WAZIRI REALLY IS TIRED!!

[HUSNAA]

It appears that our mainstay and part mentor, has really got tired of Konline. All our pleas have fallen on deaf ears or in this case unseeing eyes. I hope yr fatigue is temporary Waziri. K online wont be the same without you!!
:twisted: COME BACK OR ELSE................!!!! :evil:  :twisted:

[Ete]

LOL, I wonder why this Waziri is so tired. Maybe other 'activities' can account for his prolonged fatigue.  Perhaps, he is just relaxing and planning to come back stronger than ever.  Oh, maybe he is running for an office or actively campaigning for someone.  Sofly sofly O Waziri.

[mlbash]

uhm.............na you sabi!

[_Waziri_]

Tahiyyatiy Al-Islam,

Hajiya Husna, thanx for the repeated plea. It is true that I expressed a good degree of dislike on the way some posters here adress issues of regional importance. But that does not say I intended leaving the forums completely. The focus is on the two members, in case they choose to make dumb our efforts, we will certainly find cause to abandon and ignore them on anything they say and attend to others who express some readiness to pursue discourses with open and objective tools of reasoning.

I must say that I am not here for any individual but ideas as they affect the way we see one another as the organic substances of this universe. And I expect people like lionger and Ete to admit on their shortcomings in issues of knowledge even if it concerns the faith which they profess.

Bible and Qur'an are read not on the merit of the textual or contextual meaning of the subject matters they tackle alone but rather side by side the realities of history and the records of how the first receivers of these books interpreted them.

For example, Islam cannot be said to be Qur'an alone, but Hadith and the large work of Usul Fiqh produced by both the scholars of Sunni and Shi'a world. Also judaism, is not Torah, Pentateuch, Prophets, Nebuim and the Books, Kitabim as classified by the Jews but also the oral version of the Torah as interpreted by the priests overtime and known as Midnash and the Talmud.

Months ago, I posted a simple study of how the early Christians differed on the nature and substance of the person of Jesus Christ, on this forum, which proved a real close relationship between how some prominent Christians of yore see Christ and how true Muslims see him. It went along way to show that even Costantine I, the Roman empror of the then was in truth a  Muslim since he saw Christ in the light of what Qur'an described him to be.

At any rate, I really do not think Lionger and Ete, can claim intimate familiarity with the divisions of the Holy Bible as described above not to talk of being able to reason thru' my arguments, and that informed my frustrations. But for the sake of those among us who may want to know, I intend to reply Lionger on the other thread and bring to fore some verses in the Bible that prove the truth that there was no any agreement between God and Abraham in regard to the ownership of Palestine. I will also show him how his tedious journey thru the book of Deautronomy proved more what I said of the Jewish laws of Nationalism than disproved them. It is then we will come to who in reality did not know the value of elipses in English writing  and grammer between myself and him.

Before I do that I will want to remind us first of what an American Christian lady, Alice F. Smith, said about the Palestian question way back 1989 in the February 20, edition of time magazine, 1989. This is how she described Jews and their religion:

What manner of people are these arrogant settlers who think they have a God-given right to commit such atrocities and still cry for more?

I wish you well, until I come back with my humble but yet thorough analysis of how I came across the truth that God did not promise the Jews Palestine and their religion is one which believes in what I quoted of it from deutronomy, verbatim.

[Ete]

Well,  the above reaction is anything but humble. However, I am interested in seeing your feature article.

[lionger]

Welcome back Waziri!

Please read my response to you on the thread you started, I don't know if you did. I'm still rather perplexed as to why such a serious quarrel has ensued over nothing. Why dod you persist with this condescending language Waziri? I'm tempted to think that your annoyance is not really with me or Ete - rather it is with the Jews, of whom you have hardly anything good to say - and this annoyance has simply spilled over onto me and Ete due do our disagreement with you here.

Hajiya Husna, thanx for the repeated plea. It is true that I expressed a good degree of dislike on the way some posters here adress issues of regional importance. But that does not say I intended leaving the forums completely. The focus is on the two members, in case they choose to make dumb our efforts, we will certainly find cause to abandon and ignore them on anything they say and attend to others who express some readiness to pursue discourses with open and objective tools of reasoning.

There are several things wrong with what you say here.

One: The focus is quite not on me or Ete; we are not here to get you. Rather the real question is whether you are willing to respect other members and their dissenting opinions on this forum. This post of yours reeks of a superiority complex, as did the other one. Such things destroy good faith in any discussion and render them pointless. Perhaps it is no surprise then that you seek no future discussion with us unless we change our opinions.

Two: Who is the 'we' and 'our' you refer to here? Are you attempting to speak for the forum? Please speak for yourself alone Waziri; you are the only one that has issues me so it is rather pompous of you to speak in this manner.

Three: I find it rather amazing that you see it fit to avoid any future discussion with us based on this singular disagreement! Isn't this rather extreme? I have been posting here for over three years and have sparred with you many times, even on the subject of the Jews. Now, all because I do not accept your views on Genesis, Deuteronomy, or the middle east crisis, you no longer find me or my views worthy of your time. Never mind the fact that you and I haven't even gotten down to a solid discussion on the above issues! This is rather unfair.

I must say that I am not here for any individual but ideas as they affect the way we see one another as the organic substances of this universe. And I expect people like lionger and Ete to admit on their shortcomings in issues of knowledge even if it concerns the faith which they profess.

Well, I am here for both the individuals and the ideas we exchange.   I most certainly have intellectual shortcomings even in the knowledge of my faith. However I haven't exactly presented myself as a Bible scholar or an ITK on these matters either. What's more, I don't know much about the contents of the Quran. If it makes you feel any better Waziri, you may know more of the Bible than I do of the Quran. When have you ever admitted your shortcomings here Waziri? Are you willing to admit them now?

Bible and Qur'an are read not on the merit of the textual or contextual meaning of the subject matters they tackle alone but rather side by side the realities of history and the records of how the first receivers of these books interpreted them.

As regards the Bible, this is true for the most part.

For example, Islam cannot be said to be Qur'an alone, but Hadith and the large work of Usul Fiqh produced by both the scholars of Sunni and Shi'a world. Also judaism, is not Torah, Pentateuch, Prophets, Nebuim and the Books, Kitabim as classified by the Jews but also the oral version of the Torah as interpreted by the priests overtime and known as Midnash and the Talmud.

Well I'll take your word for it with regards to Islam. However, I'd like to make one point as regards Judaism, which I suspect might come up in future discussion. The Torah, Neviim and Ketuvim constitute the Tanakh, and is set apart apart from the 'oral law', Talmud, as canonical, i.e. inspired by God. This position is held by adherents of Judaism and Christianity. As such, the Tanakh carries highest authority and the Midrash and Talmud are basically commentaries on the Tanakh. I'm much more familiar with the Tanakh than the midrash or Talmud, given that the Tanakh is identical with the Old Testament of the Bible. However, I don't know much of the Talmud or Midrash. Nor can I put them on the same level as the Tanakh.

Months ago, I posted a simple study of how the early Christians differed on the nature and substance of the person of Jesus Christ, on this forum, which proved a real close relationship between how some prominent Christians of yore see Christ and how true Muslims see him. It went along way to show that even Costantine I, the Roman empror of the then was in truth a Muslim since he saw Christ in the light of what Qur'an described him to be.

Yes I remember this dicussion well. Mallamt and I disagreed with you thoroughly on this matter and challenged what you said here (alt+w).
Did you at least read what mallamt wrote?

At any rate, I really do not think Lionger and Ete, can claim intimate familiarity with the divisions of the Holy Bible as described above not to talk of being able to reason thru' my arguments, and that informed my frustrations. But for the sake of those among us who may want to know, I intend to reply Lionger on the other thread and bring to fore some verses in the Bible that prove the truth that there was no any agreement between God and Abraham in regard to the ownership of Palestine. I will also show him how his tedious journey thru the book of Deautronomy proved more what I said of the Jewish laws of Nationalism than disproved them. It is then we will come to who in reality did not know the value of elipses in English writing and grammer between myself and him.

Here once again you carry on rather arrogantly. If Ete and I cannot claim 'intimate familiarity' with the Holy Bible - even with all that I have said about Christianity and the Bible on this site - then you most certainly cannot do so either. I look forward to your deconstruction of my 'incorrect reading of the Bible' as you put it. Though my opinion may no longer be of any worth to you, I will most definitely make a response to your comments at least for the sake of the other mostly muslim readers so that they at least have another perspective to look at.

I wish you well, until I come back with my humble but yet thorough analysis of how I came across the truth that God did not promise the Jews Palestine and their religion is one which believes in what I quoted of it from deutronomy, verbatim.

As Ete said, there is absolutely nothing humble about this post of yours; it is plagued with disparaging remarks and pompous posturing. All this does not bode well for anyone here. I wonder what is going to become of our 'discussion' should you carry on in this manner. Another fact I find rather interesting is that you obviously do not comprehend the grave nature of your allegations concerning Judaism. If I made such disparaging comments about Islam and misquoted the Quran to back it up, I would no doubt be insulted to the high heavens on the forum. Your comments are on the same level as those of sammy, usman11 and Ete (recently), which heavily criticised Islam. Ete's post on the Islamic forum was deleted in less than a day; sammy and usman got censure and insults for all their troubles. You, on the other hand have not seen such opposition since most forumners are muslims and wouldn't know much on this subject.
Think about this for a bit, and please lets abandon all this rather petty wrangling and act like mature ppl.

God bless,
lionger

[_Waziri_]

Welcome back Waziri!

Please read my response to you on the thread you started, I don't know if you did.

Yes, Lionger, I have read your earlier response since before now, I only did not find it worthy of my reply. I replied Hajiya Husna on this cos the importance of her plea to me.

I'm tempted to think that your annoyance is not really with me or Ete - rather it is with the Jews, of whom you have hardly anything good to say - and this annoyance has simply spilled over onto me and Ete due do our disagreement with you here.

With regards to the Jews, I am yet to say the worst Jesus(AS) said about them. Hear him: You wicked and adulterous generation!(Matthew, 16:4), You brood of snakes! (Luke 3:7). Ealier on Moses in Deutronomy and Exodus said, that is if he really wrote those books, You Jews, you vagobonds; you rebellios people!(Deut. 9:7), You stiffednecked people!(Exodus, 33:5).

One thing good is  you can never come across a place in the Qur'an where Jews are talked about in this kind of language. I personally have not done the same, since I have nothing against them as people, but everything against what majority of them believe in. This is also what Jesus(AS), Muhammad(AS) and all other people of good will preach against over time. I do not need to repeat to your seeing what Alice F. Smith said above.

I noticed also how you admitted of not knowing much about Talmud and Midnash. That in essence says how much you do not know about Judaism and its laws of nationalism. This is why I think you are only fit to ask question here not argue. I believe I can remain rest assured in my comfortable superiority on this subject matter. For I have perseverently laboured thru the Bible, the Qur'an and the Rabbinic Tradition which forms the bedrock of Jewish religion,  for over ten years now.

That is why I say from the onset that I am not debating this with you but rather writing something which I believe will prove beneficial to all.

Concerning the Tanakh, or the Old Testament and its place in Jewish religion hear what a modern encyclopaedia said:

"Although all forms of Judaism have been rooted in the Hebrew Bible (referred to by Jews as the Tanach, an acronym for its three sections: Torah, the Pentateuch; Nebiim, the prophetic literature; and Ketubim, the other writings), it would be an error to think of Judaism as simply the ?religion of the Old Testament.? Contemporary Judaism is ultimately derived from the rabbinic movement of the first centuries of the Christian era in Palestine and Babylonia and is therefore called rabbinic Judaism. Rabbi, in Aramaic and Hebrew, means ?my teacher.? The rabbis, Jewish sages adept in studying the Scriptures and their own traditions, maintained that God had revealed to Moses on Sinai a twofold Torah. In addition to the written Torah (Scripture), God revealed an oral Torah, faithfully transmitted by word of mouth in an unbroken chain from master to disciple, and preserved now among the rabbis themselves."
Microsoft ? Encarta ? 2006. ? 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[lionger]

Concerning the Tanakh, or the Old Testament and its place in Jewish religion hear what a modern encyclopaedia said:

"Although all forms of Judaism have been rooted in the Hebrew Bible (referred to by Jews as the Tanach, an acronym for its three sections: Torah, the Pentateuch; Nebiim, the prophetic literature; and Ketubim, the other writings), it would be an error to think of Judaism as simply the ?religion of the Old Testament.? Contemporary Judaism is ultimately derived from the rabbinic movement of the first centuries of the Christian era in Palestine and Babylonia and is therefore called rabbinic Judaism. Rabbi, in Aramaic and Hebrew, means ?my teacher.? The rabbis, Jewish sages adept in studying the Scriptures and their own traditions, maintained that God had revealed to Moses on Sinai a twofold Torah. In addition to the written Torah (Scripture), God revealed an oral Torah, faithfully transmitted by word of mouth in an unbroken chain from master to disciple, and preserved now among the rabbis themselves."

Actually yes this is true, with regards to rabbinic Judaism, and in contrast to my earlier statement. However within its different sects (Conservative, Reform, Orthodox, Reconstructionist) the Talmud and the authority of the oral Torah is accepted in varying degrees. My earlier statement is probably more in line with certain reform judaist interpretations which is prevalent in North America. But in any case, all this is fine and good, and I accept what you say here. I responded to this section of your post first because it will follow logically with my response to the rest of your post.

With regards to the Jews, I am yet to say the worst Jesus(AS) said about them. Hear him: You wicked and adulterous generation!(Matthew, 16:4), You brood of snakes! (Luke 3:7). Ealier on Moses in Deutronomy and Exodus said, that is if he really wrote those books, You Jews, you vagobonds; you rebellios people!(Deut. 9:7), You stiffednecked people!(Exodus, 33:5).

First of all, I hope that perhaps one reason why you have not said the 'worst' is because you do have or claim the same authority and power over today's Jews that Jesus and Moses had as prophets, in which capacity they occasionally criticised the Jews in strong and (take note) symbolic terms.

Second, there is another, very significant difference between your criticism of Jews and that of Jesus and Moses. I think if we once again contextualise your verses this fact will become plain.  

Let's start with Moses. In Exodus 33:5, it is not Moses who speaks, but in fact God:
For the LORD had said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites, 'You are a stiff-necked people. If I were to go with you even for a moment, I might destroy you. Now take off your ornaments and I will decide what to do with you.'

What happened that provoked God to say this? Well in the previous chapter the Israelites commited grievous idolatry by making a golden calf and worshipping it while Moses was up the mountain with God. And all this happened at least within a month of God booming from heaven the Ten Commandments, which of course prohibits idolatry.

Now in Deut. 9, Moses speaks to the Israelites at the end of their 40-year desert journey, and reminds them of their history of disobedience. As such he says in verse 7:
Remember this and never forget how you provoked the LORD your God to anger in the desert. From the day you left Egypt until you arrived here, you have been rebellious against the LORD.

Essentially in both verses Moses was rebuking the Israelites for their constant disobedience of his Law, which is preserved in the Torah.

Now onto Jesus:

Jesus is not the one speaking in Luke 3:7, rather it is John the Baptist, another prophet:
John [the Baptist] said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?"


Still on Jesus, who exactly was he speaking to in Matthew 16:4? Let's look at verses 1 to 4:
1 The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven.
2 He replied, "When evening comes, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,' 3 and in the morning, 'Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. 4 A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away.

Here as you can see, Jesus' criticism was directed at the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the religious scholars and authorities of his time. In fact, most of Jesus' harshest recorded words were directed at these people. In the previous chapter, he critcised the Pharisees for putting their tradition ahead of God's commands. Let's go to the previous chapter and read Matthew 15: 1-7.

1Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites!

In Jesus' eyes the Pharisees were guilty of keeping their traditions over God's commands in the Torah. This is rather interesting, given the fact that rabbinic Judaism is a direct offshoot from the Pharisaic sect and the emergence of the Talmud as the repository of oral law and tradition.

Now why have I brought all this up? You might read my last paragragh and say "See, according to the Christian Bible even Jesus would have rejected rabbinic judaism, isn't that the same thing I'm doing? Why does lionger contest my word, doesn't he believe his own bible?" Well no, Waziri, you're not doing the same thing that Jesus and Moses were doing. Nor are you saying the same thing they were with milder words. Jesus and Moses essentially criticised the Pharisees and Israel respectively for disobeying the Torah. You on the other hand are actually criticising the Jews for doing the opposite; for obeying the Torah, which according to you promotes hatred of and violence towards other races. Therein lies the difference.

One thing good is you can never come across a place in the Qur'an where Jews are talked about in this kind of language. I personally have not done the same, since I have nothing against them as people, but everything against what majority of them believe in. This is also what Jesus(AS), Muhammad(AS) and all other people of good will preach against over time. I do not need to repeat to your seeing what Alice F. Smith said above.

Well Waziri this all depends on how you read. The good thing about the Bible is that it is brutally honest. It records the faults and failings of all its heroes, from the prophets and kings of Israel to the apostles of the New Testament. This makes me all the more confident in the objectivity and impartiality of the Bible and its message. Jesus, who in your view criticised the Jews harshly, was however quick to point out to a Samaritan (non-Jewish) woman that she and her people worshipped God in ignorance but that "salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22). The Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, does the same thing. Don't you think this fact detracts from any 'supremacist' view of Judaism as presented by the Tanakh?

As for Alice F. Smith, whoever she is, she is entitled to her opinion. And in any case, she is very wrong. Why should I listen to her? Because she is a christian, or because she was quoted in Time Mag? I do not agree with her anymore than I do with our honorable Scotsman here, Dave (who is a catholic christian), on this issue.

I noticed also how you admitted of not knowing much about Talmud and Midnash. That in essence says how much you do not know about Judaism and its laws of nationalism. This is why I think you are only fit to ask question here not argue. I believe I can remain rest assured in my comfortable superiority on this subject matter. For I have perseverently laboured thru the Bible, the Qur'an and the Rabbinic Tradition which forms the bedrock of Jewish religion, for over ten years now.

That is why I say from the onset that I am not debating this with you but rather writing something which I believe will prove beneficial to all.

Yes, that's right. I don't know much rabbinic literature. And as such I'm prepared to defer to you on that. However, that hasn't mattered in this debate because you did not base your argument on any rabbinic text, but on Deuteronomy, which is in the Torah. Not once did you refer to any Talmudic writing as proof of your argument, but you presented your Deuteronomy 'passage'. Since I am quite familiar with the Torah, and consider it to be divinely inspired as all Christians do, I had and have every right to argue with you on this matter. Now according to you, my lack of knowledge of the Talmud equates to my lack of knowledge of contemporary Judaism. This infers that contemporary Judaism is more Talmud than Tanakh, at least concerning this subject matter. If so, then doesn't it make more sense to rely on your 'comfortable superiority' in the Talmud to support your allegations against Judaism? Instead you have relied on the Torah so far. As a Christian, I cannot  accept that the God of the Torah, my God, is racist and violent. So it should be no surprise that I cannot be silent in this regard. If you're going to prove this point, it simply cannot be based solely on the Tanakh.

In any case, I still await this article of yours. But remember, it is one thing to claim comfortable superiority in a subject, and it is quite another thing to show it :P .

Peace,

lionger

[Ete]

Interesting rebuttal Lionger.  I wonder why some people keep claiming intellectual superiority in religious discourse, yet they can barely quote a bible passage correctly and in proper context. If one fails to look up these quotes in the bible, one might actually ignorantly believe the quotes as  presented.  But on closer examination of the passages, it becomes apparent that things are twisted and several different passages lumped together to achieve a desired outcome.  For folks so intelligent, I find it difficult to accept that as simple ignorance or misundertanding of the verses.

Take for example Exodus 33:5 which was presented as Moses' outburst to the Jews.  A clear reading of the passage clearly shows as you correctly pointed out that it was in fact God's statement to Moses. To simply credit those words to Moses knowing quite well that they came from God, with good reason, is in my view deliberate omission of facts.

Then there is the other example where Jesus clearly addressed the the Pharisees, but they tried to pass it off as Jesus verbally attacking the Jews as a whole.  These kinds of deliberate distortions makes me wonder. Muslims insist that the Bible is corrupt.  They then turn around and quote from the same 'corrupted' book to support an argument.  Then they try to corrupt it themselves by joining different passages and omitting proper context.  Why is that really necessary if the material is already corrupt?

Perhaps some Muslims read the Bible for fault seeking, but end up stumbling upon truthfully disturbing revelations that conflict with their beliefs. I don't think trying to discredit the Bible is the solution though.

I think Lionger is a honorable person for admitting not to know much about certain aspects of Judaism. I respect that type of intergrity a whole lot because I know he will defer in areas where he is not familiar. I know he will not twist facts and claim to be all knowing like a proud peacock. They say pride goes before a fall. Most of the so called intellectual gurus here become suspect when their submissions are put to test and debunked.

[_Waziri_]

Actually yes this is true, with regards to rabbinic Judaism, and in contrast to my earlier statement. However within its different sects (Conservative, Reform, Orthodox, Reconstructionist) the Talmud and the authority of the oral Torah is accepted in varying degrees. My earlier statement is probably more in line with certain reform judaist interpretations which is prevalent in North America. But in any case, all this is fine and good, and I accept what you say here. I responded to this section of your post first because it will follow logically with my response to the rest of your post.

But you should have known from the onset that our frame of reference is Zionism, Israel and the way it is being governed by Rabbinic Tradition which believes and imposes Jewish supremacy across the globe.

First of all, I hope that perhaps one reason why you have not said the 'worst' is because you do have or claim the same authority and power over today's Jews that Jesus and Moses had as prophets, in which capacity they occasionally criticised the Jews in strong and (take note) symbolic terms.

God thru' his mouthpiece, the prophets have the final authority over these things. When they say it, I repeat it as ordinary mortal. We immitate them in the hope of achieving devine grace.

You may claim that in the quotes I gave above, I attributed what God said to Moses. This betrays your ignorance of the the general claim among Bible scholars that Moses wrote  those books not God, in essense.

You may also claim of the existence of a "difference" in my criticism and that of God's(?) or Jesus and Moses criticisms as you yourself put it, of the Jews. But the fact is  there is not. And what I have written concerning them are everywhere  on this board for everybody to see. The texts are there. The context is always about doing right as approved by God. Or what wrong is in cristicising the action of anybody who in recent time can kill 1000 defenceless civilians in a so-called religious war that depends a false claim of a state sanctioned by pseudo God?

You claim that Jesus directed his criticism to the Pharisess and what have you, who were the leaders and chief interpreters of the laws. Are we not dirtecting our criticism today against the leaders of the Jews, Religious clergies, and other Policy Formulators,  who spearhead the masacre of innocent people in the name of racial superiority as ordained by pseudo God? Or when  did I say all Jews are the same including the Muslims and Christians among them?

Your elaborating on the verses I have quoted doesnt change the meaning of what I say in anyway. The harsh words were used by God and His prophets and that makes my point. For it gives me the same justification to use them against them in memoriam of their true and rebellious nature as elucidated in those pages which till today they have not changed.

I did not criticise them for obeying the Torah but I criticised them for interpreting the Torah in the light of the Talmud and Midnash distorting the true meaning of the Torah. I disagree with you for contesting my claims on how they interprete it even when you DO NOT KNOW how they truly do it.

This makes me all the more confident in the objectivity and impartiality of the Bible and its message. Jesus, who in your view criticised the Jews harshly, was however quick to point out to a Samaritan (non-Jewish) woman that she and her people worshipped God in ignorance but that "salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22). The Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, does the same thing. Don't you think this fact detracts from any 'supremacist' view of Judaism as presented by the Tanakh?

You seem to be asking the right question here. Jesus was a Jew, so Moses and the prophets. So it not wrong to claim that salvation comes from them. But it is among them we find the Pharisees who created Rabbinic Judaism and sold it to the majority of the others as true reveletion from God, to the extent that today when we speak about Judaism or Jews it is Rabbinic Judaism that readily comes to mind as ascertained by the quotes from the Encaeclopaedia above.

As for Alice F. Smith, whoever she is, she is entitled to her opinion. And in any case, she is very wrong.

But atleast that should prove to you that I am not alone in this and that many others have seen it in the light I saw it before. It makes my position easy to push as many statements of that nature from the Jews themselves are coming very soon, thru me as many came thru Dave in the other thread.

Yes, that's right. I don't know much rabbinic literature. And as such I'm prepared to defer to you on that. However, that hasn't mattered in this debate because you did not base your argument on any rabbinic text, but on Deuteronomy, which is in the Torah.Not once did you refer to any Talmudic writing as proof of your argument, but you presented your Deuteronomy 'passage'

Yes, Deutronomy is in the Torah but I have viewed it according to the interpretation given to it by Talmudist. But your problem began when you rose to contest my points wrongly instead of asking questions, since it is about something you do not know.

In any case, I still await this article of yours. But remember, it is one thing to claim comfortable superiority in a subject, and it is quite another thing to show it :P .

It is possible by now you have gotten the gist and why I find problem with your submissions. It makes my job easier actually. Now I can write my article having you in mind also. I will give the interpretations of the verses I quoted from Deutronomy in the light of Talmudic Judaism as they are. In that I am sure you will find alot to learn either.

I remain most grateful and I am sure you have seen the reason why you should not have been frantic and confrontational from the on-set. This goes to ETE also, knowledge is a reality, so also ignorance.

[_Waziri_]

Interesting rebuttal Lionger.  I wonder why some people keep claiming intellectual superiority in religious discourse, yet they can barely quote a bible passage correctly and in proper context. If one fails to look up these quotes in the bible, one might actually ignorantly believe the quotes as  presented.

If I should leave you without reference to an edition of Bible you may spend your life without finding the exact copy of the one I use to give me those quotes as they are. There are many diffrent versions of Bible. Some use milder words to prove a point while others, especially the older versions, use harsher words. One wonders at certain point as to which one is really correct in expressing the mood of God as He revealed the scriptures. It is not my fault Ete.

I think Lionger is a honorable person for admitting not to know much about certain aspects of Judaism. I respect that type of intergrity a whole lot because I know he will defer in areas where he is not familiar. I know he will not twist facts and claim to be all knowing like a proud thingy. They say pride goes before a fall.

Well, many among us have the culture of defering to superior arguments and passing apology when they did wrong. But the manner in which you started the debate accounted to how I responded to you. But now that I have gotten you to admit on your shortcomings, on the subject of discourse, I can go ahead and establish my claims from which if anybody can come forth with superior point I will defer as is usual. But know that you started it all this way by being confrontational. And like the Arab poet would say, I destroy you when you confront me, I respect you when you are humble before me.

[lionger]

Hmm Waziri I'm not sure you've understood my post. And you may not have presented your position as you thought you did. Perhaps miscommunication has a big part to play in our disagreement here.

You said:

You may claim that in the quotes I gave above, I attributed what God said to Moses. This betrays your ignorance of the the general claim among Bible scholars that Moses wrote those books not God, in essense.

Now this is what I said previously:

In Exodus 33:5, it is not Moses who speaks, but in fact God:
For the LORD had said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites, 'You are a stiff-necked people. If I were to go with you even for a moment, I might destroy you. Now take off your ornaments and I will decide what to do with you.'

Here is a prime example of you misunderstanding what I said. How is it that you take my words above as a rejection of Moses' authorship of Exodus?  I didn't say  'in Exodus, it is not Moses who speaks, but God', I said 'in Exodus 33:5it is not Moses who speaks...'. Yes Moses wrote the book of Exodus, but in this particular verse you cited, he recorded a conversation b/w himself and God, and the statement you attributed to him was actually made by God. Get me now?

To see this as proof of my ignorance of Bible authorship is very strange and somewhat amusing. I could very well do the same thing with regard to your New Testament citations : you quoted Matthew 16:4 and Luke 3:7 and attributed those statements to Jesus whereas it is plain that Jesus did not write the book of Matthew or Luke. Should I now accuse you of ignorance based on this?

You may also claim of the existence of a "difference" in my criticism and that of God's(?) or Jesus and Moses criticisms as you yourself put it, of the Jews. But the fact is there is not. And what I have written concerning them are everywhere on this board for everybody to see. The texts are there. The context is always about doing right as approved by God. Or what wrong is in cristicising the action of anybody who in recent time can kill 1000 defenceless civilians in a so-called religious war that depends a false claim of a state sanctioned by pseudo God?

You claim that Jesus directed his criticism to the Pharisess and what have you, who were the leaders and chief interpreters of the laws. Are we not dirtecting our criticism today against the leaders of the Jews, Religious clergies, and other Policy Formulators, who spearhead the masacre of innocent people in the name of racial superiority as ordained by pseudo God? Or when did I say all Jews are the same including the Muslims and Christians among them?

Your elaborating on the verses I have quoted doesnt change the meaning of what I say in anyway. The harsh words were used by God and His prophets and that makes my point. For it gives me the same justification to use them against them in memoriam of their true and rebellious nature as elucidated in those pages which till today they have not changed.

Read what I said again carefully. The nature of Jesus' and Moses' criticism of the Pharisees and Israel in the verses you cited is their disobedience to God and his law in the Torah. However you are saying that the Israel's obedience to certain Torah laws and its 'pseudo God' has led to to the death of 1000 Lebanese civilians, and this is what you find reprehensible. Your very reference to the Lebanon conflict as a religious war (and it isn't) disproves your claim that there is no difference between what you said and what the prophets were saying. If it were really a religious war and Israel's action find basis and backing in the Torah, then wouldn't their prophets have approved of their actions? But you disprove! Recently you have said that your target was Rabbinic tradition and its interpretation of the Torah - not necessarily the Torah itself - but in this post I will show that  this was not the case until now. At the very least, you miscommunicated your position.

Now you said

I did not criticise them for obeying the Torah but I criticised them for interpreting the Torah in the light of the Talmud and Midnash distorting the true meaning of the Torah. I disagree with you for contesting my claims on how they interprete it even when you DO NOT KNOW how they
truly do it.....

Yes, Deutronomy is in the Torah but I have viewed it according to the interpretation given to it by Talmudist. But your problem began when you rose to contest my points wrongly instead of asking questions, since it is about something you do not know.

This post is a significant departure from your stated position in other threads, even in this one. Yes my limited knowledge of the Talmud means that I cannot authoritatively state how it interpret the Torah here. But as I said before, your position was never based on supposed erroneous Talmudic interpretation of the Torah, but on the Torah itself, which I know well.  You never cited Talmudic text alongside the Torah, but often appealed to a literal reading of Deuteronomy and presented your own exegesis of it in the form of your 'passage'. Perhaps you have forgotten what you said in other threads. Lets walk through them and you will se what I mean!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mlbash's thread about Ahmadenijad's letter, you said:

Finally, I will want all to ponder over the reason why the following quotes from Deutronomy, one of the books of the TORAH, that expatiated on the laws and beliefs of the Jews, the choosen people, is not being popularised.
Really if Jews would take hatred against other races to be part and parcel of their religion why wouldn't others hate them back with equal measure?
This re-echoes nothing but the truth of the claims by some honest Jews that, 'After all, the Nuremberg laws are only the translation into German of our own Mosaic laws, with their ban on intermarriage with Gentiles'?

"And the Lord spake unto me, saying. . . This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee . . . And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it . . . And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them. . . to drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou art, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance . . . And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them; neither shalt thou make marriages with them. . . ye shall destroy their altars and break down their images. . . For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth . . . And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. . . But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction until they be destroyed . . . He shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven, there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them . . . Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours. . . even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be . . . Of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shall save nothing alive that breatheth . . . thou shalt lend unto many nations and thou shalt not borrow . . . Ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods. . ."

1. Direct appeal to the words of Deuteronomy as proof of your position. This is made obvious by the fact that you feel this 'passage' of Deuteronomy ought to be popularised as it shows that hatred of other races is God-sanctioned and thus part of the Jewish religion.

2. There is no mention of the Talmud, no citation of Talmudic text, no reference to rabbinic tradition or interpretation of the book of Deuteronomy.

Conclusion: No one reading this post can conclude that you are criticizing rabbinic interpretation of the book of Deuteronomy. Rather, you are criticising the book of Deuteronomy itself.

On Ete's thread about the Israel/Lebanon clash, you said:

Suffice it to add here as I have said elsewhere that I, in particular, am not suprised by the atrocities the Jews are commiting in that region everyday, which does not exclude the Arab Christians that are there. Why, because violence against other races is an ordained activity that draws reward in the sight of God, according Jewish religion. A cursary reading at The Torah and the Talmud confirms this truth. Read with me the following passage from the Deuteromy and you see what I am saying:

"And the Lord spake unto me, saying. . . This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee . . . And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it . . . And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them. . . to drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou art, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance . . . And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them; neither shalt thou make marriages with them. . . ye shall destroy their altars and break down their images. . . For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth . . . And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. . . But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction until they be destroyed . . . He shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven, there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them . . . Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours. . . even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be . . . Of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shall save nothing alive that breatheth . . . thou shalt lend unto many nations and thou shalt not borrow . . . Ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods. . ."

1. Direct appeal to the words of Deuteronomy as proof of your position. Here you make the charge that this book shows that 'violence against other races is an ordained activity that draws reward in the sight of God, according [to] Jewish religion.' Then, as before, you enjoin all forumners to read the words of Deuteronomy you presented, which will prove the point you're trying to make.

2. There is mention of the Talmud, but no citation of Talmudic text whatsoever and thus no concrete inference to Talmudic/rabbinic interpretation or exegesis.

Conclusion: The average reader cannot conclude that you are criticizing rabbinic interpretation of Deuteronomy. Rather, you are criticising the book of Deuteronomy itself.

On your thread about how tired you are of me and Ete  :P , you said:

I must say I am tired of this gross insult on our collective intelligence. If this people can agree and be logical enough to admit the truth that the Jews have a religious mission in their occupation of the Arab lands. I can conviniently continue the discussions with them in order to find the true nature of this religion and its origin which informed the hatred that is explicated on the pages of the book of Deuteronomy.

1. Direct appeal to the words of Deuteronomy provided in the previous threads as proof or your position. Here you make reference to the 'hatred that is explicated on the pages of the book of Deuteronomy', thereby emphasising that a direct reading of this book proves your point.

2. No mention of Talmud, no reference to Talmudic text or rabbinic tradition/interpretation.

Conclusion: No-one can assume that your charges are directed at rabbinic tradition and interpretation of Deuteronomy. Rather, they seemed directly aimed at Deuteronomy.

And finally, on this thread, in conclusion to your first post on this thread, you said:

I wish you well, until I come back with my humble but yet thorough analysis of how I came across the truth that God did not promise the Jews Palestine and their religion is one which believes in what I quoted of it from deutronomy, verbatim.

1. Direct appeal to the words of Deuteronomy posted in previous threads as proved in this quote. You used the word 'verbatim' to emphasize that the literal words of that 'passage' you presented are proof of everything you said about the Jewish beliefs.

2. There is mention of the Talmud, and for the first time the oral Torah and rabbinic tradition are infered earlier on in this post. However this reference is rather circumferential, and they are not brought into the context of your stance on Deuteronomy. Still no citation of Talmudic text or any rabbinic literature, thus no concrete inference to Talmudic interpretation.

Conlusion: Deuteronomy stands alone as the sole subject of scrutiny. Rabbinic tradition and its interpretation of Deuteronomy cannot be in view here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All this shows that I had every right to respond to you on this matter, my lack of Talmudic knowledge notwithstanding. There is no reason why me or anyone who read your posts on this subject would think that you were actually criticising the Talmud's distortion of the Torah and not the Torah itself, even if that's what you really meant. Why, because you provided no Talmudic text alongside Deuteronomy to prove your case.

You have said now that you 'viewed it [Deuteronomy] according to the interpretation given to it by Talmudist' - but how were we to know that? No-one that read your posts would assume that it came from the Talmudist - rather, they'd think that any objective reading of Deuteronomy would lead to the same conclusions you stated.  The very nature of your presentation of Deuteronomy shows this. In my response, I showed that your 'passage' of Deuteronomy actually existed as a bunch of verses scattered between Chapters 2 and 28. Since Deuteronomy has 34 chapters, this implies some substantial analysis of the book on your part. I could only assume that you had read the whole book, analysed it, and composed your passage of select verses which you feel presents the message of the book. This is why I made pointed many other verses in Deuteronomy which I felt you should have read. And in anycase Waziri, since you were actually referring to the Talmud's interpretation of the Deuteronomy, how come you disagreed so strongly with what I said about Deuteronomy? Isn't it possible that I'm actually providing the true message of the Torah, not one distorted by the Talmud?

It is possible by now you have gotten the gist and why I find problem with your submissions. It makes my job easier actually. Now I can write my article having you in mind also. I will give the interpretations of the verses I quoted from Deutronomy in the light of Talmudic Judaism as they are. In that I am sure you will find alot to learn either.

I remain most grateful and I am sure you have seen the reason why you should not have been frantic and confrontational from the on-set. This goes to ETE also, knowledge is a reality, so also ignorance.

Yes Waziri the bolded part is exactly what you need to do, since you've made it obvious that you're criticising the Talmudic interpretation of the Torah, and not the Torah itself. I really would like to see the Talmudic text that generated or inspired your otherwise non-existent passage of Deuteronomy - since it does not exist as such in the Torah. Is there any rabbinic literature that actually contains and presents your passage, or something similar to it? This is all you need to do to 'win' this argument  :D .

Peace,
lionger

[Ete]

Waziri, Waziri, waziri, here you go again still thumping your chest and declaring victory.  First off, nobody engaged you in confrontational manners as you claim, and secondly, I DO NOT admit to any shortcomings, so please, wake up from your trance.

The origin of this dialogue is the article I posted regarding the Isreali-Hezbollah conflict, which is purely political in nature.  Let me recap for you.  What is generally known is that Isreal concerned for her security decided to take on Hezbollah who for years used Southern Lebanon as a base to launch rocket attacks into Israel.  They then went further by killing Isreali border patrol soldiers, and kidnapped two.  At that point Isreal decided to begin a small scale offensive against Hezbollah which of course escalated to what it was before cessation of hostilities recently.

On either side of this conflict, religion was not a factor. Though some hezbollah camp and several Muslim communities thanked allah afterwards for what they consider to be a victory against Israel.   You injected religion into the equation even though this conflict was not about religion.  There are muslims in this forum that find the Arab position in this on-going Arab-Isreali conflict to be ridiculous and unrealistic.

In your case, in your quest to show us how religion factors into this conflict, you take everyone so way off base from the main issue and now have us discusing Rabbinic Judaism.  What the hell does all of this have to do with the recent conflict in Lebanon?  To me, this is irrelevant diversion from the real issue? You'll have us embroiled in this laborous discussion about textual interpretation of the Mishnah, and then you'll jump to the Talmud, and continue on continue without anyone seeeing the enf of the tunnel. This is the pattern of all your discussions and if you notice, most initial contributors lose interest at that juncture, and you in turn claim victory.

What I am saying to you is to keep the argument within context. Do not keep taking us on  journey through the wilderness.  How is this conflict about religion? I think this is a rather simple question. The Isreali government clearly stated that their security was on the line and that was evident given how often hezbollah fired rockets into Israel kiling scores of people. Independent observers and even the muslim enemies of Israel do not attribute this conflict to religion.  In one vein,  claim that Israel is intolerant of everyone else which was why they made no distintion between Lebanese Christians or Muslims during the attacks on Lebanon. That is rather perplexing to me because that right there indicate that it was not about religion. If religion were in fact the case, Israel would have been cautious and spared the non Muslim population.  But they went in and took out suspected hezbollah targets and casualties were unavoidable as it is the case in all wars.

If the Jews are as intolerant as you want to portray them,  how come there are people of sevral different faiths in Israel freely observing their religious duties? Are there not churches in Jerusalem? How come theyu allow that gold domed mosque in the center of Jerusalem. If that is not tolerance and acceptance, what is?

Can the Saudis allow a Church in Mecca? How many churches do you find in Iran? What you try to accuse the Israelis of is infact what radical Muslims are guilty of.  Waziri, it is the Muslims that dream of Islamizing the World, not the Jews.

[Dave_McEwan_Hill]

Ete is quite correct. The present Israeli/Lebanon is not findamentally a religious issue. It is political. The rest of Ete's post displays his wilful ignorance of the reality of this present confrontation.
Is he aware that Israel still occupies illegally Arab lands, including a small part of Lebanon? Is he aware that over 1000 Lebanese are kidnapped and have been for years in Israeli prisons without representation and without charges been made against them?
Is he aware that the few Israeli soldiers captured were to be used as exchange for illegally held Lebanese prisoners in Israeli dungeons?
Is he aware that 30 times as many innocent Lebanese died than Israelis and that Hezbollah shells were outnumbered ten to one by Israeli ones which deliberately targetted Lebanon's infrastructure and civilian population in defiance of all United Nations laws. Is this evil behaviour acceptable to Christians? Is he aware that even as the whole world was watching Lebanon Israel contiued its murdering of Palestinians in Gaza? Is he aware that the Israelis have actually over the past month kidnapped many members of the Palestinian Parliament?
Is he aware that the Israel army is actually the fourth largerst army in the world. far bigger than the armies of Britain, Germany, France for    
instance and to suggest that Hezbollah offers any real threat to it is complete nonsense?
Is he aware that recently the Israelis shelled and killed innocent  Palestinians having a beach picnic?
Is he aware that the whole Palestinian nation has been forced into a narrow piece of land called the Gaza Strip where there is no industry, no jobs, no agriculture and no peace as Israel keeps attacking even that?
Is he aware that there are many Palestinians still holding the keys to their houses which they were thrown out of and which they can still see occupied by Isreali settlers who are also occupying their farms?
Is he aware that that Israel has been crushing the Palestinians for fifty years and is only able to do so because the USA, controlled largely by Jewish money, allows it to do so?
Does Ete believe that Nigerians would put up with it if the Israelis drove all the Nigerians off their land in the Mid west or the South  or the North and took all their houses?
So why does he think the Arabs in the Middle East should lie down and accept Israeli invasion, theft and murdering.
Does Ete understand that much of the press and media in the US is telling America lies and backing the Israelis?
Is it just that Ete doesn't like Moslems?
Personally I don't like injustice. Religion doesn't come into it.
There will be no peace in the Middle East until there is justice for the Palestinian people. There will be no justice for the Palestinian people as long as Jewish money controls the American presidency and the American media.
There will be no peace in the world until the idiot George Bush is removed from office.

[Ete]

Dave, you keep repeating yourself over and over. I have heard all of this from you before. What you consistently do is run away from responding honestly to my questions. How difficult is that?  It would make more sense if you just respond rather than post the same rant over and over. What? am I supposed to change my mind if I read the same thing from you several times?