanor Holland
Anne Mortimer and Richard Earl of Cambridge
Richard duke of York and Cecilia Neville
Edward IV
Henry VII and Elizabeth of York
James IV
Catherine Stewart and James Douglas,3rd Earl of Morton
Lady Margaret Douglas
Claud Hamilton 1st Lord Paisley
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn
Sir George Hamilton 1st Baronet, of Donalong
James Hamilton Groom of the Chamber to Charles II
Sir James Hamilton 6th Earl of Abercorn
James the seventh Earl of Abercorn, Lord Paisley
Hon. John Hamilton/Sgt. John O Hamilton Sr. in American Revolution
David/Jacob Hamilton
Levi Weirick Hamilton
William Newton Hamilton
Harry Hamilton
Howard Hamilton
Craig Hamilton
Henry II Anjou (Descent #3 by Descent #2 from King James IV)
John
Henry III
Edward I
Edward II
Edward III
Edmund duke of York
Anne Mortimer and Richard Earl of Cambridge
Richard duke of York and Cecilia Neville
Edward IV
Henry VII and Elizabeth of York
James IV
Catherine Stewart and James Douglas,3rd Earl of Morton
Lady Margaret Douglas
Claud Hamilton 1st Lord Paisley
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn
Sir George Hamilton 1st Baronet, of Donalong
James Hamilton Groom of the Chamber to Charles II
Sir James Hamilton 6th Earl of Abercorn
James the seventh Earl of Abercorn, Lord Paisley
Hon. John Hamilton/Sgt. John O Hamilton Sr. in American Revolution
David/Jacob Hamilton
Levi Weirick Hamilton
William Newton Hamilton
Harry Hamilton
Howard Hamilton
Craig Hamilton
Henry II Anjou (Descent #4 by Descent #2 from King James IV)
John
Henry III
Edward I
Edward II
Edward III
John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford
John Beaufort earl of Somerset and Margaret Holland
John Beaufort earl of Somerset and Margaret Beauchamp
Edmund Tudor and Margaret Beaufort
Henry VII and Elizabeth of York
James IV
Catherine Stewart and James Douglas,3rd Earl of Morton
Lady Margaret Douglas
Claud Hamilton 1st Lord Paisley
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn
Sir George Hamilton 1st Baronet, of Donalong
James Hamilton Groom of the Chamber to Charles II
Sir James Hamilton 6th Earl of Abercorn
James the seventh Earl of Abercorn, Lord Paisley
Hon. John Hamilton/Sgt. John O Hamilton Sr. in American Revolution
David/Jacob Hamilton
Levi Weirick Hamilton
William Newton Hamilton
Harry Hamilton
Howard Hamilton
Craig Hamilton
Henry II Anjou (Descent #2 by Descent #2 from King James IV)
John
Henry III
Edward I
Edward II
Edward III
Lionel duke of Clarence and Elizabeth de Burgh
Philippa Edmund Mortimer 3rd Earl of March
Roger Mortimer 4th Earl of March and Eleanor Holland
Anne Mortimer and Richard Earl of Cambridge
Richard duke of York and Cecilia Neville
Edward IV
Henry VII and Elizabeth of York
James IV
Catherine Stewart and James Douglas,3rd Earl of Morton
Lady Margaret Douglas
Claud Hamilton 1st Lord Paisley
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn
Sir George Hamilton 1st Baronet, of Donalong
James Hamilton Groom of the Chamber to Charles II
Sir James Hamilton 6th Earl of Abercorn
James the seventh Earl of Abercorn, Lord Paisley
Hon. John Hamilton/Sgt. John O Hamilton Sr. in American Revolution
David/Jacob Hamilton
Levi Weirick Hamilton
William Newton Hamilton
Harry Hamilton
Howard Hamilton
Craig Hamilton
Henry II Anjou (Descent #3 by Descent #2 from King James IV)
John
Henry III
Edward I
Edward II
Edward III
Edmund duke of York
Anne Mortimer and Richard Earl of Cambridge
Richard duke of York and Cecilia Neville
Edward IV
Henry VII and Elizabeth of York
James IV
Catherine Stewart and James Douglas,3rd Earl of Morton
Lady Margaret Douglas
Claud Hamilton 1st Lord Paisley
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn
Sir George Hamilton 1st Baronet, of Donalong
James Hamilton Groom of the Chamber to Charles II
Sir James Hamilton 6th Earl of Abercorn
James the seventh Earl of Abercorn, Lord Paisley
Hon. John Hamilton/Sgt. John O Hamilton Sr. in American Revolution
David/Jacob Hamilton
Levi Weirick Hamilton
William Newton Hamilton
Harry Hamilton
Howard Hamilton
Craig Hamilton
Henry II Anjou (Descent #4 by Descent #2 from King James IV)
John
Henry III
Edward I
Edward II
Edward III
John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford
John Beaufort earl of Somerset and Margaret Holland
John Beaufort earl of Somerset and Margaret Beauchamp
Edmund Tudor and Margaret Beaufort
Henry VII and Elizabeth of York
James IV
Catherine Stewart and James Douglas,3rd Earl of Morton
Lady Margaret Douglas
Claud Hamilton 1st Lord Paisley
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn
Sir George Hamilton 1st Baronet, of Donalong
James Hamilton Groom of the Chamber to Charles II
Sir James Hamilton 6th Earl of Abercorn
James the seventh Earl of Abercorn, Lord Paisley
Hon. John Hamilton/Sgt. John O Hamilton Sr. in American Revolution
David/Jacob Hamilton
Levi Weirick Hamilton
William Newton Hamilton
Harry Hamilton
Howard Hamilton
Craig Hamilton
Sunday, September 13, 2009
$11.8T In Debt Is Just the Beginning!
$11.8T In Debt Is Just the Beginning!
Social Security and Medicare $59.0 trillion total $192,068 per person
Private Debt $7.4 trillion $24,095 per person
National debt $11.8 trillion $38,412 per person
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-05-28-debt_N.htm
Also figure in:
$81,594 average in mortgages owed per capita
$29,694 in military retirement owed per capita
$15,851 in civil servant retirement owed per capita
I was unable to find the amount of State and Local Government Debt.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Judah, Father of Kings and Presidents + Reference List
This blog site contain several ancestries that go through Persia, Greece, Trojan and European rulers. These ancestries proove one tribe has ruled the world, Judah. The ancestries, 5 separate ones that separate and rejoin, go through Armenia, Turkey, Ireland, Iceland, Norway, France, and Britain. The data covers over 3,000yrs worth of time that the tribe of Judah has been in power. One king beget another. That is most people that call themselves Jews do not descend from Judah, but from converts. The nation of Abraham was thus christianized, except for a few individuals. The trend of Judah's ruling has continued in the USA, as many Presidents, if not all, trace their lineage to a king. That is even former President George Bush Jr. and President Barrack Obama trace their lineage to a king, Barrack through his mother.
"The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his." - Genesis 49:10
"And I will bless her [Sarah], and I will give you a son from her, and I will bless her, and she will become [a mother of] nations; kings of nations will be from her. " - Genesis 17:16
Here are links of the 5 ancestries from Judah that go up through modern rulers:
These might seem like wild claims, so I will also leave you a long list of references, primary texts not internet only books, I used to support the claims made in these 5 ancestries.
Additionally, I used the referenced site http://www.thepeerage.com to do my own ancestry.
For lack of a better source, the list of Presidents that have king ancestors is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_genealogical_relationship. The link to the list, which I put on my website is: http://craig-myspace-sandwich.blogspot.com/2009/04/presidential-king.html
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Direct Descent from Zerah through Darius the Great
Direct Descent from Zerah through Darius the Great
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Judah
Zerah m. Danae
Perseus (Plato, Alcibaides)
Teispes
DARIUS I,Great King of Persia (521-485 BCE)
XERXES, Great King of Persia (485-465/4 BCE)
ARTAXERXES I, Great King of Persia (464-424 BCE)
DARIUS III, Great King of Persia (424-404 BCE) m his half-sister PARYSATIS (1 Maccabees 12 – “Darius our brethren”)
ARTAXERXES, Great King of Persia (404-358 BCE)
RHODOGUNDE m ORONTES II, Satrap of Armenia
ORONTES (AROANDES) III, Satrap of Armenia, becoming King in 331 BCE
MITHRANES I, King of Armenia (331-ca 318 BCE)
AROANDES, King of Armenia (ca 318-ca 260 BCE)
SAMOS I, King of Armenia (ca 260 BCE)
ARSAMES I, King of Armenia (ca 259-after 228 BCE)
XERXES, King of Armenia (ca 227-after 212 BCE), m ANTIOCHIS dau of ANTIOCHUS II, Seleucid King of Syria (262/1-246 BCE)
PTOLEMY I, King of Commagene ca 163 BCE
SAMUS I, King of Commagene ca 140 BE
MITHRADATES I, King of Commagene (96-70 BCE)
ANTIOCHUS I, King of Commagene (69-39)
Dau m ORODES II, Arsacid Great King of Parthia (ca 55-38 BCE)
PHRAATES IV, Great King of Parthia (38-2 BCE when murdered by 5th son PHRAATACES) ,
had by wife THESMUSA (formerly an Italian slave-girl given him by Marc Antony)
PHRAATACES, Great King of Parthia (2 BCE -4 CE)
VONONES II, Great King of Parthia (51 CE)
VOLOGASES, Great King of Parthia (51-55 & 58-78)
PAKORUS II, Great King of Parthia (78-105)
MEHERDATES
SANATROIKES
VOLOGASES III, Great King of Parthia (105-147)
VOLOGASES IV, Great King of Parthia (148-190)
VOLOGASES V, Great King of Parthia (190-208) m dau of PHARASMENES, King of Iberia (132-82)
KHOSROES I, made King of Armenia (191-216 when kidnapped by Roman Emperor Caracalla)
TIRIDATES I (TRDAT), King of Armenia (217-222)
TIRIDATES II (TRDAT II), King of Armenia (238-52 & 279-85)
TIRIDATES III (TRDAT III), made King of Armenia in 288 by Roman Emperor Diocletian but became a Persian vassal when Armenia later came under Sassanid domination, d 342
KHOSROES II (KHOSROV II)"the Valiant", King of Western Armenia (285-297)
TIGRANES "Helios", 1st Christian King of Armenia (349-63), m PHARRANTSEM
Son 2
CHOSROES III, King of Armenia (390-92 & 412-13)
BAMBISHN, m ATHENOGARNES, greatgrandson of GRIGOR PARTEV (St. GREGORY the Illuminator, 1st Katholicos of the Armenia Church
St. NERSES, hereditary Katholicos of Armenia (355-73), m a Mamikonian princess
St. ISAAC, hereditary Katholicos of Armenia (378-438), founded separate Armenian church
SAHAKAMOYSH, the Gregorid heiress, m HAMAZASP I, Prince of the Mamikonids (387-432)
HAMAZASPIAN MAMIKONIAN, killed 451
HMAYCEK MAMIKONIAN, a Persian vassal
MUSHEL MAMIKONIAN, a Byzantine vassal alive 555
DAVID MAMIKONIAN, a Persian vassal alive ca 600
HAMAZASP II MAMIKONIAN, Ostikan of Armenia (655-8)
HRAHAT, a Mamikonid Prince under Arab suzerainty
DAVID, a Mamikonid Prince, d 744
SAMUEL, Prince of the Mamikonids, the Gregorid heir, killed 772
Dau, m SMBAT VI, Prince of the Bagratids
HAMYEAK, Prince of the Mamikonids, m dau of LEO V, Emperor of Byzantium
KONSTANTINOS, b 785, m PANCALO
BARDAS, a magistros
BASILEOS
GREGORIA, m NIKETAS SKLEROS
BARDAS SKLEROS, anti-Emperor (976-9, 987 & 989)
ROMANOS SKLEROS, m dau of ABU TAGLIB FAD’LALLAH of Mosul
BASILEIOS SKLEROS, magistros ca 1028, m PULCHERIA
ARGYRA, m Emp CONSTANTINE IX "Monomachus" (1042-55)
MARÍA, m VSÉVOLOD I, Great Prince of Kiev (1078-93)
VLADIMIR II, Great Prince of Kiev, d 1125, m GYTHA, dau of King HAROLD II of England
MSTISLAV I (Harald), Great Prince of Kiev & Novgorod, d 1132, m CHRISTINA
ISIASLAV II, d 1154
HELENA (EUPHRASYNA), m GEYSA II of Hungary
BÉLA III, King of Hungary, d 1196, m ANNE de CHÂTILLON
ANDREAS II, King of Hungary (1205-35), m 2ndly YOLANDE de COURTENAY
VIOLANTE, m JAYME I of Aragón and Majorca (1213-1276)
ISABELLA, m as 1st wife of PHILIPPE III "the Bold", King of France (1270-85)
PHILIPPE IV, "the Fair", King of France (1285-1314), b 1268, JEANNE, Queen of Navarre
ISABELLA, d 1357, m King EDWARD II of England (1307-27)
King EDWARD III (1327-77), m PHILIPPA of Hainault
JOHN "of Gaunt", Earl of Richmond, Duke of Lancaster, 3rdly m in 1396 KATHRYN de SWYNFORD. Before their marriage JOHN and KATHRYN had
JOHN BEAUFORT, Earl of Somerset, m MARGARET dau of Earl THOMAS de HOLLAND
JOHN BEAUFORT, Duke of Somerset, m MARGARET, dau of Baron JOHN BEAUCHAMP
MARGARET, m 2ndly EDMUND TUDOR 1st Earl of Richmond
HENRY VII, King of England (1485-1509), m ELIZABETH, dau of King EDWARD IV
MARGARET, b 1489, d 1541, m 1stly in 1503 JAMES IV, King of Scots (1488-1513)
James IV
Catherine Stewart and James Douglas,3rd Earl of Morton
Lady Margaret Douglas
Claud Hamilton 1st Lord Paisley
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn
Sir George Hamilton 1st Baronet, of Donalong
James Hamilton Groom of the Chamber to Charles II
Sir James Hamilton 6th Earl of Abercorn
James the seventh Earl of Abercorn, Lord Paisley
Hon. John Hamilton/Sgt. John O Hamilton Sr. in American Revolution
David/Jacob Hamilton
Levi Weirick Hamilton
William Newton Hamilton
Harry Hamilton
Howard Hamilton
Craig Hamilton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)