Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

A Christopher Hitchens' Moment with Jane Austen & Lord Byron

Expand Messages
  • Nancy Mayer
    The quote from Christopher Hitchens about a review of the Fiona book gives one reason I can t stand that biography. Of course, I don t believe anyone has
    Message 1 of 26 , Apr 21, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      The quote from Christopher Hitchens about a review of the Fiona book
      gives one reason I can't stand that biography.
      Of course, I don't believe anyone has written an impartial biography of
      Byron recently. Everyone seems willing to go for the sensational.
      Nancy

      Taken from 'The Misfortune of Poetry -Byron's dramatic life has become indissoluble from his work' by Christopher Hitchens

      < In Jane Austen's Persuasion, Anne Elliot has a surprising discussion with a shy naval officer about the relative merits of Sir Walter Scott and Lord Byron, and finds Captain Benwick to be

      'so intimately acquainted with all the tenderest songs of the one poet, and all the impassioned descriptions of hopeless agony of the other; he repeated, with such tremulous feeling, the various lines which imaged a broken heart, or a mind destroyed by wretchedness, and looked so entirely as if he meant to be understood, that she ventured to hope he did not always read only poetry; and to say, that she thought it was the misfortune of poetry, to be seldom safely enjoyed by those who enjoyed it completely; and that the strong feelings which alone could estimate it truly, were the very feelings which ought to taste it but sparingly.'

      CH continues:

      < It is notorious that the Napoleonic Wars seldom achieve even the level of offstage noise in Austen's work, but in Persuasion, which was finished not long after the Battle of Waterloo, there are repeated references to Byron—, a figure who in his lifetime was often compared to Bonaparte himself, and who excited similar feelings of fear and loathing, as well as admiration, among his countrymen. Nobody would describe the virgin genius of Hampshire as a romantic, but when she considered the aspect of romance, she found it hard to keep Byron's unwholesome but fascinating visage out of her mind.> [end,October 2002, Atlantic Monthly. A review on a Fiona MacCarthy's book "Byron, Life & Legend"]

      Christy
    • Anne Mott
      Thanks for this. The world lost a spectacular mind when the Hitch died. I cried. A truly Byronic character himself. Where did you find the article? Anne Mott
      Message 2 of 26 , Apr 22, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for this. The world lost a spectacular mind when the Hitch died. I cried. A truly Byronic character himself. Where did you find the article?

        Anne Mott
        Sent from my iPad
      • Nancy Mayer
        October 2002, Atlantic Monthly. A review on a Fiona MacCarthy s book Byron, Life & Legend ] The title of the review is mentioned in the message I sent
        Message 3 of 26 , Apr 23, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          October 2002, Atlantic Monthly. A review on a Fiona MacCarthy's book "Byron, Life & Legend"]
          The title of the review is mentioned in the message I sent earlier.
          I didn't find it. A Janeite did.
          Nancy

          > Thanks for this. The world lost a
          > spectacular mind when the Hitch died. I cried. A truly
          > Byronic character himself. Where did you find the article?
          >
        • Linore Burkard
          I must say, I ve never thought of Hitchens as having anything near a spectacular mind. (Byron, yes!) One thing is now for certain, however, which is that
          Message 4 of 26 , Apr 24, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            I must say, I've never thought of Hitchens as having anything near a spectacular mind. (Byron, yes!) One thing is now for certain, however, which is that Hitchens is no longer an atheist.

            Linore

            --- In Byron@yahoogroups.com, Nancy Mayer <nmayer@...> wrote:
            >
            > October 2002, Atlantic Monthly. A review on a Fiona MacCarthy's book "Byron, Life & Legend"]
            > The title of the review is mentioned in the message I sent earlier.
            > I didn't find it. A Janeite did.
            > Nancy
            >
            > > Thanks for this. The world lost a
            > > spectacular mind when the Hitch died. I cried. A truly
            > > Byronic character himself. Where did you find the article?
            > >
            >
          • Nancy Mayer
            One problem I have with most  descriptions of Byron is that they do not   fit in with the  personality diisclosed in the letters.   The man was no saint
            Message 5 of 26 , Apr 24, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              One problem I have with most  descriptions of Byron is that they do not   fit in with the  personality diisclosed in the letters.   The man was no saint but he has never struck me as the devil that so many paint him.
               I know I repeat myself, but I am always amazed to remember that Byron  quotes the Bible and makes more references to it  than Austen or  most others except those who are designated as religious writers.
              Nancy
               

               

              I must say, I've never thought of Hitchens as having anything near a spectacular mind. (Byron, yes!) One thing is now for certain, however, which is that Hitchens is no longer an atheist.

              Linore


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Anne Ridsdale Mott
              Hitchens is no longer an atheist? Interesting. I agree. My belief is he is no longer anything. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Message 6 of 26 , Apr 27, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Hitchens is no longer an atheist? Interesting.
                I agree. My belief is he is no longer anything.


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Linore Burkard
                I say Hitchens is no longer an atheist based on the following scriptures: Hebrews 9:27: It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment. As
                Message 7 of 26 , Apr 28, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  I say Hitchens is no longer an atheist based on the following scriptures: Hebrews 9:27: It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."
                  As Romans 14 explains "For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written,
                  As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
                  So then each of us will give an account of himself to God."(Romans 14:10b-12)

                  Rather hard, I think, to maintain atheism while standing before one's Creator.

                  Byron was certainly not a devout Christian, but I strongly suspect he would have taken issue with the idea of ceasing to exist after death.
                  Jane Austen would have found it absolutely untenable.
                  At the least, Byron believed in a Creator. That's more than I can say for Hitchens while he lived.





                  --- In Byron@yahoogroups.com, "Anne Ridsdale Mott" <byronmania@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hitchens is no longer an atheist? Interesting.
                  > I agree. My belief is he is no longer anything.
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • Anne Mott
                  That s fine if you accept scripture as a reference. Who wrote Romans? When? And why? No one actually knows. It is very difficult to evaluate a source if you do
                  Message 8 of 26 , Apr 29, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    That's fine if you accept scripture as a reference. Who wrote Romans? When? And why? No one actually knows.

                    It is very difficult to evaluate a source if you do not know the bias of the writer.

                    Byron did not believe in an afterlife. However, he admitted that eternity would not be less pleasant for being unexpected.

                    He believed in "the great first cause" but was not a Christian. He seriously considered converting to Islam, but realized he could not accept organized religion or dogma of any sort.

                    A person can be moral and spiritual without adherence to an organized religion.

                    Christopher Hitchens had a brilliant mind and an encyclopedic knowledge of comparative religion. He quoted from both books of the Bible, from the Vedas and from the Koran without notes. His research led him to believe that religion - with the idea of an afterlife - was a construct of the human psyche than varied from place to place and time to time.

                    An atheist doesn't believe in God. That does not mean believing there was no creative force. Obviously, there was.

                    My reading of Byron is that he came to the same conclusion based on the same studies.

                    What leads you to believe Jane Austen would find atheism untenable? I don't recall much discussion of religion in her writing.

                    Anne Mott
                    Sent from my iPad

                    On 2013-04-28, at 9:19 PM, "Linore Burkard" <linore@...> wrote:

                    > I say Hitchens is no longer an atheist based on the following scriptures: Hebrews 9:27: It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."
                    > As Romans 14 explains "For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written,
                    > As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
                    > So then each of us will give an account of himself to God."(Romans 14:10b-12)
                    >
                    > Rather hard, I think, to maintain atheism while standing before one's Creator.
                    >
                    > Byron was certainly not a devout Christian, but I strongly suspect he would have taken issue with the idea of ceasing to exist after death.
                    > Jane Austen would have found it absolutely untenable.
                    > At the least, Byron believed in a Creator. That's more than I can say for Hitchens while he lived.
                    >
                    > --- In Byron@yahoogroups.com, "Anne Ridsdale Mott" <byronmania@...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Hitchens is no longer an atheist? Interesting.
                    > > I agree. My belief is he is no longer anything.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    > >
                    >
                    >


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Nancy Mayer
                    I have always found it interesting that there are more biblical references to the christian scriptures in Byron s works than in Austen s. There are at least
                    Message 9 of 26 , Apr 29, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I have always found it interesting that there are more biblical
                      references to the christian scriptures in Byron's works than in
                      Austen's. There are at least two books written about Byron and the
                      Bible. Of course, some might contend that this is because he had a
                      retentive memory and had been fed scripture throughout his school years.
                      However, his verses in Hebrew Melodies show that he was not just
                      repeating these parrotlike.
                      I think that the evidence concerning his beliefs is mixed, at best.
                      What proof is there that he was thinking of turning Muslim? He had an
                      intellectual interest in religion. He had Allegra placed in a convent
                      because he thought that the best place to teach her morals.
                      Knight wrote a book concerning the Christian Virtues of Byron.
                      The courts considered his_/Cain/_ blasphemous because his Cain
                      questioned things and , I imagine, because Lucifer had all the best lines.
                      Quite a few of the reviews of his poems considered them immoral
                      because the Mussselmen heroes never repented and became Christians
                      before they died. He certainly didn't write didactic poetry.
                      There are three poems { "oh Weep for Those", Destruction of the
                      Assyrians." and "Vision of Eliphaz."} of Byron's in a 1895 edition of
                      /_Sacred Gems of the Poets_/.
                      Other issues have always been obstacles to a clear picture of Byron's
                      beliefs. It is not likely that someone with his mind would accept any
                      system of belief without questioning.
                      The book of /_Romans_/ is by Paul as is stated in the first verse.
                      It is the author of the book of _/Hebrews/_ that is uncertain.
                      However, the contents of the books of the 66 books of the Christian
                      Bible have been tested and debated more completely and more thoroughly
                      than any other writings in the world. Works attributed to other
                      writers in the ancient world are accepted with much less proof and
                      testing than the Christian scriptures have undergone.
                      Though OT for a discussion of Byron, I am always amazed at the
                      efforts non-believers make to discredit the scriptures. If they think it
                      nonsense, why bother? Why not just leave believers to their folly?
                      Back to Byron, we know he had an inquiring mind . We also know that
                      he was not above exaggerating some of his own "sins."
                      Nancy

                      --
                      http://www.regencyresearcher.com



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Anne Mott
                      Just one short response - my question is who was Paul/ Saul? That there was such a man is not in doubt, but was the historic person the same as the legendary
                      Message 10 of 26 , Apr 29, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Just one short response - my question is who was Paul/ Saul? That there was such a man is not in doubt, but was the historic person the same as the legendary one?

                        If the historic person did write Romans, it was not written in English. He was a Jewish minor bureaucrat writing in Greek (or at least the existing manuscripts are in Greek) who dictated it to an amanuensis. Several of the early manuscripts of Romans ascribe it to other writers in a subscript.

                        Have you been to Ephasus? The story about Paul/Saul set there is implausible at best.

                        Anne Mott
                        Sent from my iPad

                        On 2013-04-29, at 5:56 AM, Nancy Mayer <nmayer@...> wrote:

                        > I have always found it interesting that there are more biblical
                        > references to the christian scriptures in Byron's works than in
                        > Austen's. There are at least two books written about Byron and the
                        > Bible. Of course, some might contend that this is because he had a
                        > retentive memory and had been fed scripture throughout his school years.
                        > However, his verses in Hebrew Melodies show that he was not just
                        > repeating these parrotlike.
                        > I think that the evidence concerning his beliefs is mixed, at best.
                        > What proof is there that he was thinking of turning Muslim? He had an
                        > intellectual interest in religion. He had Allegra placed in a convent
                        > because he thought that the best place to teach her morals.
                        > Knight wrote a book concerning the Christian Virtues of Byron.
                        > The courts considered his_/Cain/_ blasphemous because his Cain
                        > questioned things and , I imagine, because Lucifer had all the best lines.
                        > Quite a few of the reviews of his poems considered them immoral
                        > because the Mussselmen heroes never repented and became Christians
                        > before they died. He certainly didn't write didactic poetry.
                        > There are three poems { "oh Weep for Those", Destruction of the
                        > Assyrians." and "Vision of Eliphaz."} of Byron's in a 1895 edition of
                        > /_Sacred Gems of the Poets_/.
                        > Other issues have always been obstacles to a clear picture of Byron's
                        > beliefs. It is not likely that someone with his mind would accept any
                        > system of belief without questioning.
                        > The book of /_Romans_/ is by Paul as is stated in the first verse.
                        > It is the author of the book of _/Hebrews/_ that is uncertain.
                        > However, the contents of the books of the 66 books of the Christian
                        > Bible have been tested and debated more completely and more thoroughly
                        > than any other writings in the world. Works attributed to other
                        > writers in the ancient world are accepted with much less proof and
                        > testing than the Christian scriptures have undergone.
                        > Though OT for a discussion of Byron, I am always amazed at the
                        > efforts non-believers make to discredit the scriptures. If they think it
                        > nonsense, why bother? Why not just leave believers to their folly?
                        > Back to Byron, we know he had an inquiring mind . We also know that
                        > he was not above exaggerating some of his own "sins."
                        > Nancy
                        >
                        > --
                        > http://www.regencyresearcher.com
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Linore Burkard
                        Well, this gets interesting! I pray I do not come across sounding like a snob--I can only share what I know, and I don t know everything, needless to say.
                        Message 11 of 26 , Apr 29, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Well, this gets interesting! I pray I do not come across sounding like a snob--I can only share what I know, and I don't know everything, needless to say.

                          However: There is no doubt that Saul of Tarsus (aka, Paul the Apostle) is the historical writer of Romans and most of the New Testament epistles, for that matter. I'm not sure what you take issue with here. As Nancy mentioned, there have been exhaustive inquiries into the validity of the New Testament, and for that matter, the life and history of Jesus Christ. (Did you know, for instance, that there is more extant proof of the existence of Jesus than for Alexander the Great?)

                          One journalist by name of Lee Strobel was so determined to put an end to all the Christian nonsense about the Bible being the inspired Word of God, and about Jesus, that he went on a multi-year quest to discredit the book, and the man/God. He visited the Holy Land, made numerous interviews with scholars, etc. Long story short, he ended up converting to Christianity! You can read all about his odyssey in the book, THE CASE FOR CHRIST. He has since written a few others in the same vein, such as THE CASE FOR THE BIBLE.

                          (Personally, I don't find him a wonderful writer, but for skeptics interested in the evidence he found, his books have merit. In lieu of reading, you can choose instead to watch his DVDs--maybe they're on YouTube, I don't know--which may be easier on the literary mind.)

                          As for Jane Austen: Her books are not, as you correctly noted, full of overt religious instruction, as she took pains to ensure they weren't: First of all, she would have despised sounding like a Methodist as Jane was 100% Anglican. She did not like Hannah More, and did not wish to convert souls with her writings. Moreover, she would have felt she was preaching mostly to the choir, in any case; she did not foresee the eventual universal appeal of her books and supposed she was writing to the same sort of people as those she wrote about--People who professed to be members of an organized religion (ie., the Anglican church) who were either moral and good, or not. She was concerned with hypocrisy, meanness and other character traits, but most assuredly did not see her role as that of a missionary!

                          Back to the New Testament issue--you said Romans was not written in English. Is that supposed to mean we don't have accurate translations? Greek scholars, (scholars of ancient Greek) have translated the texts over and over and over and we have amazingly homogeneous translations as a result. When there is a dispute or uncertainty about the original meaning of a word, there is a note in the text of most Bibles.

                          You mention that Paul was a minor Jewish bureaucrat--not really. Paul was a Pharisee prior to his conversion--a high-standing member of the strictest sect of Judaism, and he was about as educated in the law (the Old Testament) as one could be. He was also, by trade, a tent maker. Not a bureaucrat. Like Lee Strobel after him, he despised Christians, but to the point of approving of their being killed. He was actually en route to throw a bunch more of them into prison when he underwent his famous encounter with Christ and became a convert to the religion he formerly sought to persecute.

                          I have never seen the book of Romans attributed to anyone other than Paul. He dictated it, yes, to a scribe, a man brought up to exacting standards of accuracy in transcription--but how this detracts from what he wrote, I don't see.

                          Please clarify what you feel is implausible about Paul's story.

                          Nancy mentioned how a man of Byron's intellect might certainly question religion: I maintain that any thinking person should; It is not only skeptics who are deep thinkers, however. Christian history is filled with the writings of many brilliant minds, (beginning, serendipitously enough, with Paul!) including some as recent as the 20th century, such as Thomas Merton, C.S. Lewis, R.C.Sproul (still alive) and many others.

                          Another famous poet/convert to Christianity was John Donne. Well worth reading his before and after writings to see the difference his faith made in his works.

                          I'm afraid I haven't done justice to all of your questions as I make no claim to having one of those brilliant minds I mentioned--but do, by all means, look into these matters for yourself.

                          Oh--as for being moral and spiritual apart from Christ. No one is saying that other people cannot be moral and spiritual. The thing is, Jesus said there is only ONE way to the Father, which is, through Him. Not through being moral or spiritual.
                          It isn't our idea, and for the sake of the many, I could wish it weren't so.
                          But far be it from me to argue with God. Jesus went to the cross on behalf of any who would come to him--All are welcome, and this is why Christians often do try to "spread the Word." So that more may hear and "hearing, believe."


                          --- In Byron@yahoogroups.com, Anne Mott <byronmania@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Just one short response - my question is who was Paul/ Saul? That there was such a man is not in doubt, but was the historic person the same as the legendary one?
                          >
                          > If the historic person did write Romans, it was not written in English. He was a Jewish minor bureaucrat writing in Greek (or at least the existing manuscripts are in Greek) who dictated it to an amanuensis. Several of the early manuscripts of Romans ascribe it to other writers in a subscript.
                          >
                          > Have you been to Ephasus? The story about Paul/Saul set there is implausible at best.
                          >
                          > Anne Mott
                          > Sent from my iPad
                          >
                          > On 2013-04-29, at 5:56 AM, Nancy Mayer <nmayer@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > > I have always found it interesting that there are more biblical
                          > > references to the christian scriptures in Byron's works than in
                          > > Austen's. There are at least two books written about Byron and the
                          > > Bible. Of course, some might contend that this is because he had a
                          > > retentive memory and had been fed scripture throughout his school years.
                          > > However, his verses in Hebrew Melodies show that he was not just
                          > > repeating these parrotlike.
                          > > I think that the evidence concerning his beliefs is mixed, at best.
                          > > What proof is there that he was thinking of turning Muslim? He had an
                          > > intellectual interest in religion. He had Allegra placed in a convent
                          > > because he thought that the best place to teach her morals.
                          > > Knight wrote a book concerning the Christian Virtues of Byron.
                          > > The courts considered his_/Cain/_ blasphemous because his Cain
                          > > questioned things and , I imagine, because Lucifer had all the best lines.
                          > > Quite a few of the reviews of his poems considered them immoral
                          > > because the Mussselmen heroes never repented and became Christians
                          > > before they died. He certainly didn't write didactic poetry.
                          > > There are three poems { "oh Weep for Those", Destruction of the
                          > > Assyrians." and "Vision of Eliphaz."} of Byron's in a 1895 edition of
                          > > /_Sacred Gems of the Poets_/.
                          > > Other issues have always been obstacles to a clear picture of Byron's
                          > > beliefs. It is not likely that someone with his mind would accept any
                          > > system of belief without questioning.
                          > > The book of /_Romans_/ is by Paul as is stated in the first verse.
                          > > It is the author of the book of _/Hebrews/_ that is uncertain.
                          > > However, the contents of the books of the 66 books of the Christian
                          > > Bible have been tested and debated more completely and more thoroughly
                          > > than any other writings in the world. Works attributed to other
                          > > writers in the ancient world are accepted with much less proof and
                          > > testing than the Christian scriptures have undergone.
                          > > Though OT for a discussion of Byron, I am always amazed at the
                          > > efforts non-believers make to discredit the scriptures. If they think it
                          > > nonsense, why bother? Why not just leave believers to their folly?
                          > > Back to Byron, we know he had an inquiring mind . We also know that
                          > > he was not above exaggerating some of his own "sins."
                          > > Nancy
                          > >
                          > > --
                          > > http://www.regencyresearcher.com
                          > >
                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                        • Linore Burkard
                          Just want to add that, I m sorry for getting us quite OT, in case anyone feels offended by this. But, I really am curious as to what you find implausible
                          Message 12 of 26 , Apr 29, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Just want to add that, I'm sorry for getting us quite "OT," in case anyone feels offended by this.
                            But, I really am curious as to what you find implausible about Paul's history in Ephesus, Anne.

                            --- In Byron@yahoogroups.com, "Linore Burkard" <linore@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Well, this gets interesting! I pray I do not come across sounding like a snob--I can only share what I know, and I don't know everything, needless to say.
                            >
                            > However: There is no doubt that Saul of Tarsus (aka, Paul the Apostle) is the historical writer of Romans and most of the New Testament epistles, for that matter. I'm not sure what you take issue with here. As Nancy mentioned, there have been exhaustive inquiries into the validity of the New Testament, and for that matter, the life and history of Jesus Christ. (Did you know, for instance, that there is more extant proof of the existence of Jesus than for Alexander the Great?)
                            >
                            > One journalist by name of Lee Strobel was so determined to put an end to all the Christian nonsense about the Bible being the inspired Word of God, and about Jesus, that he went on a multi-year quest to discredit the book, and the man/God. He visited the Holy Land, made numerous interviews with scholars, etc. Long story short, he ended up converting to Christianity! You can read all about his odyssey in the book, THE CASE FOR CHRIST. He has since written a few others in the same vein, such as THE CASE FOR THE BIBLE.
                            >
                            > (Personally, I don't find him a wonderful writer, but for skeptics interested in the evidence he found, his books have merit. In lieu of reading, you can choose instead to watch his DVDs--maybe they're on YouTube, I don't know--which may be easier on the literary mind.)
                            >
                            > As for Jane Austen: Her books are not, as you correctly noted, full of overt religious instruction, as she took pains to ensure they weren't: First of all, she would have despised sounding like a Methodist as Jane was 100% Anglican. She did not like Hannah More, and did not wish to convert souls with her writings. Moreover, she would have felt she was preaching mostly to the choir, in any case; she did not foresee the eventual universal appeal of her books and supposed she was writing to the same sort of people as those she wrote about--People who professed to be members of an organized religion (ie., the Anglican church) who were either moral and good, or not. She was concerned with hypocrisy, meanness and other character traits, but most assuredly did not see her role as that of a missionary!
                            >
                            > Back to the New Testament issue--you said Romans was not written in English. Is that supposed to mean we don't have accurate translations? Greek scholars, (scholars of ancient Greek) have translated the texts over and over and over and we have amazingly homogeneous translations as a result. When there is a dispute or uncertainty about the original meaning of a word, there is a note in the text of most Bibles.
                            >
                            > You mention that Paul was a minor Jewish bureaucrat--not really. Paul was a Pharisee prior to his conversion--a high-standing member of the strictest sect of Judaism, and he was about as educated in the law (the Old Testament) as one could be. He was also, by trade, a tent maker. Not a bureaucrat. Like Lee Strobel after him, he despised Christians, but to the point of approving of their being killed. He was actually en route to throw a bunch more of them into prison when he underwent his famous encounter with Christ and became a convert to the religion he formerly sought to persecute.
                            >
                            > I have never seen the book of Romans attributed to anyone other than Paul. He dictated it, yes, to a scribe, a man brought up to exacting standards of accuracy in transcription--but how this detracts from what he wrote, I don't see.
                            >
                            > Please clarify what you feel is implausible about Paul's story.
                            >
                            > Nancy mentioned how a man of Byron's intellect might certainly question religion: I maintain that any thinking person should; It is not only skeptics who are deep thinkers, however. Christian history is filled with the writings of many brilliant minds, (beginning, serendipitously enough, with Paul!) including some as recent as the 20th century, such as Thomas Merton, C.S. Lewis, R.C.Sproul (still alive) and many others.
                            >
                            > Another famous poet/convert to Christianity was John Donne. Well worth reading his before and after writings to see the difference his faith made in his works.
                            >
                            > I'm afraid I haven't done justice to all of your questions as I make no claim to having one of those brilliant minds I mentioned--but do, by all means, look into these matters for yourself.
                            >
                            > Oh--as for being moral and spiritual apart from Christ. No one is saying that other people cannot be moral and spiritual. The thing is, Jesus said there is only ONE way to the Father, which is, through Him. Not through being moral or spiritual.
                            > It isn't our idea, and for the sake of the many, I could wish it weren't so.
                            > But far be it from me to argue with God. Jesus went to the cross on behalf of any who would come to him--All are welcome, and this is why Christians often do try to "spread the Word." So that more may hear and "hearing, believe."
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In Byron@yahoogroups.com, Anne Mott <byronmania@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Just one short response - my question is who was Paul/ Saul? That there was such a man is not in doubt, but was the historic person the same as the legendary one?
                            > >
                            > > If the historic person did write Romans, it was not written in English. He was a Jewish minor bureaucrat writing in Greek (or at least the existing manuscripts are in Greek) who dictated it to an amanuensis. Several of the early manuscripts of Romans ascribe it to other writers in a subscript.
                            > >
                            > > Have you been to Ephasus? The story about Paul/Saul set there is implausible at best.
                            > >
                            > > Anne Mott
                            > > Sent from my iPad
                            > >
                            > > On 2013-04-29, at 5:56 AM, Nancy Mayer <nmayer@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > > I have always found it interesting that there are more biblical
                            > > > references to the christian scriptures in Byron's works than in
                            > > > Austen's. There are at least two books written about Byron and the
                            > > > Bible. Of course, some might contend that this is because he had a
                            > > > retentive memory and had been fed scripture throughout his school years.
                            > > > However, his verses in Hebrew Melodies show that he was not just
                            > > > repeating these parrotlike.
                            > > > I think that the evidence concerning his beliefs is mixed, at best.
                            > > > What proof is there that he was thinking of turning Muslim? He had an
                            > > > intellectual interest in religion. He had Allegra placed in a convent
                            > > > because he thought that the best place to teach her morals.
                            > > > Knight wrote a book concerning the Christian Virtues of Byron.
                            > > > The courts considered his_/Cain/_ blasphemous because his Cain
                            > > > questioned things and , I imagine, because Lucifer had all the best lines.
                            > > > Quite a few of the reviews of his poems considered them immoral
                            > > > because the Mussselmen heroes never repented and became Christians
                            > > > before they died. He certainly didn't write didactic poetry.
                            > > > There are three poems { "oh Weep for Those", Destruction of the
                            > > > Assyrians." and "Vision of Eliphaz."} of Byron's in a 1895 edition of
                            > > > /_Sacred Gems of the Poets_/.
                            > > > Other issues have always been obstacles to a clear picture of Byron's
                            > > > beliefs. It is not likely that someone with his mind would accept any
                            > > > system of belief without questioning.
                            > > > The book of /_Romans_/ is by Paul as is stated in the first verse.
                            > > > It is the author of the book of _/Hebrews/_ that is uncertain.
                            > > > However, the contents of the books of the 66 books of the Christian
                            > > > Bible have been tested and debated more completely and more thoroughly
                            > > > than any other writings in the world. Works attributed to other
                            > > > writers in the ancient world are accepted with much less proof and
                            > > > testing than the Christian scriptures have undergone.
                            > > > Though OT for a discussion of Byron, I am always amazed at the
                            > > > efforts non-believers make to discredit the scriptures. If they think it
                            > > > nonsense, why bother? Why not just leave believers to their folly?
                            > > > Back to Byron, we know he had an inquiring mind . We also know that
                            > > > he was not above exaggerating some of his own "sins."
                            > > > Nancy
                            > > >
                            > > > --
                            > > > http://www.regencyresearcher.com
                            > > >
                            > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            > >
                            >
                          • Nancy Mayer
                            I am interested in the claim that Byron toyed with the idea of being Muslim. I am not well versed in that religion but what little I know of it, doesn t seem
                            Message 13 of 26 , Apr 29, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I am interested in the claim that Byron toyed with the idea of being
                              Muslim. I am not well versed in that religion but what little I know of
                              it, doesn't seem a though it would be a congenial religion for him.
                              Until he was ten years old, I gather Byron was raised a Scots
                              Presbyterian. Some have suggested that the Calvinistic idea of sin
                              affected him all his life-- Calvin probably had more to do with
                              Manfred's feelings of sin than any specific crime--
                              At school and afterward, he would have been expected to attend the
                              Church of England. H We don't have any information about his church
                              attendance even after he married.
                              He would probably enjoy services at a cathedral and in Greek Orthodox
                              churches-- for the pageantry if not for the message.


                              Nancy

                              --
                              http://www.regencyresearcher.com



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Anne Mott
                              I don t think he was serious but he did admire the morality of the Moslem people he met in Turkey (as Greece was then). He loved to pull a leg and say
                              Message 14 of 26 , Apr 29, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I don't think he was serious but he did admire the morality of the Moslem people he met in Turkey (as Greece was then). He loved to "pull a leg" and say outrageous things. Islam is a very respectful religion with a fine ethical basis. Just as with Christianity, the zealots give it a bad reputation.

                                The emphasis on Calvinism is overdone. Manfred has more in common with the main character of the popular novel Werner than with any faith. At times Byron was histrionically convinced of his damnation, but only as a silly adolescent. It is important to remember that he was all of 36 when he died.

                                He was not a church goer. His ideas about religion are found in his correspondence with his college preceptor, Francis Hodgson.

                                He liked the Catholic services for the same reason - especially the bells and music.

                                Anne Mott
                                Sent from my iPad

                                On 2013-04-29, at 7:27 PM, Nancy Mayer <nmayer@...> wrote:

                                > I am interested in the claim that Byron toyed with the idea of being
                                > Muslim. I am not well versed in that religion but what little I know of
                                > it, doesn't seem a though it would be a congenial religion for him.
                                > Until he was ten years old, I gather Byron was raised a Scots
                                > Presbyterian. Some have suggested that the Calvinistic idea of sin
                                > affected him all his life-- Calvin probably had more to do with
                                > Manfred's feelings of sin than any specific crime--
                                > At school and afterward, he would have been expected to attend the
                                > Church of England. H We don't have any information about his church
                                > attendance even after he married.
                                > He would probably enjoy services at a cathedral and in Greek Orthodox
                                > churches-- for the pageantry if not for the message.
                                >
                                > Nancy
                                >
                                > --
                                > http://www.regencyresearcher.com
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                                >


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Nancy Mayer
                                Yes, it is difficult sometimes to remember just how young he was when he died, I have children  older than that. Thanks for reminding me of Werther,  We do
                                Message 15 of 26 , Apr 30, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Yes, it is difficult sometimes to remember just how young he was when he died, I have children  older than that.
                                  Thanks for reminding me of Werther,  We do have a tendency to forget  the influential novels and writings of non English  language  authors.  From what I have read The sorrows of Werther  had an impact on many of the writers of the time.
                                  I shall have to go back through his letters for references to church and religion.   I did not expect that Byron would have been a voluntary church goer but  he would have been required to attend at school  He ahd to have acquired his knowledge of the  scripture  someplace. He showed his interest in  biblical stories  in his poems-He seemed to  find the Old Testament  of more interest than the new. Wonder what he thought of Judaism?
                                   
                                  Nancy 
                                   

                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Nancy Mayer
                                  People have  told me or thought  of me as rather naive  because I refuse to believe that Byron is a wicked and depraved as  many love to paint him.  The
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Apr 30, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    People have  told me or thought  of me as rather naive  because I refuse to believe that Byron is a wicked and depraved as  many love to paint him.  The trouble I find, is that the very letters the critics and biographers   claim condemn  Byron  appear in a different light to me.  I do not mean the actual  individual letters but the letters as a whole. The person revealed in the letters is   not quite like the Childe Harold or  Byronic  figure of  the poems  but much more like the author of Don Juan with  humor, humanity, sarcasm, and insight. Not a saint  but very human  and a much more likeable person than  described in most biographies.
                                    Nancy

                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Nancy Mayer
                                    One complaint I have about the very facile and and of course it is true attitude about the charge of  incest against Byron  ( I don t think Augista would
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Apr 30, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      One complaint I have about the very facile and and "of course it is true" attitude about the charge of  incest against Byron  ( I don't think Augista would have committed incest no matter what people think Byron would have done), is that  no n has been able or willing to  show me the records of  the exact dates of birth of Augusta's children. Even the birth of Elizabeth Medora  is  guessed at as all that is  recorded is the date of baptism. Also,  though the  "ape" letter is dated April 24 or so( the books are at home), it was in a letter dated April 7 that Byron wrote he had just returned from visiting Augusta and that  mother nad child were doing well. that means the child was most likely  born   towards the begining of March. I do not know how brothers  fit into the scheme of visitors but  according to books like In the family Way,  the confinement of a woman  started after birth and lasted for around 30 days during which she
                                      usually only had female visitors. Now this was not a hard and fast  rule  but I doubt Byron had been there for the birth. So the baby  was likely born in March which meant that Augusta was pregnant when she went to town in 1813  and Lady Byron was guilty of a great falsehood.
                                      Byron saw so much evidence of hypocrisy   in those who most claimed to be Christians that  I wouldn't wonder if it sickened him.
                                      I still am looking for  the proper birth and baptism records  of Augusta;s children.
                                      I do have a bare record of Elizabeth  Medora's  baptism in May 1814 on a CD  of the baptismal register  of the parish church. I have the  dates given so confidently about births and baptisms  for the others but have never  even seen a bare record  of baptism and  not a proof of birth
                                      dates. Where is the UR-record from which all these assertions are made?
                                      Nancy

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Linore Burkard
                                      You raise valid and interesting questions, Nancy. And about what Anne said: Islam is a benign religion? Doesn t it follow the Koran? The Koran teaches that all
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Apr 30, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        You raise valid and interesting questions, Nancy.

                                        And about what Anne said: Islam is a benign religion? Doesn't it follow the Koran? The Koran teaches that all infidels (meaning anyone who does not worship Allah) should be killed, slain, wiped out. This is why I find it ludicrous when people claim it is a peaceful religion. The "zealots" are only doing what their "Bible" teaches. Thus, even at this very time in Syria, muslims who are nominal are being killed by the zealous ones--because they don't follow the real teaching of the Koran. (This is beginning to hit mainstream media.)

                                        It is not Christian zealots, on the contrary, who have given Christianity a bad name. It is actually those who IGNORE the biblical teachings who do so; whereas in Islam, it is only those who FOLLOW their teachings who show the world what the religion actually calls for. Quite a difference, there.
                                        People have done terrible things in the NAME of Christianity, without following Christian teachings or principles. That is the tragedy of it.

                                        As for Byron's beliefs, I confess I need to do a lot more reading, but it is likely no one will ever know for certain whether he possessed a saving faith--until we get to the other side. Personally, I can't wait to meet Jane.

                                        --- In Byron@yahoogroups.com, Nancy Mayer <nmayer@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > One complaint I have about the very facile and and "of course it is true" attitude about the charge of  incest against Byron  ( I don't think Augista would have committed incest no matter what people think Byron would have done), is that  no n has been able or willing to  show me the records of  the exact dates of birth of Augusta's children. Even the birth of Elizabeth Medora  is  guessed at as all that is  recorded is the date of baptism. Also,  though the  "ape" letter is dated April 24 or so( the books are at home), it was in a letter dated April 7 that Byron wrote he had just returned from visiting Augusta and that  mother nad child were doing well. that means the child was most likely  born   towards the begining of March. I do not know how brothers  fit into the scheme of visitors but  according to books like In the family Way,  the confinement of a woman  started after birth and lasted for around 30 days during which she
                                        > usually only had female visitors. Now this was not a hard and fast  rule  but I doubt Byron had been there for the birth. So the baby  was likely born in March which meant that Augusta was pregnant when she went to town in 1813  and Lady Byron was guilty of a great falsehood.
                                        > Byron saw so much evidence of hypocrisy   in those who most claimed to be Christians that  I wouldn't wonder if it sickened him.
                                        > I still am looking for  the proper birth and baptism records  of Augusta;s children.
                                        > I do have a bare record of Elizabeth  Medora's  baptism in May 1814 on a CD  of the baptismal register  of the parish church. I have the  dates given so confidently about births and baptisms  for the others but have never  even seen a bare record  of baptism and  not a proof of birth
                                        > dates. Where is the UR-record from which all these assertions are made?
                                        > Nancy
                                        >
                                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        >
                                      • Anne Mott
                                        He was very close to Issac Nathan the composer of the music that went with the Hebrew Melodies. The book published in 1815? was words and music with a preface
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Apr 30, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          He was very close to Issac Nathan the composer of the music that went with the Hebrew Melodies. The book published in 1815? was words and music with a preface by Nathan about his friendship with Byron. They collaborated, although some of the poetry had been written earlier and Nathan composed music to match. The Destruction of Sennacherib was a great favourite of mine long before I knew anything else by Byron.
                                          I think he liked the drama of the Old Testament.

                                          Anne Mott
                                          Sent from my iPad

                                          On 2013-04-30, at 5:04 AM, Nancy Mayer <nmayer@...> wrote:

                                          > Yes, it is difficult sometimes to remember just how young he was when he died, I have children older than that.
                                          > Thanks for reminding me of Werther, We do have a tendency to forget the influential novels and writings of non English language authors. From what I have read The sorrows of Werther had an impact on many of the writers of the time.
                                          > I shall have to go back through his letters for references to church and religion. I did not expect that Byron would have been a voluntary church goer but he would have been required to attend at school He ahd to have acquired his knowledge of the scripture someplace. He showed his interest in biblical stories in his poems-He seemed to find the Old Testament of more interest than the new. Wonder what he thought of Judaism?
                                          >
                                          > Nancy
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >
                                          >


                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Anne Mott
                                          Your problem, Nancy, is not that you are naive but that you are a well trained researcher. You want primary sources, or at least, trustworthy secondary
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Apr 30, 2013
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Your problem, Nancy, is not that you are naive but that you are a well trained researcher. You want primary sources, or at least, trustworthy secondary sources.

                                            I sincerely doubt that Elizabeth Medora was Byron's child. He "doted" on his children and there is no record of his interest in Medora. He bought little gifts for Georgiana all the time and there is no talk of her being anything other than a god-daughter.

                                            I would like to track down his illegitimate children. He wrote a poem about one and told Annabella that he was supporting two.

                                            Lady Byron was a self-absorbed obsessive. She could not accept that not only was Byron not infatuated with her but he just didn't like her. She believed he must have been seduced away by someone and he boasted about his compatibility with Augusta. She heard them laughing together - ergo - they were lovers.

                                            Her telling Medora that she was Ada's half sister was an evil act to both young women. Ada was a lovely person and was deeply hurt by her mother at many times in her life.

                                            Medora was an immoral person and conned Annabella - serves her right.

                                            Anne Mott
                                            Sent from my iPad

                                            On 2013-04-30, at 5:29 AM, Nancy Mayer <nmayer@...> wrote:

                                            > One complaint I have about the very facile and and "of course it is true" attitude about the charge of incest against Byron ( I don't think Augista would have committed incest no matter what people think Byron would have done), is that no n has been able or willing to show me the records of the exact dates of birth of Augusta's children. Even the birth of Elizabeth Medora is guessed at as all that is recorded is the date of baptism. Also, though the "ape" letter is dated April 24 or so( the books are at home), it was in a letter dated April 7 that Byron wrote he had just returned from visiting Augusta and that mother nad child were doing well. that means the child was most likely born towards the begining of March. I do not know how brothers fit into the scheme of visitors but according to books like In the family Way, the confinement of a woman started after birth and lasted for around 30 days during which she
                                            > usually only had female visitors. Now this was not a hard and fast rule but I doubt Byron had been there for the birth. So the baby was likely born in March which meant that Augusta was pregnant when she went to town in 1813 and Lady Byron was guilty of a great falsehood.
                                            > Byron saw so much evidence of hypocrisy in those who most claimed to be Christians that I wouldn't wonder if it sickened him.
                                            > I still am looking for the proper birth and baptism records of Augusta;s children.
                                            > I do have a bare record of Elizabeth Medora's baptism in May 1814 on a CD of the baptismal register of the parish church. I have the dates given so confidently about births and baptisms for the others but have never even seen a bare record of baptism and not a proof of birth
                                            > dates. Where is the UR-record from which all these assertions are made?
                                            > Nancy
                                            >
                                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            >
                                            >


                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Anne Mott
                                            To quote from an (admittedly translated into English) Koran. Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Apr 30, 2013
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              To quote from an (admittedly translated into English) Koran.

                                              "Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled. The Jews say, 'Ezra (Ozair) is a son of God'; and the Christians say, 'The Messiah is a son of God'. Such the sayings in their mouths! They resemble the sayings of the Infidels of old! God do battle with them! How are they misguided!..He it is who hath sent His Apostle with the Guidance and a religion of the truth, that He may make it victorious over every other religion, albeit they who assign partners to God be averse from it." (Sura 9:29-33).

                                              "O Prophet! make war on the infidels and hypocrites, and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their abode! and wretched the passage to it!" (Sura 66:9).

                                              This does not enjoin Muslims to kill infidels. It says "make war" on those to whom the scriptures have been given (people and countries where Jews, Christians, and Muslims and those who have received missionaries live) who do not believe (Christopher Hitchens?) or those who do not follow the rules. If they do not "pay tribute" (pay up or be slaughtered) and are humbled (admit "Allah is God and Muhammad is his Prophet" and that Muslims are God's chosen). Then it asks God to do (spiritual) battle with them (as Christians do all the time) and consigns them to Hell.

                                              I got the impression you agree with all this in regard to Christopher Hitchens.

                                              Comparative religion is a lifetime study that must be approached without prior convictions - or inaccurate information.

                                              How old do you expect Jane Austen to be when you meet in the after life? How will you find her?

                                              With regard to Paul and Romans:

                                              Three of the manuscripts of Romans have mysterious subscripts:

                                              "Written from Corinth by Phoebus the deacon" is on two
                                              "Written by Tertius and sent by Phoebus" on another

                                              That's enough for me to doubt Saul/Paul's authorship. Doubt does not mean "discount".

                                              Where on earth did you read that Jesus as a historical figure has more sources than Alexander, whose entire life was chronicled from his days as a student of Aristotle to his death.

                                              The sources on Jesus don't even agree on where he was from and what his name was (Yeshu'a? Joshua?) and how many brothers and sisters he had. The city/town of Nazareth isn't mentioned in pre-Christian records and probably didn't exist at the (possible) time of his birth.

                                              The term "Nazarenes" referred to a sect active in Galilee at the time. Perhaps Yeshu'a the Nazarene belonged to it before he established his own group. The Nazarene beliefs and rules were similar to those of Christ's followers. There were a lot of Hebrew sects in the first century.

                                              The reality of a myth or legend is irrelevant. The importance is the earthly church that men developed using the philosophy. The philosophy of Yeshu'a is generous and kind in the extreme. Sadly those who created and ran the Church in his name rarely followed his precepts.


                                              Anne Mott
                                              Sent from my iPad

                                              On 2013-04-30, at 6:19 AM, "Linore Burkard" <linore@...> wrote:

                                              > You raise valid and interesting questions, Nancy.
                                              >
                                              > And about what Anne said: Islam is a benign religion? Doesn't it follow the Koran? The Koran teaches that all infidels (meaning anyone who does not worship Allah) should be killed, slain, wiped out. This is why I find it ludicrous when people claim it is a peaceful religion. The "zealots" are only doing what their "Bible" teaches. Thus, even at this very time in Syria, muslims who are nominal are being killed by the zealous ones--because they don't follow the real teaching of the Koran. (This is beginning to hit mainstream media.)
                                              >
                                              > It is not Christian zealots, on the contrary, who have given Christianity a bad name. It is actually those who IGNORE the biblical teachings who do so; whereas in Islam, it is only those who FOLLOW their teachings who show the world what the religion actually calls for. Quite a difference, there.
                                              > People have done terrible things in the NAME of Christianity, without following Christian teachings or principles. That is the tragedy of it.
                                              >
                                              > As for Byron's beliefs, I confess I need to do a lot more reading, but it is likely no one will ever know for certain whether he possessed a saving faith--until we get to the other side. Personally, I can't wait to meet Jane.
                                              >
                                              > --- In Byron@yahoogroups.com, Nancy Mayer <nmayer@...> wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > One complaint I have about the very facile and and "of course it is true" attitude about the charge of incest against Byron ( I don't think Augista would have committed incest no matter what people think Byron would have done), is that no n has been able or willing to show me the records of the exact dates of birth of Augusta's children. Even the birth of Elizabeth Medora is guessed at as all that is recorded is the date of baptism. Also, though the "ape" letter is dated April 24 or so( the books are at home), it was in a letter dated April 7 that Byron wrote he had just returned from visiting Augusta and that mother nad child were doing well. that means the child was most likely born towards the begining of March. I do not know how brothers fit into the scheme of visitors but according to books like In the family Way, the confinement of a woman started after birth and lasted for around 30 days during which she
                                              > > usually only had female visitors. Now this was not a hard and fast rule but I doubt Byron had been there for the birth. So the baby was likely born in March which meant that Augusta was pregnant when she went to town in 1813 and Lady Byron was guilty of a great falsehood.
                                              > > Byron saw so much evidence of hypocrisy in those who most claimed to be Christians that I wouldn't wonder if it sickened him.
                                              > > I still am looking for the proper birth and baptism records of Augusta;s children.
                                              > > I do have a bare record of Elizabeth Medora's baptism in May 1814 on a CD of the baptismal register of the parish church. I have the dates given so confidently about births and baptisms for the others but have never even seen a bare record of baptism and not a proof of birth
                                              > > dates. Where is the UR-record from which all these assertions are made?
                                              > > Nancy
                                              > >
                                              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              >


                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Anne Mott
                                              One more comment and then this discussion is over. You say It is not Christian zealots, on the contrary, who have given Christianity a bad name. The Islamist
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Apr 30, 2013
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                One more comment and then this discussion is over.

                                                You say "It is not Christian zealots, on the contrary, who have given Christianity a bad name."

                                                The Islamist zealots refer constantly to the European Crusades as motivation for their actions. I suggest you read about the atrocities done by the Christian crusaders - even on Christians they did not recognize as such.

                                                I believe that Christians have massacred Muslims in Lebanon, India and Nigeria in the past 10 years.

                                                Please do not assume that someone like me who does not "believe" has not read the Bible (several times) or does not know a great deal about historic fact. It is very difficult to "follow the Bible" because it contradicts itself (especially in translation). With the Internet, there is a banquet of information just waiting to be found. The actual Aramaic and Greek texts are available (if you can read Greek).

                                                Anne Mott
                                                Sent from my iPad

                                                On 2013-04-30, at 6:19 AM, "Linore Burkard" <linore@...> wrote:

                                                > You raise valid and interesting questions, Nancy.
                                                >
                                                > And about what Anne said: Islam is a benign religion? Doesn't it follow the Koran? The Koran teaches that all infidels (meaning anyone who does not worship Allah) should be killed, slain, wiped out. This is why I find it ludicrous when people claim it is a peaceful religion. The "zealots" are only doing what their "Bible" teaches. Thus, even at this very time in Syria, muslims who are nominal are being killed by the zealous ones--because they don't follow the real teaching of the Koran. (This is beginning to hit mainstream media.)
                                                >
                                                > It is actually those who IGNORE the biblical teachings who do so; whereas in Islam, it is only those who FOLLOW their teachings who show the world what the religion actually calls for. Quite a difference, there.
                                                > People have done terrible things in the NAME of Christianity, without following Christian teachings or principles. That is the tragedy of it.
                                                >
                                                > As for Byron's beliefs, I confess I need to do a lot more reading, but it is likely no one will ever know for certain whether he possessed a saving faith--until we get to the other side. Personally, I can't wait to meet Jane.
                                                >
                                                > --- In Byron@yahoogroups.com, Nancy Mayer <nmayer@...> wrote:
                                                > >
                                                > > One complaint I have about the very facile and and "of course it is true" attitude about the charge of incest against Byron ( I don't think Augista would have committed incest no matter what people think Byron would have done), is that no n has been able or willing to show me the records of the exact dates of birth of Augusta's children. Even the birth of Elizabeth Medora is guessed at as all that is recorded is the date of baptism. Also, though the "ape" letter is dated April 24 or so( the books are at home), it was in a letter dated April 7 that Byron wrote he had just returned from visiting Augusta and that mother nad child were doing well. that means the child was most likely born towards the begining of March. I do not know how brothers fit into the scheme of visitors but according to books like In the family Way, the confinement of a woman started after birth and lasted for around 30 days during which she
                                                > > usually only had female visitors. Now this was not a hard and fast rule but I doubt Byron had been there for the birth. So the baby was likely born in March which meant that Augusta was pregnant when she went to town in 1813 and Lady Byron was guilty of a great falsehood.
                                                > > Byron saw so much evidence of hypocrisy in those who most claimed to be Christians that I wouldn't wonder if it sickened him.
                                                > > I still am looking for the proper birth and baptism records of Augusta;s children.
                                                > > I do have a bare record of Elizabeth Medora's baptism in May 1814 on a CD of the baptismal register of the parish church. I have the dates given so confidently about births and baptisms for the others but have never even seen a bare record of baptism and not a proof of birth
                                                > > dates. Where is the UR-record from which all these assertions are made?
                                                > > Nancy
                                                > >
                                                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                > >
                                                >
                                                >


                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • Nancy Mayer
                                                The reviews I have read and read about of Byron s poetry, send less time talkning about the  mechanics of poetry (  those that do mention it,  give him more
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Apr 30, 2013
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  The reviews I have read and read about of Byron's poetry, send less time talkning about the  mechanics of poetry (  those that do mention it,  give him more a C  than an A) than they do about the  morality of the poetry.
                                                   He wrote rather  grand poetry about Muslim  pirates at a time when  real Englishmen were being taken prisoner by pirates. and companies were paying extortion to pirates  so they wouldn't be seized.
                                                   His Corsairs  don't seem  seem to be entirely different  from the Byron Childe Harold yet they are men of action  and adventure.  Aren't they all affected by the love of a woman?

                                                  Perhaps it had been quiet during the war when  so many heavily armed ships were about so that the ladies and gentlemen could romanticize Corsairs 
                                                   
                                                  How would you catagorize his presentation  of Corsairs  other than as Rommantic?
                                                  Nancy

                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • Anne Mott
                                                  Corsairs had the sexual attraction of the bad boy. Byron knew his audience - ladies with their hankies to their breasts gasping in feigned dismay. Recently,
                                                  Message 24 of 26 , Apr 30, 2013
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Corsairs had the sexual attraction of the bad boy. Byron knew his audience - ladies with their hankies to their breasts gasping in feigned dismay.

                                                    Recently, Byron's skill as a poet has been re-evaluated - certainly a B if not an A. There are few poems as lovely as "She Walks in Beauty". What about "Roll on you deep and dark blue waters, roll"? and have you read "Darkness"? Byron would be famous if he had only written "Darkness".

                                                    He was so facile with meter and rhyme that his works were denigrated contemporaneously and in the 19th century. Poetry was supposed to be painful.

                                                    Long poems were read aloud as entertainment, not perused in meditation. Wordsworth however, is loaded with boring philosophy better consumed in private. Byron's works were "popular" which is always a negative to the academics.

                                                    Much of his poetry reads like conversational sentences. That takes great skill. Just try it. He also was very funny - sacrilegious to the philosophical school of poets. He hated the "Lakers" as he called Wordsworth and the other "Romantics". He would be dismayed to be linked to them by a label like "Romantic".

                                                    He had been a privateer when in Turkey. He and Hobhouse boarded a boat that was loaded with currants - disappointing because they were after illegal armaments.

                                                    Anne Mott
                                                    Sent from my iPad

                                                    On 2013-04-30, at 12:02 PM, Nancy Mayer <nmayer@...> wrote:

                                                    > The reviews I have read and read about of Byron's poetry, send less time talkning about the mechanics of poetry ( those that do mention it, give him more a C than an A) than they do about the morality of the poetry.
                                                    > He wrote rather grand poetry about Muslim pirates at a time when real Englishmen were being taken prisoner by pirates. and companies were paying extortion to pirates so they wouldn't be seized.
                                                    > His Corsairs don't seem seem to be entirely different from the Byron Childe Harold yet they are men of action and adventure. Aren't they all affected by the love of a woman?
                                                    >
                                                    > Perhaps it had been quiet during the war when so many heavily armed ships were about so that the ladies and gentlemen could romanticize Corsairs
                                                    >
                                                    > How would you catagorize his presentation of Corsairs other than as Rommantic?
                                                    > Nancy
                                                    >
                                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    >
                                                    >


                                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  • Linore Burkard
                                                    I haven t made any assumptions about what you may or may not have read, Anne, although your defense of Islam makes me sure you aren t familiar with Islam,
                                                    Message 25 of 26 , May 2, 2013
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      I haven't made any assumptions about what you may or may not have read, Anne, although your defense of Islam makes me sure you aren't familiar with Islam, because they have had a violent history from their outset. The Crusades were Christian in name, but nowhere does Christianity teach that anyone ought to go and kill anyone else. That is precisely why I said that many atrocities were done in the NAME of Christianity, but were anything but Christian.

                                                      The Islamists may refer to the Crusades as motivation, but they don't need to. Elsewhere in the Koran, despite what you quoted, it is quite clear that they are enjoined to kill all infidels. As for recent exploits, take a look at thereligionofpeace.com, or, http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/ChristianAttacks.htm.

                                                      I'm also happy to finish the conversation and to allow the focus here to stay on Byron, of course.
                                                      (Thanks for your patience, Nancy!)

                                                      Linore
                                                      www.LinoreBurkard.com
                                                      http://todayswomanoffaith.blogspot.com




                                                      --- In Byron@yahoogroups.com, Anne Mott <byronmania@...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > One more comment and then this discussion is over.
                                                      >
                                                      > You say "It is not Christian zealots, on the contrary, who have given Christianity a bad name."
                                                      >
                                                      > The Islamist zealots refer constantly to the European Crusades as motivation for their actions. I suggest you read about the atrocities done by the Christian crusaders - even on Christians they did not recognize as such.
                                                      >
                                                      > I believe that Christians have massacred Muslims in Lebanon, India and Nigeria in the past 10 years.
                                                      >
                                                      > Please do not assume that someone like me who does not "believe" has not read the Bible (several times) or does not know a great deal about historic fact. It is very difficult to "follow the Bible" because it contradicts itself (especially in translation). With the Internet, there is a banquet of information just waiting to be found. The actual Aramaic and Greek texts are available (if you can read Greek).
                                                      >
                                                      > Anne Mott
                                                      > Sent from my iPad
                                                      >
                                                      > On 2013-04-30, at 6:19 AM, "Linore Burkard" <linore@...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > > You raise valid and interesting questions, Nancy.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > And about what Anne said: Islam is a benign religion? Doesn't it follow the Koran? The Koran teaches that all infidels (meaning anyone who does not worship Allah) should be killed, slain, wiped out. This is why I find it ludicrous when people claim it is a peaceful religion. The "zealots" are only doing what their "Bible" teaches. Thus, even at this very time in Syria, muslims who are nominal are being killed by the zealous ones--because they don't follow the real teaching of the Koran. (This is beginning to hit mainstream media.)
                                                      > >
                                                      > > It is actually those who IGNORE the biblical teachings who do so; whereas in Islam, it is only those who FOLLOW their teachings who show the world what the religion actually calls for. Quite a difference, there.
                                                      > > People have done terrible things in the NAME of Christianity, without following Christian teachings or principles. That is the tragedy of it.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > As for Byron's beliefs, I confess I need to do a lot more reading, but it is likely no one will ever know for certain whether he possessed a saving faith--until we get to the other side. Personally, I can't wait to meet Jane.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > --- In Byron@yahoogroups.com, Nancy Mayer <nmayer@> wrote:
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > > One complaint I have about the very facile and and "of course it is true" attitude about the charge of incest against Byron ( I don't think Augista would have committed incest no matter what people think Byron would have done), is that no n has been able or willing to show me the records of the exact dates of birth of Augusta's children. Even the birth of Elizabeth Medora is guessed at as all that is recorded is the date of baptism. Also, though the "ape" letter is dated April 24 or so( the books are at home), it was in a letter dated April 7 that Byron wrote he had just returned from visiting Augusta and that mother nad child were doing well. that means the child was most likely born towards the begining of March. I do not know how brothers fit into the scheme of visitors but according to books like In the family Way, the confinement of a woman started after birth and lasted for around 30 days during which she
                                                      > > > usually only had female visitors. Now this was not a hard and fast rule but I doubt Byron had been there for the birth. So the baby was likely born in March which meant that Augusta was pregnant when she went to town in 1813 and Lady Byron was guilty of a great falsehood.
                                                      > > > Byron saw so much evidence of hypocrisy in those who most claimed to be Christians that I wouldn't wonder if it sickened him.
                                                      > > > I still am looking for the proper birth and baptism records of Augusta;s children.
                                                      > > > I do have a bare record of Elizabeth Medora's baptism in May 1814 on a CD of the baptismal register of the parish church. I have the dates given so confidently about births and baptisms for the others but have never even seen a bare record of baptism and not a proof of birth
                                                      > > > dates. Where is the UR-record from which all these assertions are made?
                                                      > > > Nancy
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                      > > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                      >
                                                    • Anne Mott
                                                      It is unwise and unfair to be sure that information is missing from someone else s knowledge. Anne Mott Sent from my iPad ... [Non-text portions of this
                                                      Message 26 of 26 , May 2, 2013
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        It is unwise and unfair to be sure that information is missing from someone else's knowledge.

                                                        Anne Mott
                                                        Sent from my iPad

                                                        On 2013-05-02, at 8:09 PM, "Linore Burkard" <linore@...> wrote:

                                                        > I haven't made any assumptions about what you may or may not have read, Anne, although your defense of Islam makes me sure you aren't familiar with Islam, because they have had a violent history from their outset. The Crusades were Christian in name, but nowhere does Christianity teach that anyone ought to go and kill anyone else. That is precisely why I said that many atrocities were done in the NAME of Christianity, but were anything but Christian.
                                                        >
                                                        > The Islamists may refer to the Crusades as motivation, but they don't need to. Elsewhere in the Koran, despite what you quoted, it is quite clear that they are enjoined to kill all infidels. As for recent exploits, take a look at thereligionofpeace.com, or, http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/ChristianAttacks.htm.
                                                        >
                                                        > I'm also happy to finish the conversation and to allow the focus here to stay on Byron, of course.
                                                        > (Thanks for your patience, Nancy!)
                                                        >
                                                        > Linore
                                                        > www.LinoreBurkard.com
                                                        > http://todayswomanoffaith.blogspot.com
                                                        >
                                                        > --- In Byron@yahoogroups.com, Anne Mott <byronmania@...> wrote:
                                                        > >
                                                        > > One more comment and then this discussion is over.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > You say "It is not Christian zealots, on the contrary, who have given Christianity a bad name."
                                                        > >
                                                        > > The Islamist zealots refer constantly to the European Crusades as motivation for their actions. I suggest you read about the atrocities done by the Christian crusaders - even on Christians they did not recognize as such.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > I believe that Christians have massacred Muslims in Lebanon, India and Nigeria in the past 10 years.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > Please do not assume that someone like me who does not "believe" has not read the Bible (several times) or does not know a great deal about historic fact. It is very difficult to "follow the Bible" because it contradicts itself (especially in translation). With the Internet, there is a banquet of information just waiting to be found. The actual Aramaic and Greek texts are available (if you can read Greek).
                                                        > >
                                                        > > Anne Mott
                                                        > > Sent from my iPad
                                                        > >
                                                        > > On 2013-04-30, at 6:19 AM, "Linore Burkard" <linore@...> wrote:
                                                        > >
                                                        > > > You raise valid and interesting questions, Nancy.
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > And about what Anne said: Islam is a benign religion? Doesn't it follow the Koran? The Koran teaches that all infidels (meaning anyone who does not worship Allah) should be killed, slain, wiped out. This is why I find it ludicrous when people claim it is a peaceful religion. The "zealots" are only doing what their "Bible" teaches. Thus, even at this very time in Syria, muslims who are nominal are being killed by the zealous ones--because they don't follow the real teaching of the Koran. (This is beginning to hit mainstream media.)
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > It is actually those who IGNORE the biblical teachings who do so; whereas in Islam, it is only those who FOLLOW their teachings who show the world what the religion actually calls for. Quite a difference, there.
                                                        > > > People have done terrible things in the NAME of Christianity, without following Christian teachings or principles. That is the tragedy of it.
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > As for Byron's beliefs, I confess I need to do a lot more reading, but it is likely no one will ever know for certain whether he possessed a saving faith--until we get to the other side. Personally, I can't wait to meet Jane.
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > > --- In Byron@yahoogroups.com, Nancy Mayer <nmayer@> wrote:
                                                        > > > >
                                                        > > > > One complaint I have about the very facile and and "of course it is true" attitude about the charge of incest against Byron ( I don't think Augista would have committed incest no matter what people think Byron would have done), is that no n has been able or willing to show me the records of the exact dates of birth of Augusta's children. Even the birth of Elizabeth Medora is guessed at as all that is recorded is the date of baptism. Also, though the "ape" letter is dated April 24 or so( the books are at home), it was in a letter dated April 7 that Byron wrote he had just returned from visiting Augusta and that mother nad child were doing well. that means the child was most likely born towards the begining of March. I do not know how brothers fit into the scheme of visitors but according to books like In the family Way, the confinement of a woman started after birth and lasted for around 30 days during which she
                                                        > > > > usually only had female visitors. Now this was not a hard and fast rule but I doubt Byron had been there for the birth. So the baby was likely born in March which meant that Augusta was pregnant when she went to town in 1813 and Lady Byron was guilty of a great falsehood.
                                                        > > > > Byron saw so much evidence of hypocrisy in those who most claimed to be Christians that I wouldn't wonder if it sickened him.
                                                        > > > > I still am looking for the proper birth and baptism records of Augusta;s children.
                                                        > > > > I do have a bare record of Elizabeth Medora's baptism in May 1814 on a CD of the baptismal register of the parish church. I have the dates given so confidently about births and baptisms for the others but have never even seen a bare record of baptism and not a proof of birth
                                                        > > > > dates. Where is the UR-record from which all these assertions are made?
                                                        > > > > Nancy
                                                        > > > >
                                                        > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                        > > > >
                                                        > > >
                                                        > > >
                                                        > >
                                                        > >
                                                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                        > >
                                                        >
                                                        >


                                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.