Gingrich and Other Pinheads (Update: Gingrich Video Added)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Big Update: Angry Black Lady tweeted back and… apologized. Yes, really.
Which meant that I owed her an apology for thinking she would never say that, and I did tweet back an apology while accepting hers. I guess you get so used to dealing with unreachable partisans you forget that there are people who can be persuaded. Which is doubly stupid on my part because, well, haven’t I been telling people never to give up on convincing at least some of the people?
As she wrote back, “see? civility isn’t dead! it’s just mostly dead. :)” Is it wrong that I thought of that scene in Monty Python? Well, I guess not, because she was thinking The Princess Bride.
Joking aside that makes some of what I say below inappropriately harsh. But I generally don’t “memory hole” my mistakes, big or small, so it will stay as is.
Anyway, here’s the original post…
————————————————–
Sometimes interesting topics seem come in on a common theme. Today’s theme is, well… stupidity.
For starters, we come to Newt Gingrich. As some of you know, Gingrich had an interview on Meet the Press last weekend that most people consider to have been a complete disaster for the Republicans and the ex-Speaker’s candidacy. If you didn’t know this, Greta Van Susteren actually sums up the controversy and how it might have struck a mortal blow to Gingrich’s fledgling presidential run quite well, in the video at this link. (Indeed this might be why he was heckled hilariously in Iowa.) And in the process of trying to walk his comments back on Greta’s show, he actually says this whopper:
Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood, because I have said publicly those words were inaccurate and unfortunate[.]
Update: And here’s video of Gingrich’s idiotic comment:
That is right, he is trying to say it is unfair of people to take a recording from that day and play it, because you see he didn’t really mean it. Of course Joe Biden was quoted as saying, “you can do that?”
Seriously imagine what a great rule that would be for politicians. Obama can pretend he never said he wanted to redistribute wealth to Joe the Plumber; or that he visited 57 states; or that he doesn’t mind high gas prices as long as the rise is gradual; or that he is not allowed to use military force unless 1) we are attacked, or congress authorizes it (by the way, we are past the 60 day mark and no one seems to care). Kerry could pretend he never said that bit about voting for it before he voted against it, or about needing to pass the “global test” before going to war. Indeed, come to think of it, I think the majority of the people in the remaining items will change their minds eventually and want to pretend they never said what I am about to make fun of them for saying…
—————————–
First among them are the clueless defenders of Dominique Strauss-Kahn (who is a man) as he faces charges that he attempted to rape a maid in a NYC Hotel.
Like let’s take Ben Stein. Ben, Ben, Ben… what is wrong with you? I mean you were once a man of such formidable intelligence that they had a whole game show built around beating you in a contest of knowledge. And now you write this?
In life, events tend to follow patterns. People who commit crimes tend to be criminals, for example. Can anyone tell me any economists who have been convicted of violent sex crimes? Can anyone tell me of any heads of nonprofit international economic entities who have ever been charged and convicted of violent sexual crimes? Is it likely that just by chance this hotel maid found the only one in this category? Maybe Mr. Strauss-Kahn is guilty but if so, he is one of a kind, and criminals are not usually one of a kind.
That is from a piece in the American Spectator that includes some decent points, and some really lame ones, but that is the lamest. Yeah, who ever heard of a rich and politically powerful man using his position to sexually exploit women…?
And yes, it’s a similar situation in my mind, because of the Juanita Broderick incident. And while there is no hint of violence, there is certainly illegality in what this man did…
…and many would consider it exploitive, too. (By the way, when talking about the recent Schwarzenegger scandal, Cnn did a retrospective of politician sex scandals which coincidentally left out that Cnn host.) Seriously, abusing the “help” is just what some rich and powerful men do.
Which is not to say I am assuming the guy is guilty, merely that it would violate none of my expectations in regards to human behavior if he was guilty of everything he was charged with.
Meanwhile it turns out that 60% of Frenchmen (and Frenchwomen) are convinced this is all a setup. Oy.
I guess they are waiting for the long-form rape certificate.
———————————
Meanwhile at the CDC blog, they are teaching you how to prepare for the Zombie Apocalypse. Yes, really.
Look I take it as a joke, but this is a government employee drawing a government salary at a time when we are over our debt ceiling. Can you guys at least fake efficiency by not goofing around on the job?
———————————
Meanwhile in news regarding economic stupidity, we learn that it is time to stock up on lightbulbs:
Two leading makers of lighting products are showcasing LED bulbs that are bright enough to replace energy-guzzling 100-watt light bulbs set to disappear from stores in January….
The new bulbs will also be expensive — about $50 each — so the development may not prevent consumers from hoarding traditional bulbs….
To encourage energy efficiency, Congress passed a law in 2007 mandating that bulbs producing 100 watts worth of light meet certain efficiency goals, starting in 2012. Conventional light bulbs don’t meet those goals, so the law will prohibit making or importing them. The same rule will start apply to remaining bulbs 40 watts and above in 2014. Since January, California has already banned stores from restocking 100-watt incandescent bulbs.
Ah, so Patrick… sorry to tell you, dude, but you might be screwed. So this is the brilliant plan of Congress (and the stupidity here is “bi-partisan” enough to have passed under George W. Bush): raise the cost of basic goods to obscene levels in the middle of a recession. Oy.
————————————
How about a musical interlude to introduce the next segment. Here’s The Beatles singing “I Want to Hold Your Hand”
Consider the relative innocence of that time. As John Mellancamp said in a fit of nostalgia once said: “holding hands meant so much baby.” Of course there was more sex back then than acknowledged publicly. For instance, the original version of “Under the Boardwalk” said they would be making love rather than “having fun” but given the fact that this song was sung by black men, that lyric was scrubbed as a bow to the racism of the day. But these days many parents would be very happy if their children only wanted to hold hands.
Ah, well, except in one Florida school:
Walking the hallways of many high schools across South Florida and it’s common to see high school kids holding hands whether it’s girls who are friends, or a couple who’s dating.
But at Blanche Ely High School in Pompano Beach, it’s against the rules. Two girls who are dating found out when they said the principal threatened to suspend them.
The girls allege anti-gay discrimination and the school claims that this is a blanket policy. Either way the school needs to lighten up. But then the real problem might be the fear of sexual harassment suits in schools, making lawyers the ultimate pinheads in this.
————————————
Elsewhere in Florida, a Catholic church is getting ready to pray for the soul of Osama bin Laden:
This calls for another musical interlude, this time from the Rolling Stones:
I think the only thing I like about that idea is that if bin Laden knew of it, he would probably be offended. Of course where he is right now, being offended is probably the least of his problems…
———————————-
See the Big Update at the beginning of the post.
And of course you might remember about a week ago I defended the Florida legislature from claims it accidentally outlawed sex, writing this about Angry Black Lady’s (ABL’s) post on the subject:
But for the most spectacular fail we get Angry Black Lady of Balloon Juice who, to her credit, did find the “dumb creature” language I quoted above, but then after accusing the Florida legislature of bad taxonomy, she ends with the bad biology of eugenics.
Yes really:
If the Teabillies won’t get out of the gene pool, then we should forcibly remove them under penalty of law.
You know, because genocide* is funny!
Am I violating Godwin’s Law if the person is actually making final solution jokes? I don’t think so.
Well, I don’t like relaying what happened on Twitter too often, but this was too much fun to pass up. Last night I tweeted a crack about her genocidal humor as follows:
um isn’t @AngryBlackLady the one who thinks genocide jokes are funny? http://bit.ly/mGvOP6
Which prompted numerous, um… what’s the word I am looking for? Oh, right… angry responses. From ABL herself:
yeah right, because I was serious about forcibly removing Teabillies from the gene pool. Wow. SO DUMB.
That’s right, she apparently missed the word “jokes” in my tweet and therefore believed that I thought she was serious, and then calls me dumb. Another twitterer wrote:
Patterico conveniently left out the first half of the paragraph he quoted.
Right, well, leaving aside that I said it, not Patrick (because that is a human mistake), well… let’s look at the whole paragraph from ABL’s post:
Moreover, I think we can all agree that Teabillies are the dumbest of “dumb creatures,” and I, for one, support all laws that prohibit sexual contact between humans and Teabillies. If the Teabillies won’t get out of the gene pool, then we should forcibly remove them under penalty of law.
So the first sentence–which I didn’t include and allegedly makes it all better–has ABL calling “Teabillies” dumb, and suggesting that they are not even human. Yeah, that makes it all much better.
(Recently Tony Katz proposed that we call people who claim everything is racist “racers”—an obvious riff on Birthers, Truthers, etc. Let me propose my own new term “contexters.” These are people who speciously claim that every bad thing said is suddenly not so horrible if you only put it “in context.”)
And then after all that, ABL pretty much repeats the sentiment:
@haymakers @NolteNC @AaronWorthing indeed, they prove why Teabillies should stop reproducing. So much stupid.
I mean at least this time she is talking about voluntary self-genocide, but it’s not much of an improvement. And then the most hilarious part was when she wrote this (here, here and here):
Nowhere did I make a joke about genocide, irrespective of whether my joke appealed to you. My mother is Jewish, you twitiot.
And yes, I do believe that Teabillies are stupid, aka “dumb creatures.” Perhaps you are unclear about what genocide is.
point me to where I suggested that Teabillies be systematically killed. I’ll wait.
So first she claims that because she is partly Jewish she couldn’t possibly say something like that. Heh. And then she suggests I don’t know what genocide means. But the hilarious part is that in truth, she got the definition of genocide wrong, by suggesting it is limited to mass murder. It is not. It is simply any attempt to wipe out a group defined by (real or perceived) genetic traits. Here’s how it is defined, for instance, in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
In other words, mass forced sterilization of an ethnic group counts, as would mass forced abortions, etc. And the extra funny thing about that, is that ABL actually knew that. In this post discussing posters that said things like “the most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb” and she herself described those posters as “the black genocide posters.” In other words, she recognized that mass abortion based on color was genocide… but somehow mass forced sterilization is not?
So after making the simple point that she was the one “unclear about what genocide is” and by the actual definition she did joke about genocide, she tries this as a comeback:
nice try. You used the term “final solution,” so don’t scramble to redefine what you wrote.
Except as I pointed out to her, in the Ukraine, Hitler’s plans didn’t involve slaughter but rather mass sterilization. Isn’t that a “final solution” to the Ukranian problem? Oddly, she never replied.
And to philosophize for a moment, really for Hitler the murder was all just a means to an end—the improvement and increase of the German stock, and the elimination of all inferiors (which is everyone but the Germans, including the Japanese and probably the Italians). That is why he killed the handicapped, for instance. Abortion was legal for Jews but not for Germans, and even the ban on homosexuality was based on the concern that those gay Germans needed to contribute to the volk’s gene pool. Hitler believed that history was the story of racial struggle and he intended for the German “race” to win. Of course to us the killing was the worst part of it, but for Hitler it was simply a means to the end of stopping the spread of supposedly bad genes.
But still let there be no confusion on that point. Angry Black Lady didn’t clearly call for the killing of anyone and if somehow you got that impression that she did because of something I wrote, that would be a mistake. So the most charitable interpretation of her remarks was that she was joking about a mass sterilization program. Which means that she does not echo Hitler’s call to “kill all cripples”; she merely jokes about applying the policy enunciated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that “[t]hree generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Oh, except that she is not even clearly willing to wait two generations before acting, at least in her joking imagination.
There isn’t that much better?
And no, her skin color and her partly Jewish heritage should not prevent us from noticing she was joking about genocide. And it’s not the worst crime anyone could commit to crack a joke like that. But, ABL, don’t act you didn’t say it.
And there is nothing necessarily wrong or bad about a person not knowing the fulsome definition of genocide or that bit of World War II history. But maybe it would teach her to be a little more reticent before calling another person dumb or a Teabilly. And maybe the fact that despite belonging to two demographics historically subjected to genocidal violence and mistreatment she realized through our exchange that she herself was cracking genocide jokes and maybe that would lead her to re-examine some of her own assumptions about claims of group immunity and perhaps she would even examine her own biases. I mean this might lead her to really grow as a person and become a more thoughtful, less hateful, dare I say… a less angry black lady?
Okay, it’s not frickin’ likely, but one can always hope…
—————————
Finally, I will get a little less mocking and a little more serious with this article:
Germans delve into sins of Nazi grandparents
Piercing family secrets helps third generation lift burden of guilt over regime’s atrocities
Rainer Hoess was 12 years old when he found out his grandfather was one of the worst mass murderers in history.
His boarding school’s gardener, an Auschwitz survivor, beat him black and blue after hearing he was the grandson of Rudolf Hoess, commandant of the death camp synonymous with the Holocaust.
“He beat me, because he projected on me all the horror he went through,” Rainer Hoess said, with a shrug and a helpless smile. “Once a Hoess, always a Hoess. Whether you’re the grandfather or the grandson — guilty is guilty.”…
Some, like Hoess, have launched an obsessive solitary search. Others seek help from seminars and workshops that have sprung up across Germany to provide research guidance and psychological support….
“When I investigate and read about my grandfather’s crimes, it tears me apart every single time,” Hoess said during a recent interview at his home in a little Black Forest village.
As a young man, he said, he tried twice to kill himself. He has suffered three heart attacks in recent years as well as asthma, which he says gets worse when he digs into his family’s Nazi past.
Today, Hoess says, he no longer feels guilty, but the burden of the past weighs on him at all times….
Hoess is no longer in contact with his father, brother, aunts and cousins, who all call him a traitor. Strangers often look at him with distrust when he tells them about his grandfather — “as if I could have inherited his evil.”
Now, there is stupidity there, but it is very deeply human stupidity. I don’t say it out of anger, or mockery but instead sadness. I honestly wish I could find these people and straighten them out (as though they would listen to me anyway).
Both Hoess and the unidentified gardener who attacked him are getting something fundamentally wrong here. There is curious phrase in our Constitution. In the middle of the Treason clause, discussing what many consider the worst crime one can commit, the Constitution says “but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood[.]” That term “corruption of blood” refers to a legal principle that held there the family of traitors responsible for their relative’s treason. And by those words that doctrine was repudiated in our constitution. It is a talisman of a broader principle that it is wrong to hold a person responsible for the crimes of another. There are some exceptions reasonable people make—for instance if a family member is dangerous, and you know it and don’t inform anyone, some jurisdictions might hold you civilly or even criminally responsible for that failure. But the mere fact that your father or grandfather committed a crime bears no taint on you.
Indeed, much of the hatred directed at Jews is based on a failure to apply that principle. To some anti-Semites, Jews are Christ-killers because Christians believe that long ago some people who were Jewish had Jesus killed. Never mind that the same logic would lead one to hate modern Italians given that the Romans actually did the deed, because bluntly, logic is not the average anti-Semite’s strong suit. Still, to pretend that the grandchildren of those who participated in the Holocaust are somehow stained engages in exactly the wrongheaded kind of thinking that contributed significantly to popular support for the Holocaust.
So that gardener was wrong to attack the young Hoess. It was stupid, even. And bluntly the gardener should have gone to prison for what he did (if it was true). I mean I am not saying that the gardener’s life experience isn’t a serious mitigating factor to consider in sentencing, but it was a crime. And while some of what Hoess says suggests that he gets that he doesn’t inherit his grandfather’s evil, obviously he very humanly (but yes, very stupidly) takes his grandfather’s crimes personally. And he shouldn’t.
But then again, I always tell people about how my grandfather worked on the aircraft of Charles Lindbergh and Amelia Earhart (not the one she disappeared in, of course), and helped on a very low level in the Manhattan project (he was so low on the ladder he had no idea what he was helping to build). It is human and yes, even a little stupid, to take pride in the achievements of your ancestors, or to feel guilt for the things they did wrong.
[Update: Dang it, I accidentally said father, when I meant grandfather in the story in the last paragraph. Sorry, fixed.]
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Light bulb story: they’re talking about LED bulbs, not CFLs, so don’t worry. CFLs are still relatively inexpensive. (I find them cheap at garage sales all the time.)
gp (72be5d) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:42 amOh, good… So they’ll end up voting for the guy for President of France.
So much for the economic survival of THAT country…
As for Germans trying to deal with the “sins of their grandfathers”, I would just like to say the following…
I don’t care what my grandparents did. If they were members of the clan and lynched people, that’s on them, not me. If my FATHER was involved in the rape of Nanking, that’s his deal, not mine.
I have neither the desire nor the obligation to even THINK about apologizing for things people who aren’t me have done, let alone actually DO it.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:48 amGingrich is emblematic of the horrible mess you create when you confuse brains with leadership or “correctness.” Obambi is another great example.
Sponge Bob Torquemada (fccc6f) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:53 amI like the constant attempts by ABL to grab every Moral Authority Victimhood card she can. She’s a girl. She’s black. She’s Jewish. Therefore, you can’t criticize her for a whole slew of things, and she can condemn anything she disagrees with without much argument.
Anyway, yeah, she jokes about genocide a lot. And it’s not even funny. It wouldn’t be that hard to add something intelligent to her jokes. All she’s saying is that she is incredibly bigoted against people who disagree with her, and thinks eliminating them is funny.
That ‘you thought I was serious?’ straw man is just icing on the cake, because you know she’s aware she’s completely in the wrong at that point.
Still, this is a good example of a twitter conversation being lame. The short messages become an opportunity for liars to omit the facts.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:56 amLED lights would be cool. White lights are actually several different colors of LEDs blended together. I’m hoping LED lighting will allow you to adjust the colors of the lighting from a central location. (Networked lighting!) Also, LEDs generally last much longer than other types of lighting, so $50 lights should last a long, long time.
BTW, did you hear the new twist in the DSK story? The housekeeper may be HIV positive. Reporters looking into the story found out that the accusers address is an apartment complex catering to HIV+ people, and her old address was the same sort of place.
Xmas (a633e2) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:56 amI also think that old Jewish Gardener committed a hate crime and should be imprisoned. Plus I think the irony of a Jew using blood libel to inflict a crime on others is quite amusing intellectually.
Sponge Bob Torquemada (fccc6f) — 5/18/2011 @ 11:02 amDustin
that’s what i enjoy about twitter. it often gives you a chance to get right into someone’s virtual face and it becomes almost like cross examination. or maybe simultaneous mutual cross examination.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/18/2011 @ 11:04 amI guess another way to say what I did is that twitter provides great temptation for some people to lie poorly, as ABL did. I can see the attraction, but I guess it’s not for me.
Clean up on Aisle 5, btw.
BTW, Torquemada, why did you fill out ‘Dental Plan’ junk mail forms with Patterico’s email address?
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/18/2011 @ 11:09 amElsewhere in Florida, a Catholic church is getting ready to pray for the soul of Osama bin Laden…
*sigh* I can ALMOST stand that. ALMOST. Not really, but ALMOST.
But if you add that to this story (http://tiny.cc/ta3zn) about churches nationwide that will be allowing Muslim clergy into their congregations to TEACH THE KORAN (as a way to show American’s aren’t racist bigots or something)… Well, it all gives me heartburn.
Note that the linked article mentions that churches will also be inviting Jewish clergy. But considering Christianity and Judaism at least share a common history (not to mention, of course, that Jesus was a Jew), I hardly call that radical.
MWR (32e6a8) — 5/18/2011 @ 11:09 amYou know, I’ve never considered Christ to be Jewish. I mean, isn’t the big difference between Christians and Jews that the former accepts Jesus as the Son of God?
So if Jesus was a Jew, does that mean he didn’t think that he was the Son of God?
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 5/18/2011 @ 11:25 amAlso, regarding the LED lightbulbs, does this mean they fixed the issue regarding how LEDs broadcast light? I recall earlier attempts to make LED bulbs failed because they couldn’t duplicate a CFL’s or an incandescent bulb’s “spread” of light – there were a lot of tiny spotlights (it wasn’t an even glow).
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 5/18/2011 @ 11:28 amI think some define ‘Jew’ by lineage instead of by what they believe.
Ultimately, it means nothing that Jesus had a Jewish mother. We’re all God’s people. The Jews have an amazing story in the Bible, and I don’t mean to diminish that, but I have to agree that Jesus transcends race.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/18/2011 @ 11:32 amThe left wants Ronald Mcdonald to retire so he and Newt Gingrich can sit on the couch.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/18/2011 @ 11:34 amMr. Wolfowitz didn’t rape a maid or even do anything wrong at all but our cowardly odiferous French ally-whore pals hounded him from his position at the world bank all the same.
I don’t feel sorry for Ben Stein’s little pal and I can’t be bothered if he’s an actual for reals rapist or merely your average cowardly perverted eurotrash socialist douche.
It’s just not my problem.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/18/2011 @ 11:38 amDustin
indeed, imho, if you think jesus is bound by lineage you are missing one of the major points of the good samaritan story.
MLK had a great sermon on that, and one of the big points in that is that jesus was saying that you should love your neighbor. so a wise-@$$ asks him who his neighbor is. And then he tells the story of the good samaritan and says, “who is the robbery victim’s neighbor.” the wise-@$$, now more sober, says the samaritan.
to get the point of that, you have to understand a little context. today we think good samaritan is redundant, but back in the day, samaritans were an ethnicity stereotyped as bad. it would be like going to alabama in the 1950’s and telling the story of the good “negro” (by the terms of the day). It would be a contradiction in terms. so in the story first comes various jews and they pass the guy by, but the samaritan stops and helps him. “Good samaritan” was considered a contradiction in terms. and so the major point of the story which we miss too often is that the issue is very much about judging not by ethnicity but content of the character.
now that is not even a close paraphrase of how MLK put it, but it captures decently the overall message he was conveying.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/18/2011 @ 11:43 amAaron #15 – sadly, the Parables (and Aesop’s Fables, and other Teaching Tales) seem no longer to be considered important … (grin) … you have just revealed that you and I are *OLD* !
As for Newt, he shoulda known better – but, then again, so should we … before we throw him out, we would serve ourselves better by seeing how newt can be useful in the conservative cause … Newt has done a whole lot of good for this country, and, as such, deserves to be cut some slack *before* capital sentence (for misdemeanour offence) is pronounced …
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 5/18/2011 @ 12:14 pmWhatever goodwill Newt had was entirely negated by his work supporting Dierdre Scozzafava during the NY-23 special election.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 5/18/2011 @ 12:25 pmAlasdair, if this latest episode was all there was to it, Newt would deserve a second chance, but this isn’t his first transgression, he supported Dede Scozzafava.
That was bad enough, but stabbing Ryan in the back on national TV marks him out as someone who once deserved respect and admiration, but has now demonstrated that he’s no longer trustworthy.
ropelight (3ca028) — 5/18/2011 @ 12:35 pmrope
you forgot when gingrich appeared in that ad with nancy pelosi…
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/18/2011 @ 12:39 pmThat is right, he is trying to say it is unfair of people to take a recording from that day and play it, because you see he didn’t really mean it.
I don’t see what the problem is. After all, quoting a politician is racist… at least that’s what I was repeatedly told back in 2008.
malclave (1db6c5) — 5/18/2011 @ 1:11 pmBtw, see the update, guys. ABL actually wrote back and apologized.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/18/2011 @ 1:30 pm#19, AW, you’re as right as rain on a thirsty cornfield, I clean forgot about that sad display of Newt’s monumentally inexplicable stupidity.
That boy’s just not right.
ropelight (3ca028) — 5/18/2011 @ 1:33 pmMaybe Newt and Dede Scozzafatwa can make a sex tape…………..Sorry for searing that image into your mind.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/18/2011 @ 1:34 pmSo if Jesus was a Jew, does that mean he didn’t think that he was the Son of God?
Believe it or not, not believing in Jesus is not a foundational doctrine of Judaism. The foundational doctrines were established centuries before Jesus in the Old Testament which Jesus quoted from quite a bit. The idea that “Jews don’t believe in Jesus” is based in theory on Rabbinical writings since the time of Jesus, (how could they have been before Jesus?) but is more a cultural thing since lot’s of Jews who don’t believe in Jesus know nothing of those writings.
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 5/18/2011 @ 1:48 pmThe Christian Church was exclusively made up of Jews at first, and after Gentiles were allowed into the fold (which happened pretty quickly), it remained mostly Jewish for a few more decades.
Jim S. (0a0bcf) — 5/18/2011 @ 2:14 pmmmm, i think it does depend on how you define judaism. and honestly i find arguments over definitions to be tedius.
jesus believed the torah and my understanding is he adhered to most of the jewish traditions. i don’t know if he was perfectly orthodox, but i don’t think he was eating pork like i do, regularly.
But by the christian tradition (which i believe to be the Truth), jesus was also christian in that he believed that christ (himself) was the son of God, etc.
how you want to classify that is up to you. but its also of zero importance to me, because no matter what the jews who lived at that place and time, as well as the romans, murdered him. but their guilt only goes to them, not their children, and certainly not their descendants some 2,000 years later.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/18/2011 @ 2:24 pmSo if Jesus was a Jew, does that mean he didn’t think that he was the Son of God?
If you believe what modern academics teach about him, he may not have thought he was. Or even that he was anything more than a run of the mill wandering preacher teaching repentance, the end of the world was coming soon, etc.
it would be like going to alabama in the 1950′s and telling the story of the good “negro” (by the terms of the day)
That actually understates it. Jews and Samaritans were two ethnic communities with a good deal of hostility towards each other, and there was sometimes outbreaks of violence aimed at each other. A better modern parallel might be Israelis/Palestinians; Protestant/Catholic in Northern Ireland; etc.
kishnevi (07cf78) — 5/18/2011 @ 2:24 pmBelieve it or not, not believing in Jesus is not a foundational doctrine of Judaism.
Comment by Gerald A — 5/18/2011 @ 1:48 pm
That’s kind of like saying, “not believing in the teachings of Joseph Smith is not a foundational doctrine of Christianity.”
aunursa (a2a019) — 5/18/2011 @ 2:41 pmOh boy.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/18/2011 @ 2:42 pm“but their guilt only goes to them”
A.W. – Many people of different faiths have problems with grudges and forgiveness.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/18/2011 @ 2:52 pmWeren’t the Sanhedrin back then the proto-Democrat-elitists of their time ?
Alasdair (47def1) — 5/18/2011 @ 2:59 pmFrom Gingrich to Jesus. Seems like an unlikely progression for any discussion, but you never know.
angeleno (2774d5) — 5/18/2011 @ 3:46 pmI can’t stand this indecision married with a lack of vision
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/18/2011 @ 4:07 pm“From Gingrich to Jesus.”
angeleno – Jesus Saves.
Obama Spends.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/18/2011 @ 4:23 pmComment by Alasdair — 5/18/2011 @ 2:59 pm
The Sanhedrin itself was merely a legislative/judicial council, composes of many various individuals.
The major split was between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Sadducees were generally the aristocrats and the elites allied with Rome; the Pharisees were, in general, the populist/democrats who were the spiritual ancestry of modern rabbinical Judaism. They were populist, but that didn’t keep a number of them from looking down on the surrounding population for not being sufficiently vigorous in the observance of the Law. The latter attitude is what drew heavy criticism in the Gospels, but it was balanced out by other views that were much less elitist in their application. Much of what Jesus is quoted as saying, especially in the synoptic Gospels, has parallels in quotes attributed to rabbis we now identify as Pharisees or their students in the next few generations who became the core of the group which produced the Talmud. (Not everything Jesus is quoted as saying, of course, especially in the gospel of John, such as “I and my Father are one.” “I am the true vine”, etc.)They wanted a live and let live attitude to prevail with the Romans.
kishnevi (9ee373) — 5/18/2011 @ 5:04 pmThen there were the Zealots, who were aggressively nationalist and anti-Roman, but not unlike the other two groups seem to be strictly political, and the Essenes who were stricly spiritual and rejected the Romans mainly because they rejected the entire secular world as much as possible, and people like Jesus and John the Baptist can’t be aligned with any party in the political chessboard of that era.
________________________________________
My mother is Jewish, you twitiot.
Oh, jeez. She’s affiliated with one community that, based on surveys, is over 80-plus percent of the left, and with another community in which over 90-plus percent favors leftism/Democrats. IOW, a two-time flop when it comes to the possibility that the person in question will have both common sense and fundamentally good judgment—of people and situations.
And it is amusing when a person of the left slams “Teabillies” for their supposed lack of intelligence — not to mention the implication of hillbilly dysfunction — when the monolithic leftism of black America is attached to a community where self-destructive socio-economic traits (including stunted academic achievement) run amok.
Mark (411533) — 5/18/2011 @ 5:06 pm____________________________________________
As some of you know, Gingrich had an interview on Meet the Press last weekend that most people consider to have been a complete disaster for the Republicans and the ex-Speaker’s candidacy.
I wouldn’t have minded it if he said something along the lines of that while reform of social security made sense and was long overdue, it was politically unfeasible. Unfeasible because when it comes to getting a paycheck from the government after age 65, most Americans do show the biases of self-entitled, me-me-me liberals. Instead, he spouted off about how the plan for reform was too rightwing, yet at the same time he didn’t want to be leftwing, so he therefore preferred to be a big squish.
I bet that peculiar type of untethered bias and ideology is one reason he could be such a POS to his ex-wife, shrug off the controversy over the mess involving him and her, and then quite happily stick his big face into the public in a run for the White House.
Gingrich also has long verified to me that my disdain for scroungy folks like Bill Clinton isn’t mainly because such people are of the left.
Mark (411533) — 5/18/2011 @ 5:21 pmIt doesn’t matter what he thought. Nor does it matter who his father was; Mary was Jewish, therefore so was her son.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/18/2011 @ 6:55 pmSmith said things that are contrary to explicit conventional Christian doctrine dealing with the most fundamental questions, including about Jesus and the Trinity. The Mormons themselves say that Christians had those things wrong for centuries. Their idea is that Smith set things right. So their own claim is that Mormonism is opposed to historical foundational Christian doctrines.
There is no parallel situation with Christianity and Biblical (that is pre-Christ) Judaism. Christians do not claim that believing in Jesus overturned any preexisting Jewish doctrine, in fact just the opposite. Non-believing Jews argue that a correct understanding of the Old Testament conflicts with believing in Jesus, but that’s debatable to say the least.
In other words, your analogy is bad.
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 5/18/2011 @ 6:59 pmThose modern academics all start with an anti-supernatural presupposition. Beside throwing out everything supernatural in the Gospels, they also throw out much of what the Gospels record Jesus as saying, based on other presuppositions. Once you do that you can reach pretty much any conclusion you want to about Jesus. In other words, circular reasoning.
They’ve done something similar with the Pentateuch in what’s known as the Documentary Hypothesis, where they assume that it was written much later than has been the conventional Judeo-Christian belief and by multiple people, none of whom is Moses. The reasoning behind the theory is superficial, combined with the presupposition that the Pentateuch can’t be what it has historically been said to be.
For that matter, the now discredited (primarily by archaeological discoveries) Higher Criticism of 19th century German scholars also was based on anti-supernatural presuppositions. That’s where the idea originated that the Gospels were all written in the second century by unknown people.
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 5/18/2011 @ 7:14 pmAnd that is also what Christians say about historical foundational Jewish doctrines. Such as that a human is not God. And that the law is binding forever and can never be changed or repealed, even by a “prophet” claiming to speak in God’s name. And that God authorised the Sanhedrin to decide any legal question, and commanded us to obey its decisions even if we happen to think they’re wrong. And that God’s treaty with the Jewish nation is eternal, and can never be replaced. These are all things that Jews (including Jesus himself) believed, but that the early Christians claimed that the Jews had these things wrong and Jesus came to set them right.
The parallel is exact.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/18/2011 @ 7:28 pmThe Mormons themselves say that Christians had those things wrong for centuries. Their idea is that Smith set things right.
Heh. If God needed a fallible man to set Him straight, then God would cease to be God.
Dana (4eca6e) — 5/18/2011 @ 7:30 pmI’m not sure the trinity is a good example. It is a major traditional view, but it was a defining element of the great schism, centuries after Jesus lived.
But I usually don’t care for these discussions, where people insist they are the authority on who is and isn’t a Jew or a Christian. God sure as hell doesn’t care if you insist someone else is or is not in those categories.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/18/2011 @ 7:33 pmAaron, this post is enormous and as there are so many interesting things in each item, that, as a reader, it would have been more palatable to post separately on these items…make them bite size, if you will.
Dana (4eca6e) — 5/18/2011 @ 7:34 pmDana’s right. Hell, a post just on CNN’s handling of politicians who sleep around would be glorious on its own. If you’re a Republican, 23 hour a day condemnation. Democrat? Here’s your own show!
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/18/2011 @ 7:39 pmIf you were telling the story to a white audience. If talking to a black audience you’d have to make it about a good plantation owner or something.
The “Palestinians” are a pretty good parallel. The Samaritans were the foreigners whom Sancheriv moved into the former Northern Kingdom of Israel after he expelled the Jews. When the Jews returned after ~70 years of exile and re-settled their land, these foreigners felt threatened and responded with a terrorist campaign, as recorded in the book of Ezra/Nechemiah. They failed to destroy the revived Jewish “colony” in its infancy, but maintained the hostility through the centuries. They tried to get Alexander to destroy the Jewish temple, but he destroyed theirs instead.
And even 400 years later, in Jesus’s day, a Jew lying wounded in a ditch, and approached by a Samaritan, could expect nothing good. So the story plays on that fact, well-known to the audience, by making the hero the last person you would expect, and showing that appearances can be deceptive and there are exceptions to every rule. Even after telling the story, though, neither Jesus nor any of his audience would have risked going defenseless into a Samaritan village.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/18/2011 @ 7:45 pmComment by Milhouse — 5/18/2011 @ 7:28 pm
First of all, I was only addressing the question of believing in Jesus as the son of God. I said that THAT did not overturn any explicit Jewish doctrine. You then go on to list a bunch of other things.
Such as that a human is not God.
Well that seems to deal with the question of believing that Jesus is the Son of God at least.
The Bible prohibits worshipping a human. Christians do not say that Jesus is human however. He was temporarily incarnated as a human. There are no Biblical doctrines that speak to that possibility. The bible was clearly talking about an ordinary human. Of course YOU think he was an ordinary human but that’s not what Christianity says. Christianity does not claim to be worshiping a human.
On the other things:
And that the law is binding forever and can never be changed or repealed, even by a “prophet” claiming to speak in God’s name.
And that God authorised the Sanhedrin to decide any legal question, and commanded us to obey its decisions even if we happen to think they’re wrong.
There is no generally agreed on Christian doctrine that Jesus repealed any law, at least none found in the Bible. The doctrine you state about the Sanhedrin is not foundational, i.e. there from the beginning.
And that God’s treaty with the Jewish nation is eternal, and can never be replaced.
Some Christians have said that. Others vehemently disagree, including most evangelicals. That is not a primary Christian doctrine.
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 5/18/2011 @ 7:59 pmI should have said above that some Christians have said that the covenant with Abraham CAN be replaced etc.
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 5/18/2011 @ 8:01 pm“And that is also what Christians say about historical foundational Jewish doctrines. Such as that a human is not God.”
Milhouse – I don’t understand what you are saying. What conflict are you claiming existed?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/18/2011 @ 8:06 pmMilhouse – Gerald A addressed my question.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/18/2011 @ 8:09 pmIt certainly is. Deuteronomy 17:8-13. This is the court Moses appointed in Numbers 11:24-25, and which continued in operation until 425 CE. Sanhedrin is the Greek name people used for it from about the 3rd century BCE.
You may claim this doctrine was introduced after the beginning of Judaism, but then Mormons claim the doctrines Smith disputed were introduced after the beginning of Xianity.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:23 pmActually, the consensus of scholarship today acknowledges that the historical Jesus deliberately portrayed himself as God. That is, he did things that, in Judaism, could only be done by God (such as forgive sins, willingly receive worship). It’s not quite universal among scholars, but it’s close.
Jim S. (391d70) — 5/19/2011 @ 12:28 amHouse regularly and fairly in determining local pool reporters,” White House spokesman Matt Lehrich wrote in response to a Herald request for full access to the presidential visit.
rehau (e7344f) — 5/19/2011 @ 3:45 amThe Bible prohibits worshipping a human. Christians do not say that Jesus is human however. He was temporarily incarnated as a human. There are no Biblical doctrines that speak to that possibility. The bible was clearly talking about an ordinary human. Of course YOU think he was an ordinary human but that’s not what Christianity says. Christianity does not claim to be worshiping a human.
Comment by Gerald A — 5/18/2011 @ 7:59 pm
That’s a rather bizarre claim coming from a Christian perspective. Most Christian apologists have asserted that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. See here for example…
aunursa (a2a019) — 5/19/2011 @ 6:38 amhttp://carm.org/jesus-two-natures
Christians do not claim that believing in Jesus overturned any preexisting Jewish doctrine, in fact just the opposite.
That God is not human or a human is not God is a foundational Jewish belief that is not specific to Jesus alone.
Non-believing Jews argue that a correct understanding of the Old Testament conflicts with believing in Jesus, but that’s debatable to say the least.
Comment by Gerald A — 5/18/2011 @ 6:59 pm
Non-believing Jews? You mean Jewish atheists? And Mormons will argue just as vehemently that a correct understanding of the Christian Bible does not conflict with the Book of Mormon. So it’s their word against yours.
The Bible prohibits worshipping a human. Christians do not say that Jesus is human however. He was temporarily incarnated as a human. There are no Biblical doctrines that speak to that possibility. The bible was clearly talking about an ordinary human. Of course YOU think he was an ordinary human but that’s not what Christianity says. Christianity does not claim to be worshiping a human.
I am not aware in the Hebrew Bible where it provides an exception for the prohibition against worshipping a human “if he is more than an ordinary human.” And following Christian theology would put Jews in an untenable situation: The Torah would simultaneously require us to worship the incarnation because it is God (Deut 6:13) — and simultaneously prohibit us from worshipping the incarnation because it is a creation (Ex 20:5, Deut 4:15-19). That is a direct contradiction of a foundational Jewish doctrine.
aunursa (a2a019) — 5/19/2011 @ 6:54 amComment by Milhouse — 5/18/2011 @ 10:23 pm
I think it’s a stretch to say the Deuteronomy passage establishes an ongoing doctrine of Judaism. If it did then Judaism itself has/is repudiating the doctrine. As you say, it ended in 425 CE. The Sanhedrin is conspicuously absent from Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles… Recorded history indicates they started operating not long before the time of Jesus.
I guess Joe Smith proves that it was there from the beginning of Judaism though.
I don’t know how this relates to Christianity anyway. Maybe your theory is because Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin, therefore he couldn’t be the Son of God since the Sanhedrin couldn’t be wrong or something.
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 5/19/2011 @ 6:58 amFar from a “stretch”, that’s exactly what it does.
Huh? That makes no sense at all. The Sanhedrin didn’t voluntarily dissolve, you know. You lot shut it down, by force of arms.
It relates directly to your attempt to distinguish the Mormon claims about Xianity from the Xian claims about Judaism.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/19/2011 @ 7:21 amSo the Sanhedrin is operating today or has someone shut it down? Why wasn’t it in the bible during the time of the Judges, Saul, David, Solomon etc?
It relates directly to your attempt to distinguish the Mormon claims about Xianity from the Xian claims about Judaism.
So what does Christianity say about the Sanhedrin?
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 5/19/2011 @ 7:29 am“It relates directly to your attempt to distinguish the Mormon claims about Xianity from the Xian claims about Judaism.”
Milhouse – I thought it was you who introduced Mormonism to the thread in comment #51, not Gerald A.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/19/2011 @ 7:34 amDana
> Aaron, this post is enormous and as there are so many interesting things in each item, that, as a reader, it would have been more palatable to post separately on these items…make them bite size, if you will.
well, except then it would scroll right into the archives… otherwise i agree.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/19/2011 @ 7:40 amComment by daleyrocks — 5/19/2011 @ 7:34 am
Actually it was introduced in #28 and I responded to that.
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 5/19/2011 @ 7:42 amMilhouse – Actually aunursa did back in #28. Gerald A’s focus on the thread has been from a Christian perspective, while yours has been from a Jewish perspective. It’s great that you latched on to a small splinter group of Christians less than 200 years old, founded by a man visited by angels in his sleep to support your argument. That does not make it accepted doctrine across Christianity.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/19/2011 @ 7:42 amNope. Aunursa introduced it in #28, and Gerald A picked it up in #39.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/19/2011 @ 7:43 amI’ve already told you, you lot shut it down. Just one more crime your religion has to account for.
Who told you it wasn’t in operation then? It doesn’t need to be mentioned on every page, does it?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/19/2011 @ 7:45 amFirst of all, as much as it pains us, that Church in Palm Beach is doing the right thing, second Newt
ian cormac (72470d) — 5/19/2011 @ 7:46 amreally has proven himself to be a ‘mook’ he tried to be too clever by half, and it blew up in his face, third, Jesus, clearly fulfilled the promise
first spoken in Isiah, about 500 years before, he is the son of god, and he took flesh and willingly
died to redeem our sins,
Of course it doesn’t. Any more than Xianity is accepted doctrine across Judaism, actually…
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/19/2011 @ 7:46 amGerald A’s focus on the thread has been from a Christian perspective, while yours has been from a Jewish perspective. It’s great that you latched on to a small splinter group of Christians less than 200 years old, founded by a man visited by angels in his sleep to support your argument. That does not make it accepted doctrine across Christianity.
Comment by daleyrocks — 5/19/2011 @ 7:42 am
I can imagine around the year 210 C.E., someone from my perspective would have referred to someone from your perspective as having latched onto a small splinter group of Jews less than 200 years old, founded by a man who suffered from delusions of divinity.
Which was precisely why I referred to Mormonism to make my point. Christianity is to Judaism as Mormonism is to Christianity. The same arguments that Christians use in their attempts to place Christian doctrine within the umbrella of biblical Judaism are used by LDS Church members in their attempts to place Mormon doctrine within the umbrella of traditional Christianity. The same refutations that Christians use to reject Mormon claims are used by Jews to reject Christian claims.
aunursa (a2a019) — 5/19/2011 @ 7:59 amAnd Mormons will argue just as vehemently that a correct understanding of the Christian Bible does not conflict with the Book of Mormon. So it’s their word against yours.
Actually their claim is that they are restoring doctrines that existed already but were somehow lost, with no historical substantiation of the claim. That is no parallel with Christianity – Judaism.
And following Christian theology would put Jews in an untenable situation: The Torah would simultaneously require us to worship the incarnation because it is God (Deut 6:13) — and simultaneously prohibit us from worshipping the incarnation because it is a creation (Ex 20:5, Deut 4:15-19). That is a direct contradiction of a foundational Jewish doctrine.
It is not the incarnation that is worshiped.
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 5/19/2011 @ 8:09 am“I can imagine around the year 210 C.E., someone from my perspective would have referred to someone from your perspective as having latched onto a small splinter group of Jews less than 200 years old, founded by a man who suffered from delusions of divinity.”
aunursa – It’s nice you can imagine these things from 210 C.E., while we have a pretty clear record on the birth of Mormonism and don’t need a whole lot of imagining.
Do Jews support the teachings of Mormonism, which is what I gather from your comments and those of Milhouse?
“The same arguments that Christians use in their attempts to place Christian doctrine within the umbrella of biblical Judaism are used by LDS Church members in their attempts to place Mormon doctrine within the umbrella of traditional Christianity.”
Actually the arguments made in this thread were to place both Christianity and Mormonism within the umbrella of biblical Judaism. Counterarguments were offered. What I don’t understand is why these arguments are so important to you aunursa and Milhouse. Your talking points sound rehearsed. I’ll go out on a limb and venture that most Christians don’t give a crap about them unless they have somebody shove them in their face.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/19/2011 @ 8:18 amThat’s a rather bizarre claim coming from a Christian perspective. Most Christian apologists have asserted that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine
Your own link says that the human nature WAS joined to the divine at the time of the incarnation. He had a pre-incarnation divine nature which he still has now and which is unchanged from eternity past. We are not worshiping the temporary incarnation. Period.
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 5/19/2011 @ 8:26 amDo Jews support the teachings of Mormonism, which is what I gather from your comments and those of Milhouse?
Actually I believe that the Creator of the universe has a sense of humor … and decided to allow Mormonism in order to give Christians a taste of their own medicine.
I’ll go out on a limb and venture that most Christians don’t give a crap about them unless they have somebody shove them in their face.
As a Jew living in a predominantly Christian society, I’d have to say that perspective of having something constantly shoved in one’s face does sound familiar.
Since you seem to be getting a little irritated (e.g. referring to “talking points”,) I’ll end my comments here and leave you the last word.
aunursa (a2a019) — 5/19/2011 @ 8:38 amI’ve already told you, you lot shut it down. Just one more crime your religion has to account for.
What?
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 5/19/2011 @ 8:59 amTo Gerald: first, the Sandhedrin is mentioned several times in the Books of Kings, Chronicles, etc. It’s simply given another title, since the term Sanhedrin, which is based on a Greek word, was not used until Hellenistic times. Milhouse gave the reference in the Torah which established it as an ongoing institution. It was abolished by the Romans, and will, Jews believe, be re-established by the Messiah as part of the Messianic Era, along with the Temple.
Second, your view of Jesus’s human nature it technically known as monophysitism, and was rejected by the Orthodox church at the Council of Chalcedon. In the modern era, the Copts of Egypt, the Ethiopian Church (which is a direct offshoot of the Coptic Church), the Armenian Church, and a few smaller church, almost all based in the Middle East, still adhere to it. The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches reject it, and adhere to the belief as outlined by aunursa: that Jesus’s human nature was resurrected and glorified in union with his divine nature, and remains eternally united with it as Jesus “sits at the right hand of the Father”. Officially, Protestantism follows the Catholic beliefs, but it’s a point that seems to be considered not too important, so you may find Protestants who agree with you. But as a matter of formal doctrine, you’re in the minority on this point.
Daley:
first off, I’m simply trying to be explanatory, not argumentative. I’m not actually disagreeing with anything you’ve said in this thread.
What I don’t understand is why these arguments are so important to you aunursa and Milhouse. Your talking points sound rehearsed. about them unless they have somebody shove them in their face.
kishnevi (38f6c3) — 5/19/2011 @ 9:26 amThese arguments are important because they go to the heart of the differences between Christianity and Judaism. It’s not just saying yes or no to the question, was Jesus the Messiah? If you say yes, there are some logical implications that go along with that affirmative, which Christians have been exploring and debating for the two thousand years since. On many points, they are agreed, but on others, they aren’t and that’s why there are different churchs–Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican, Monophysite, Nestorian, etc.
Are our “talking points” rehearsed? Not exactly. But we’ve had a lot of practice over the years. Let’s just say we’ve had these things ‘shoved in our faces’ by Christians–some with good intentions, some with bad, and some without intending to at all–many times before, so we’ve had reason to think about the answers.
I’ll go out on a limb and venture that most Christians don’t give a crap
If asked to bet, I’d bet you were right. Am I right in suspecting that the observation, at least, applies to yourself?
Ignore the atheist punk.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/19/2011 @ 9:27 am“Since you seem to be getting a little irritated (e.g. referring to “talking points”,)”
aunursa – No, I’m more amused where these threads always seem to wind up, with people declining to answer questions about why they took the thread in that direction, but thanks for playing.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/19/2011 @ 10:32 am“first off, I’m simply trying to be explanatory, not argumentative. I’m not actually disagreeing with anything you’ve said in this thread.”
kishnevi – I appreciate that and have not really noticed your presence much in the thread.
“I’ll go out on a limb and venture that most Christians don’t give a crap”
Does that include me? When you include the last part of what I wrote – about them unless they have somebody shove them in their face – absolutely.
Why? Because I can’t change the past. Nitpicking the origins of my spiritual beliefs has no impact on my life today and I have little impact on the future. I view it as little more than mental masturbation and have other matters in which I am more interested.
I view my beliefs as a private matter between myself and God, and a matter of free will and choice rather than blood and inheritance forced upon me by circumstances beyond my control. I care little about the beliefs about others, except when they intrude on mine or my ability to peacefully practice my own.
Explaining differences is a good approach to take, but that is not what has often happened here. You have witnessed Milhouse claiming Christian must believe certain doctrine. You yourself have made claims about the beliefs of certain Christian denominations which I believe are false. There is purpose behind those statements which has not yet been fully explained. I keep mentioning on this blog I have a problem with dishonesty, and since in this case it intrudes on my beliefs, that’s when I start giving a crap.
It is not complicated.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/19/2011 @ 10:55 amNitpicking the origins of my spiritual beliefs has no impact on my life today and I have little impact on the future.
It may have more impact than you realize.
For instance, I talked about Monophysites in my last comment. They were, in the fifth/sixth century CE, the dominant Christian group in Egypt and Syria, but were persecuted by the Byzantine state and church (Orthodox) because they believed Christ had only a divine nature and not a human nature as well. The Orthodox believed he had both human and divine natures. (Officially at least, Protestants believe this, and it’s also the Catholic teaching.) Because of the Byzantine persecutions, the Monophysites in Syria and Egypt more or less abandoned the Byzantine cause when the Arabs started invading and conquering in the name of Islam in Mohammed’s last years and during the years immediately following, and that meant the Arabs were able to conquer those countries rather easily. Had the Byzantines not persecuted the Monophysites, Syria and Egypt might not have been conquered by the Arabs, or at least would not have fallen without a longer, harder struggle; and would have been open to attempts at reconquest by the Byzantines, and the population of those countries might not have converted to Islam as readily as they seem to have.
Of course, there’s a lot of speculation in doing this, but imagine for a moment what our modern world might be like if the Arab conquests of the seventh and eighth centuries CE had been slowed or stopped, and if some form of Christianity had remained as the majority religion in Syria and Egypt for much longer than it did, and the native Christians (like the Copts in Egypt) in a much stronger position than they are today. And if the Arabs had not been able to conquer Syria/Egypt, or had conquered it only to have it reconquered by the Byzantines, there would have been no Crusades, which would have had (to us) incalculable consequences on the development of European society and culture.
Milhouse claiming Christian must believe certain doctrine.
Pretty much everything Milhouse has said that I’ve seen about what Christianity teaches simply states what is supposed to be official Christian doctrine common to the three main branches of Christianity in Euro-American society (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholicism, and Protestant). If you go into a seminary or theology school anywhere, and ask about those points, you will get the same answers, possibly expressed in fancier terminology, but the same answers. If you disagree with any of those statements, it doesn’t mean they are wrong or your are wrong, only that you disagree on that topic, because you think for yourself–for which, obviously, you don’t need to apologize to anyone.
The same goes for the statements I make. If I am not sure that it’s generally held doctrine, or if it’s my speculation, I say so, or word it to make it clear that I may be wrong, or that I’m just reporting my impression.
There is purpose behind those statements which has not yet been fully explained.
kishnevi (9ee373) — 5/19/2011 @ 2:49 pmThere is no ulterior motive or personal agenda involved in my statements beyond a desire to maintain intelligent discussion with intelligent people–which pretty much covers most of the regulars here (I’m not honoring certain persons who shall remain nameless, but whose identity you can doubtless guess at). I think that’s an “agenda” almost all of us here share.
Comment by daleyrocks — 5/19/2011 @ 10:32 am
I’ve been on threads where I’ve answered every question from every commenter and then I’m accused of being obsessed and/or hijacking the thread. I’ve also been on threads where my most important points were ignored, and then I was chastised for failing to address every single one of my opponents’ points. No matter what I do, I can’t win. Oh well.
aunursa (a2a019) — 5/19/2011 @ 2:49 pmSo will Newt In the poot go team up with Arne duncan?
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/19/2011 @ 3:01 pm“No matter what I do, I can’t win. Oh well.”
aunursa – Oh Noes, you are victim. You are also not unique living in this majority Christian country, where members of any other religion must constantly have things shoved in their faces, but perhaps not have as big a chip on their shoulder about it.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/19/2011 @ 3:48 pmhey jesus you’re so fine you’re so fine you blow my mind
Hey jesus! Hey hey HEY JESUS!
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/19/2011 @ 3:53 pm“If you go into a seminary or theology school anywhere, and ask about those points, you will get the same answers”
kishnevi – Have you attended a Christian seminary?
“If you disagree with any of those statements, it doesn’t mean they are wrong or your are wrong” – I agree with your statement, however Milhouse insists people are wrong and cannot be Christians. I take issue with that position.
“Of course, there’s a lot of speculation in doing this, but imagine for a moment what our modern world might be like if the Arab conquests of the seventh and eighth centuries CE had been slowed or stopped” – Imagining is fine, but this type of exercise is an example of the mental masturbation I mentioned. I can’t change the past. I am more interested in the present.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/19/2011 @ 3:55 pmhappyjebusfeet – Gimme too dolla bill!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/19/2011 @ 3:55 pmlifeyhappydoodlefeet – Knock knock
Who’s there?
Fetus
Fetus who?
Fetus don’t slice me up you freaking butcher!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/19/2011 @ 3:57 pmwhat’s a two doller beeyul?
Daddy! Hey dad! Mr. daley is tawkin bout a two doller beeyul! What’s a two doller beeyul??
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/19/2011 @ 3:58 pmfetuses are friends not food
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/19/2011 @ 3:59 pmkishnevi – Have you attended a Christian seminary?
Obviously no–but:
You know I’m an aspie, and that aspies have what are called perseverations. In regular people, these are called obsessions or eccentricities, but being autistic, we aspies get a fancy name for it XD
Some aspies perseverate on useful, or semi-useful, things; others perseverate on stuff that’s not normally useful to anyone. Mine are usually in the latter category. For instance, when I was about twenty, I was obsessed (to drop the fancy schmancy term) with Christian theology for several years. (Not that Christian theology is not a useful subject–but for a Jew, not so much.) So I learned a good deal about it: not as much as a minister or priest who actually attended seminary or theology, but a good deal more than the average lay person. After four or five years, my attention turned to other matters, but the knowledge of course stays with me even yet, and so I tend to pontificate on the subject when it arises.
Imagining is fine, but this type of exercise is an example of the mental masturbation I mentioned
I see it differently–as a way of understanding how the past helped shaped the present. Your mileage obviously differs.
kishnevi (a645bb) — 5/19/2011 @ 4:28 pmComment by daleyrocks — 5/19/2011 @ 3:48 pm
On other sites some of my explanations have been misinterpreted as claims of victimhood so that my opponent(s) could mock me, as you have done. I thought such a tactic was particular to liberal sites. Alas, I was wrong.
aunursa (a2a019) — 5/19/2011 @ 4:41 pm“On other sites some of my explanations have been misinterpreted as claims of victimhood so that my opponent(s) could mock me, as you have done”
aunursa – Please explain the correct way to interpret “No matter what I do, I can’t win?”
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/19/2011 @ 4:49 pm“understanding how the past helped shaped the present”
kishnevi – The above is called understanding history. Perseverating about it, I’m glad you used the word, is something different. Some folks here seem to perseverate about it, I fail to see the purpose. I studied enough history to satisfy my needs earlier in life and if there is a gap in my knowledge which I feel requires filling, I educate myself.
Thank you for the background on your interest in theology. Explanations like that make it hard for me to take statements from you like:
“If you go into a seminary or theology school anywhere, and ask about those points, you will get the same answers, possibly expressed in fancier terminology, but the same answers,”
seriously and they actually do some damage to your credibility. You did not attend a seminary, you just studied the subject extensively out of personal interest, which is perfectly fine. You may have read texts on the curriculum used in seminaries, but you did not sit through classes and lectures to absorb everything. To me it is an unnecessary embellishment not justified by experience. I saw the same thing when you were discussing the Dutch Reform Church and, going from memory, claiming that its adherents did not believe in free will. To me, this smacked of pure book learning rather than actual understanding of Christian principles.
Again, you point out that my mileage differs, and it does, because I am more concerned with the present than perseverating over the past.
Thank you for the discussion on this thread. I think it has been useful so far.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/19/2011 @ 5:10 pmComment by kishnevi — 5/19/2011 @ 9:26 am
So then I guess it would be theologically acceptable for a Jew to believe in Jesus taking the monophysitism view.
Well I have to admit I didn’t realize how central belief (or whatever it is) in the Sanhedrin is to Judaism. Whew.
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 5/19/2011 @ 5:13 pmWell, you learn something every day.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/19/2011 @ 5:21 pm“Well, you learn something every day.”
Dustin – When you have a boy in grade school who is just being a boy but the teachers want to attach all sorts of adverse labels to and have him take all sorts of drugs and accuse him of perseverating on all sorts of inappropriate crap in spite of maxing out standardized tests, you can learn that word and many others you never really had a need to know.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/19/2011 @ 5:28 pmIt’s a shame people get labels like autistic or ADHD or even one I heard a few days ago “Oppositional Defiant Disorder” (never teach your kids to question authority!). People are different, and that’s no disorder.
but I don’t get to tell people not to worry about this stuff. If only I was king for a day.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/19/2011 @ 5:38 pm“It’s a shame people get labels like autistic or ADHD or even one I heard a few days ago “Oppositional Defiant Disorder””
Dustin – Got all that crap. Had to go through batteries of psych and neurology testing all because teachers wanted quiet classrooms. It really was a war against boys.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/19/2011 @ 5:43 pmI saw the same thing when you were discussing the Dutch Reform Church and, going from memory, claiming that its adherents did not believe in free will.
That’s not quite what I meant, although maybe I didn’t write clearly enough. Calvin (who the Dutch Reform Church in general follows) taught predestination–that God predestined everyone to their eventual eternal fate, whether it be Heaven or the Other Place, and there was nothing you could do to change it. If you were meant to be saved, you would be saved and stay saved. If it was the other way–well, no matter how hard you tried, and no matter how you thought you were doing it the way God wants, you’d end up in the Other Place, period. But God doesn’t decide what you are going to do. If you give the nice old lady down the street a ride to the doctor, that’s you choosing to do a good deed, not God choosing that you do a good deed. Calvin and the DRC also believe in free will, in the way you understand the term. I apologize if I made it sound like they don’t.
I will not, however, even try to explain the mental masturbation involved in the argument between people who thought it was important to believe that God did the predestination before Adam fell, and those who thought it was important to believe He did the choosing after Adam fell. Even I, at my most obsessive, couldn’t get myself interested in that subject. But this was at one point a major topic of argument among the faithful.
There’s also the Arminians, who tried to soften up the rigor of Calvin on this point–which had an impact on English and therefore American history, because one of the many complaints the Puritans had about the Established Church was that it leaned to Arminianism. The Puritans were also Calvinist in general, which helped created the stereotype of gloomy Puritan kill-joys.
kishnevi (ef7425) — 5/19/2011 @ 9:19 pmDustin,
Actually, I used to be skeptical of Oppositional Defiant Disorder… I doubted it was a real thing.
And then i met Kman.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/19/2011 @ 9:22 pm“That’s not quite what I meant, although maybe I didn’t write clearly enough.”
kishnevi – Nail on the head from my recollection. Free will from my perspective is completely separate subject from predestination.
“God predestined everyone to their eventual eternal fate, whether it be Heaven or the Other Place, and there was nothing you could do to change it.”
Except my understanding of the DRC is that you could be predestined to be “saved,” but that it would only actually happen if you joined and accepted the church. Otherwise, you’re destined for the other place. Of course it’s also an exercise of free will whether or not to join the church and be saved.
But hey, my understanding could be off. There is an active DRC community centered in Western Michigan, which was populated by a lot of Dutch immigrants. It’s a big furniture making area (Steelcase, Herman Miller). The Tulip festival in the town of Holland is pretty impressive.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/19/2011 @ 9:31 pm😀
I know a very young boy who has been diagnosed with these, despite sickeningly cursory examination. It’s how I learned the term ODD. I was playing teeball with him… there’s nothing wrong with him. He’s a kid. He just got adopted, and hasn’t had a father before. All he needs is a good childhood.
That’s true. We have a pretty screwed up society right now. If your parents are wary, I think the minefield can be crossed, but there are no guarantees, and a lot of parents place too much trust in the opinions of jackasses. In my opinion.
My limited recollection is that Kishnevi’s point on predestination reflects a view some held. I think there’s another way to describe it, however, similar to knowing what kind of food I’ll get from the various seeds I’ll plant. It doesn’t matter that my castor beans do. They can’t be Pumpkins.
I admit this isn’t really a topic for me.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/19/2011 @ 9:40 pmdustin
these things can be specious. but they can be real. i have ADD as does my brother. they run in families and they tend to come with other traits, like sleep disorders. my brother has sleep apnea (sp?)–one of the few non-obese people to get it. on the other hand, i have chronic insomnia. i literally have to drug myself every night in order to sleep…
I won’t say there is no overdiagnosis or abuse of diagnosis. But there is also a real condition that really exists for some people, and we are as annoyed by the misuse of the terms as anyone, if not more.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/19/2011 @ 9:51 pmProbably more. I imagine these can be serious problems that get ignored because there is overdiagnosis.
My awareness of this issue is limited, if you can’t tell by the fact I never heard of ODD until last weekend. My limited exposure to the issue is very frustrating.
Regardless, I’m not sure the word disorder is appropriate in some of these cases. I don’t mean because it hurts feelings, but because if we have large numbers of people whose minds work that way, it’s just part of the spectrum of different minds. I sound like a hippie now.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/19/2011 @ 9:57 pmthat you could be predestined to be “saved,” but that it would only actually happen if you joined and accepted the church.
The orthodox Calvinist teaching–which of course is not necessarily what modern members of the DRC hear from the pulpit or believe in the pews–is that if you predestined to salvation, the Holy Spirit will make sure you end up being saved. But for Calvin, being saved and being a member of a specific church were entirely two different things, so you didn’t necessarily need to join his church to be saved. Perhaps for the DRC, they aren’t.
As for ODD–I once someone explain that the old fashioned term for that condition is “being a teenager”.
kishnevi (4fe729) — 5/20/2011 @ 9:39 amNot the Romans. Well, OK, technically yes the Romans, since the Byzantine empire was the Eastern Roman empire. But it was the Christian Byzantines who executed Rabbi Gamliel and shut the Sanhedrin.
Milhouse (a8afa6) — 5/20/2011 @ 9:43 am“The orthodox Calvinist teaching–which of course is not necessarily what modern members of the DRC hear from the pulpit or believe in the pews”
kishnevi – I prefer living in the present.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/20/2011 @ 3:00 pmhello, love from finland. your post looks great. Mind if i quote it in my blog?
Xrumer Blast Service (2037c0) — 6/17/2011 @ 9:10 am