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

Re: [Sartre] Where's the Evidence?

Expand Messages
  • John Foster
    Jud, you have not provided any evidence regarding your allegations respecting St. Paul. What you have indicated is that prior to his conversion to Christianity
    Message 1 of 5 , May 31, 2001
      Jud,

      you have not provided any evidence regarding your allegations respecting St.
      Paul. What you have indicated is that prior to his conversion to
      Christianity you allege that he could have been convicted by proxy. What are
      trying to say here? Eichmann In Jerusalem is a very interesting book by
      Hiedeggers most famous student, Hannah Arendt. Eichmann was not a Christian
      at all...so don't imply that he was, nor that all of Europe, the Irish and
      so on were practicing Christians. It states clearly in the commandments:
      though shalt not kill, so how do you make the inference that Christians are
      into killing as a habit? What you mean to say perhaps is that some persons
      who live under Christian laws and kill are atheists not keeping the
      commandments. So what proof do you have that Christ or any other prophet
      advised killing people? Where in the Jerusalem bible does it say that it is
      okay to slay people?

      It is pretty difficult to support you allegations regarding Heidegger being
      implicated either indirectly or directly in war crimes. The fact is that the
      US government as well as all persons of US citizenship could also have
      similar allegations made about them (unless they opposed involvement in WW2)
      with respect to the bombing of Dresden and the use of incendiary bombs being
      dropped on Japanese cities killing thousands of civilians, and this was
      before the use of atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. World War 2 was
      perhaps the first time in history when civilians were killed off en masse
      with weapons of infinite destruction. You are trying to 'manipulate reality'
      here because Germans had voted in the NSDP during democratic elections. As
      well it is a fact that every child in Germany at this time - after Hitler
      suspended democratic elections - was part of an organization called "Hitler
      Youth". All academics in high positions were required to support the NSDP
      and Heidegger was in 1936 a member of the NSDP but this was prior to the
      WW2, and prior to the German Jews being evicted from their homes.

      What else.

      The quote from Leviticus is interesting because if you read more here you
      will find a very fair sense of justice that is very unique for the time. For
      instance these laws are one of the first cases of universal human rights
      declarations. Compare the Code of Hammarabi. The person that steals from the
      rich person is to be punished much more severely than a person that robs a
      poor person. In fact all the laws reqarding crime against persons are
      essentially based on 'equal treatment of equal cases.'

      If you think that we are more civilized with our English common laws then
      think again. For instance under the laws of the Torah it states that a
      person cannot be convicted of a crime if there is only circumstantial
      evidence. At least two witnesses are required to prove quilt. In Canada
      recently a man was released from prison after a false informant reported a
      confession that the man had made regarding a charge of murder. The man was
      convicted on 'hear say' and in fact the government after it was learned that
      he was unfairly convicted as quilty had to pay a lot of money to this man
      who spent about twenty years in prison. The informant lied about the
      confession and was caught.

      Under the old testament laws you need two witnesses in order to prove quilt.
      One witness is unreliable since it cannot be proved beyond a doubt that the
      person was actually there nor capable of reporting the facts. So in fact the
      other thing is that in the US, most persons convicted of murder, lacking any
      witnesses and sentenced to death were either innocent of the charge of first
      degree murder, but were unable to prove that they were not guilty or guilty
      of a lesser charge or in fact were innnocent. The reason is that under most
      laws in the democratic world everyone has a 'right to a fair trial'. That
      means that a person has a right to legal council if charged of serious
      crime. But the facts are that many lawyers are incompetent, judges are not
      impartial, and there serious legal procedural flaws in the trials often that
      result in wrongful death sentences. It says in Leviticus that the only
      persons that can be sentenced to death for a homicide are those persons that
      planned a 'pre-meditated murder'.

      You are making spurious allegations regarding Heidegger so you are no
      different than the false informant. Heidegger had nothing directly to do
      with the 'sending of Jews to the ovens' as you allege. Just because he may
      have corresponded with Goebels does not implicate him either. If that is the
      case, then the British Prime Minister would be equally quilty of sending
      Jews to the ovens since the British communicated with Hitler's government
      for a time.

      One case of interest in the US regarding sentencing of a woman charged with
      murder was the wife of the Dr. Scarsdale. There were no witnesses, but by
      having experts testify and make their opinions regarding the probability of
      the circumstantial evidence weighed against the woman, it was concluded that
      the wife did kill her former husband. She was on a drug that is called
      speed, which had been prescribed by her husband. She was addicted to it for
      years. There were no witnesses, and as a result of a 'balance of
      probabilities' approach to making inferences as to causality, she was
      convicted of second degree murder. What is remarkable here is that whether
      she actually killed her husband or not, there is no certainty that she
      did....since there were no witnesses.

      So where is your evidence that Paul, disciple of Christ was involved in a
      mass murder or a single murder?

      Jud quoting:
      > Le 12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have
      > conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven
      days;
      > according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be
      > unclean.
      > Le 12:5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two
      weeks,
      > as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying
      > threescore and six days. Why should a woman be 'unclean' after giving
      > irth - and why should she be awarded a 'double dose of uncleanness' if
      the
      > baby was a girl.

      John:

      I can ask a similar question of you. Why do modern doctors recommend male
      genital mutilation by removal of the entire foreskin of one week old boy
      babies and not girls?

      www.foreskin.org

      Why did Dr. Spock recommend not picking up babies from the crib when they
      cry?

      You seem to have a misplaced trust in anything approaching western science.
      Perhaps you can explain why the US government chose not to bomb the most
      famous spiritual city in Japan? Why did some officers in the US government
      desire to use the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki rather than on the
      spiritual center of Japan.

      The Jewish practice of circumcision was completely different than the modern
      method. The Jewish practice was simply a little 'nick' which drew a small
      amount of blood, not the removal of the entire foreskin. I think the Jewish
      laws were more humane and universally acceptable in large part than many
      modern laws and practices of a political nature.

      It is interesting how almost all philosophical discussions appear to drift
      towards ethics. Ethics in my view is about habituation. Habituations are
      life styles set within a community context inclusive of a larger group
      (monotheistic, etc.). The individual and the group are not therefore a true
      antithesis; certainly the individual and the group are faced with
      'indirection' depending on the circumstances and situations of the group and
      individual, repsectively; however it is through 'laws' of some form that
      usually determine how decisions are made. In laws, whether of the Mosaic or
      Greek kind, there are some guiding principles which provide direction about
      how individuals and groups may comply with various 'universal' standards
      regarding human 'rights' and 'dignities'.

      Laws are only effective if they are 'prescriptive' and habituate persons
      towards a 'higher law' (tempering the autonomous feeling of 'haughtiness' et
      cetera with benevolence for instance). The outcome of a set of categorial
      intutions regarding the existential status of a set of persons would lead to
      'haughtiness'...I suppose.

      For instance it is supposed "biblically mediated intuitions" arise from out
      of a conceptual "categorical desert"; for instance in comparing the 'Code'
      of Hammarabi with the 'universal' kinds of laws in the Old Testament will
      rapidly reveal that 'individual rights' are universal in the case of Mosaic
      law.

      "In Hammarabi's Code the death penalty for theft was commuted to thirtyfold
      restitution if the theft was from a royal estate, tenfold if from a
      gentleman, fivefold if from a commoner. A blow is punished by sixty stripes
      of an oxide scourge - it it was directed at a superior. The idea that social
      dominance or prominence is profoundly irrelevant to the crucial issues of
      justice rests on the recognition that human deserts are at some level
      existential, and positive. That idea is alien to Hammarabi. Yet any broad
      uniformity militates in the direction of categorical deserts, and
      recognition of such deserts at some level is a moral necessity in any legal
      system: Minimally, for example, there is a uniform desert of access to the
      laws. The very idea of the rule of law presses for equal treatment of equal
      cases (Exodus 12:49; Leviticus 24:22, Numbers 15:16, 29). Thus the
      provisions for a permanent, public, written law (Exodus 24:7, Deuteronomy
      17:11; 17:3; 8; 31:11-12, 24-26) press toward constitutionality, as evident
      in God's command that each king of Israel closely study and follow the Law:

      'When he sitteth on his royal throne, he shall write himself a copy of this
      Torah....And he shall keep it by him and read from it all the days of his
      life, so that he learn to revere teh Lord his God by keeping all the
      provisions of this Law and performing all these statutes, and his heart not
      grow haughty toward his brethren, and that he not diverge to the left or the
      right from its command, so that his reign and that of his offspring in the
      midst of Israel may long endure (Deuteronomy 17:18 - 20)'

      When fused with the idea of the inviolable worth or dignity of the
      individual as a creature of God, the invariancde of rules becomes humanity's
      most powerful ethical and legislative tool. It meant, to begin with, that
      recompense for deaths or injuries must be proportioned only to the injury
      and not the stature or grandeur of the party offended against (Exodus
      21:23-26, Leviticus 24:17-22, Numbers 35:29-34). The dignity of all human
      beings is alike for free or slave or woman, or old."

      Accordingly, the

      "...values that form Israel inform the West as well. They give normative
      content to Israel's identity but also inderlie Christian claims to the
      testament of Israel, and Muslim claims to the parentage of Abraham and
      heritage of the prophets. The underwrite modern secular revisions too,
      whether the debt is openly acknowledged or concealed by recasting and
      restructuring - in Locke, Durkheim, Republicans, and Philosophes, Spinoza,
      Frued, Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Levi-Strauss. Even where specifics are
      sublimated or sublated, the original thematic remains crucial to the
      elaboration of the tradition."

      [Individual and Community in the Normative Traditions of Judaism, Len E.
      Goodman. In: "Religious Diversity and Human Rights". Edited by Irene Bloom,
      J. Paul Martin, and Wayne L. Proudfoot.]

      It seems to me that the ancient Greeks, especially Aristotle, also had a
      conception of the "universal" sense regarding human rights, but this sense
      was tempered by categorial intuitions regarding 'slaves' and 'freemen'. Only
      freemen were equal under the law.


      chao

      john foster














      >
      > By 'digest' I mean rather 'compilation, ' which actually according to my
      > dictionary is the same in that as 'digest' is given as something that is
      > compiled (as into a single book or file) for the books of the bible are
      > analecta, and many show evidence of being 're-writes' are in fact a
      > 'selection' of many books some of which were not selected for inclusion -
      > the 14 books of the Old Testament included in the Vulgate but omitted in
      > Jewish and Protestant versions of the Bible known as the apocrypha. It is
      > also well known that the Jews 'borrowed' the creation accounts during
      their
      > Babylonian exile. I've read them all in my time. I've got a very old, but
      > very good book somewhere which is the work of a dedicated Christian
      scholar
      > wherein he identifies at least four different authors of Genesis. In fact
      > I'm reading one at the moment 'When the Gods came Down' by Alan. F.
      Alford.
      > The industry of linking biblical stories to their originations in the
      > primitive beliefs of the peoples of what is now known as Iraq, Iran is a
      > flourishing one and the mainstay of comparative religion. You are right to
      > point out that there is nothing unique about Christianity. Christianity
      is
      > just a hodge-podge of just about anything that could be thrown into the
      > theological pot to make it 'marketable. '
      >
      > WORLD!
      >
      > Jud: [previously]
      > As a subject of knowledge and of history and anthropological interest I
      find
      > religion quite absorbing, but only as an onlooker, in the same way that
      one
      > observes the social activity of bees or locusts or the behaviour of those
      > bare-assed savages in Papua New Guinea somewhere, who worship bamboo
      > airplanes in the jungle - the so-called Cargo Cults. From what I can see
      > Christianity is nothing more than a Westernised more sophisticated variant
      > of the cargo-cults, where instead of a payload of cheap radios and beads,
      > the shipment is one of an intellectual opt-out from the chores of thinking
      > for the self, a flight from reality, and the possibility of hitching or
      > stowing-away on a return-flight to the eternal spiritual bliss of God's
      > flying field of a heavenly bliss in never-never land. I must say though,
      > that if Eisenman is correct and the "Saul" who invited Vespasian to
      destroy
      > the Jews in Jerusalem was Paul himself it is quite chilling rather like a
      > sort of Christian Adolf Eichman?
      >
      > John:
      > This is a highly improbable explanation of events as they were recorded at
      > the time.
      >
      > Jud:
      > Recorded by whom at the time? Do you mean what you say when you write:
      'at
      > the time' or many years later?
      >
      > John:
      > For some Moslems, and for some Jews, Christ is the 'seal of the prophets'
      > and there is no reason to dispute this assertion. The teachings of Jesus
      > refer to the 'good news' ...
      >
      > Jud:
      > It wasn't very good news for the millions of Jews, Gypsies etc who died in
      > the camps of Christian Europe was it?
      > Or the thousands of dissident sects who were later massacred
      [Albigensians
      > and the rest] plus all the others of people who died on bonfires or the
      rack
      > since because of his 'good news.' If you visit Belfast you'll have to
      duck
      > in case you get a Christian bullet in the head fired by one Christian and
      > meant for another. You are fine about mouthing the 'good news' what about
      > the 'bad news' that went with it? You can enter the deserted churches of
      > Western Europe and shout 'Good News!" as loud as you like nowadays, and
      the
      > only answer that you will receive is the echoes of your voice bouncing
      back
      > from the cold, damp, mildewed walls over the empty pews.
      >
      > John...
      > and does not refer to any class of person existing as being sufficiently
      > evil to be a threat to the person who is a believer in Christ. There was
      no
      > 'Christian Eichmann' that I am aware of and there is no evidence of any
      evil
      > intentions being discussed in the writing of Paul regarding the Jews.
      >
      > John:
      > The inference is that it relates to Paul's activities before he converted.
      > I am not aware that he slagged off the adherents to traditional Hebraism.
      > Remember that apparently the original Christians thought of Christianity
      as
      > a modification of Hebraism - not as a completely new religion.
      >
      > John:
      > Jesus castigated the money changers who were inside a synagogue.
      >
      > Jud
      > I wish he'd have a go against their modern equivalents who are never off
      TV
      > spouting about money and investing in the stockmarkets. The Church of
      > England is one of the biggest property owners in the UK.
      >
      > John:
      > Was he therefore 'destroying' the Jews? It had been prophesied that the
      > Messiah, the King of the Jews, one day would arrive but there is no
      mention
      > of intolerance at toward the Jews.
      >
      >
      > Jud:
      > Jesus was one of hundreds of so-called Messiahs. All the rest were given
      the
      > boot - olden equivalents of Manson and that monster from Waco. Jesus just
      > happened to have appeared on the scene at the right moment in history. If
      > Christ had not been infected by religious ideas, might have matured into
      an
      > energetic, happy, value-producing carpenter or contractor.
      >
      > John:
      > Where does this entirely spurious comment come from regarding the Jews and
      > Paul's intention to destroy the Jews? Jud, I find the content of your
      > opinions very hateful and full of 'untruths'. I will not let your
      assertions
      > go by without comments on them since they completely false.
      >
      > Jud: I attach the section of the letter I was responding to which I had
      cut
      > to save space. I am sorry about that for it obviously meant that it
      > appeared that my comments came 'out of the blue. ' It certainly whets my
      > appetite for more Josephus - I've got an old copy somewhere in my loft -
      > must get it down and dust it off.
      >
      > Gary:
      > Eisenman, in JAMES, THE BROTHER OF JESUS, speculates that the "Saul" who
      > INVITED Vespasian to destroy the Jews in Jerusalem WAS PAUL HIMSELF!
      > FLAVIUS Josephus helped Vespasian and his son Titus in any way he could TO
      > DO PRECISELY THAT! That is certainly carrying Jewish sectarian politics
      to
      > an extreme, but in FLAVIUS Josephus' case, HE SAYS SO BLUNTLY! And it is
      > rationally possible that Paul was clearly aware of FLAVIUS
      > Josephus'political point of view or at least the party of his brand of
      > "Phariseeism". And dear ole' FLAVIUS gave a whole new dimention to the
      word
      > "bastard. " He literally with his own hand cut other people's throats who
      > were a threat to his well being and told the Roman world those crazy
      people
      > in Jerusalem DESERVED to die because they were vile and blind fanatics.
      > This is Paul's immediate political concern and background which, though
      > meaningless to the gentiles he was preaching to, was certainly not
      > meaningless to him. When Paul talks about the resurrected Christ or the
      > Spirit of Futurity or God himself, AS HE IS TALKING OF THEM< ALL THREE
      ARE
      > DEFINITELY AND VERY MESSILY IN-THE-
      >
      > Jud:
      > I find the concept of Paul the quisling quite shuddery, and the thought
      that
      > this proselytite monster went on to become Christianity's leading light
      and
      > rather disturbing. I suppose his conversion on the road to Damascus lets
      > him off the hook as far as some people are concerned, but the thought of
      > receiving wine and bread [the body of Christ] from the same
      > bloodied-by-proxy hands of a man who had conspired in the throat-slitting
      of
      > his own folk is enough to give anyone the willies.
      >
      > John: What are you saying here? You have made an assertion here that Paul
      > was like Adolf Eichmann but there is no evidence that Paul was involved in
      > any executions of any Jewish people.
      >
      > Jud:
      > If Eisenman's anecdotal evidence were correct he would have been
      implicated
      > by proxy.
      >
      > John:
      > Reminds me of Heidegger's complicity with the Nazis and his going back to
      > his desk to continue writing about the higher realms of human cerebrations
      > just after putting down the telephone after phoning the Gestapo and
      > arranging for some poor Jew to be picked up and carted off to the ovens.
      >
      > John:
      > This is a manipulation of reality. When Heidegger was a member of the Nazi
      > party it was long before the Nazi's had 'carted off' any people to the
      > ovens. It was in 1936 that Heidegger was a member of the Nazi party, and
      he
      > was currently the Recktor the University at Frieburg. There was no way
      that
      > the Nazi's at this time could have been accused of killing any Jewish
      > persons in concentration camps. It is true however that Heidegger relieved
      > several Jewish professors and students from University. However it was
      very
      > shortly thereafter that Heideggger resigned his post as Recktor. There is
      > some written and first person evidence that he regretted being forced into
      > this position of expelling students and professors. Edmund Husserl was
      > Jewish and was expelled from the university (I cannot recall if the
      Recktor
      > Heidegger had any part in this).
      >
      > Secondly Heidegger during the later part of the war was relieved of his
      > teaching duties and sent to dig trenches near France. After WW2 was ended
      > Heidegger was assessed by a war tribunal in order to determine if he was
      > found at fault for any war crimes. The finding was unanimous in that he
      was
      > not involved in any crimes. The most that could be said against his
      actions
      > as Recktor was that he was a 'fellow traveller' and certainly during the
      mid
      > 1930's he was supporting the Nazi party. One should remember that Adolf
      > Hitler and the NDSP were elected to power initially as a result of
      > democratic vote.
      >
      > If the NSDP had not killed Jews, gypsies, and so on and simply expelled
      the
      > Jews by putting them into internment camps during the war, then they would
      > not have been any different than the Canadians who interned the Japanese
      > during World War 2. There was no way that Heidegger could have predicted
      or
      > anticipated the holocaust. . . and this systematic destruction was covered
      > quite well until after the war had ended for the most part. The NSDP
      > controlled the media, and there were few survivors from the concentration
      > camps. Of course the whole became known since people living around camps
      > like Auschwitz for instance knew that there people were being burned in
      the
      > ovens. But because of the tremendous element of fear in the civilian
      > population, there was not much that they could do except to spread their
      > opinions by word of mouth.
      >
      > In the end the consensus is that about 6. 5 million persons died in the
      > concentration camps. . .
      >
      > Jud:
      > I find your apology for Heidegger and Nazism very disturbing and worrying.
      > Before my hard disc wipe out I had lots of stuff on Heidegger's complicity
      > with his Nazi masters. Goebels apparently visited Marburg many times
      because
      > he was so proud of the content of the material and Heidegger still wore
      his
      > nazi lapel badge proudly when a former pupil bumped into him in Italy.
      >
      > John
      > Anyway Jud you are spreading 'untruths' about St. Paul and Heidegger. . .
      .
      > Heidegger had no part in the carting off of Jewish people to the ovens. .
      .
      > .
      >
      > Jud:
      > Are you coming out with that tired old crap that the German people didn't
      > know what was going on? Obviously you haven't read about the tapes that
      the
      > British made using hidden mikes in the German prisoner of war camps here
      in
      > Britain.
      > The conversations make it obvious that most folk new what was going on.
      > When Heidegger picked up that phone to the State Police he knew damn well
      > what the likely outcome would be.
      >
      >
      > John:
      > Husserl and the students that he was responsible for expelling left
      Germany
      > early and their lives were spared because of his actions. Heidegger
      > actually withdrew from the NSDP after this episode, which made him suspect
      > to the NSDP and this was why he resigned as Recktor.
      >
      > Jud:
      > Heidegger actually locked his old mentor out of the university library and
      > took his key off him. What kind of a way is that to act towards an old
      > colleage to which he owed so much -to humiliate him in that cruel
      manner?
      >
      > John:
      > A lot has been said about this and the facts are there for serious
      students
      > who are interested. . . . Heidegger said laterly that his short
      involvement
      > with the NSDP was the greatest mistake of his life, one that he regretted
      > very much.
      >
      > Jud:
      > According to Heidegger scholars on another list he never ever apologised
      for
      > the Nazi period to his dying day.
      >
      >
      > John:
      > Hannah Arendt was his most vocal critic anyway and in the 1960's she
      became
      > reconciled with Heidegger about the whole episode. Hannah Arendt was in
      fact
      > his student at one time and she was Jewish.
      >
      > Jud:
      > She was his lover and he was an adulterer [not uncommon amongst so-called
      > Christians] who knows what her motives were for their reconciliation? All
      I
      > know was that he betrayed her, his wife, his old mentor, his Jewish
      > colleagues... no wonder he looked forward to death all the time.
      >
      > Hannah Arendt wrote the book describing the Eichmann trial. . . . I have
      > read this three times. . . .
      >
      > Best wishes,
      >
      > Jud.
      >
      >
      >
      > Sartre homepage: http://www.Sartre.org.uk/
      >
      > To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@...
      >
      > <A
      HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search/?keyword=Jean-Paul+S
      artre&tag=donaldrobertson">Click here to purchase books by Jean-Paul
      Sartre -in association with Amazon (US).</A>
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • Jud Evans
      ...
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 1 9:59 AM
        ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Foster"
        <borealis@... To: <Sartre@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June
        01, 2001 6: 22 AM Subject: Re: [Sartre] Where's the Evidence?

        Jud,

        you have not provided any evidence regarding your allegations respecting St.
        Paul. What you have indicated is that prior to his conversion to
        Christianity you allege that he could have been convicted by proxy. What are
        trying to say here?

        Jud:
        Simply that if the suggestion made by Eisenman is correct and the "Saul" who
        invited Vespasian to destroy the Jews in Jerusalem was Paul himself, then it
        is quite chilling rather like him being a Christian version of Adolf
        Eichman?

        John:
        Eichmann In Jerusalem is a very interesting book by Hiedeggers most famous
        student, Hannah Arendt.

        Jud:
        Infamous student - more like it. You know as well as I do that she was his
        lover and what was the second commandment again? Go on remind me?

        John:
        Eichmann was not a Christian at all. . . so don't imply that he was,

        Jud:
        I never suggested that he was - I was referring to the fact that if the
        suggestion made by Eisenman is correct and the "Saul" who invited Vespasian
        to destroy the Jews in Jerusalem was Paul himself, then it is quite chilling
        rather like him being a Christian version of Adolf Eichman? I am merely
        reporting the existence of a book which makes the claim/supposition that
        Saul/Paul was a quisling and Roman agent. If you get hold of the book you
        can read it for yourself.

        John:
        nor that all of Europe, the Irish and so on were practicing Christians.

        Jud
        I didn't say anything at all about the Christian West being made up of all
        'practicing' Christians, you are twisting my words and adding new ones that
        didn't appear in my original text.

        John:
        It states clearly in the commandments: though shalt not kill, so how do you
        make the inference that Christians are into killing as a habit? What you
        mean to say perhaps is that some persons who live under Christian laws and
        kill are atheists not keeping the commandments.

        Jud:
        No, I don't mean to say that at all. I was referring to the two Christian
        sects Catholics and Protestants who are murdering each other in N. Ireland.

        John:
        So what proof do you have that Christ or any other prophet advised killing
        people? Where in the Jerusalem bible does it say that it is okay to slay
        people?

        Jud:
        It doesn't need to spell it out. The 'role-model' angels of the Lord were
        cruel beasts. The modern notion of God's angels being serene, peaceful,
        human-like or innocent, rosy-cheeked childlike cherubs is a thoroughly
        misleading image, we must return to the dispatching tens of thousands of men
        to their deaths. In the book of Genesis, for example, we read of the angels
        of God who sent to Earth to destroy the evil city of Sodom: . "And the
        'men' [the two angels] said unto Lot: "We will destroy this pace [Sodom).
        The outcry of the people has waxen great before the kc of the LORD, and the
        LORD hath sent us to destroy it. " Afterwards, the LORD (Yahweh-Elohim)
        rained down brimstone fire out of Heaven, and Sodom was indeed destroyed,
        along with the cities of the plain. All of the inhabitants were killed.
        Later in the Bible, in the second book of Kings, we read how the agents of
        Yahweh once again brought death to a vast number of people: "And it came to
        pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and put to death in
        the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and eighty five thousand men. So much
        for the idea of sweet, smiling, rosy-faced cherubs.

        John:
        It is pretty difficult to support you allegations regarding Heidegger being
        implicated either indirectly or directly in war crimes.

        Jud:
        Again - you twist my words - I never accused him of 'WAR CRIMES' but of
        reporting Jews to the nazis. There are books which deal with his
        behaviour - but all references were lost in my last wipe- out.

        John:
        The fact is that the US government as well as all persons of US citizenship
        could also have similar allegations made about them (unless they opposed
        involvement in WW2) with respect to the bombing of Dresden and the use of
        incendiary bombs being dropped on Japanese cities killing thousands of
        civilians, and this was before the use of atomic bomb on Hiroshima and
        Nagasaki. World War 2 was perhaps the first time in history when civilians
        were killed off en masse with weapons of infinite destruction.

        Jud:
        The Germans started the war after voting the Nazis into power. The Japanese
        provoked the war by a sneak attack on Pearl harbour. The Germans started
        the terror raids on London and they got what they deserved.

        John:
        You are trying to 'manipulate reality' here because Germans had voted in the
        NSDP during democratic elections.

        Jud:
        They sure did and they sure made a big mistake which they paid for.

        John:
        As well it is a fact that every child in Germany at this time - after Hitler
        suspended democratic elections - was part of an organization called "Hitler
        Youth". All academics in high positions were required to support the NSDP
        and Heidegger was in 1936 a member of the NSDP but this was prior to the
        WW2, and prior to the German Jews being evicted from their homes.

        Jud:
        Does that mean that Heidegger had no option? No, he could have resigned and
        taken a job as something else. If you read the German newspapers of the
        period that Heidegger was a Nazi and the crude anti-Jewish propaganda of the
        period, it was quite obvious that heidegger and the German people knew
        quite well what they were voting for when they put their cross against the
        name of the Nazi candidate.

        John:
        The quote from Leviticus is interesting because if you read more here you
        will find a very fair sense of justice that is very unique for the time. For
        instance these laws are one of the first cases of universal human rights
        declarations. Compare the Code of Hammarabi. The person that steals from the
        rich person is to be punished much more severely than a person that robs a
        poor person. In fact all the laws regarding crime against persons are
        essentially based on 'equal treatment of equal cases. '

        Jud:
        But the women hadn't committed any 'crime' other than giving birth to a
        child.

        John:
        If you think that we are more civilized with our English common laws then
        think again. For instance under the laws of the Torah it states that a
        person cannot be convicted of a crime if there is only circumstantial
        evidence.

        At least two witnesses are required to prove quilt. In Canada recently a man
        was released from prison after a false informant reported a confession that
        the man had made regarding a charge of murder. The man was convicted on
        'hear say' and in fact the government after it was learned that he was
        unfairly convicted as guilty had to pay a lot of money to this man who spent
        about twenty years in prison. The informant lied about the confession and
        was caught.

        Under the old testament laws you need two witnesses in order to prove quilt.
        One witness is unreliable since it cannot be proved beyond a doubt that the
        person was actually there nor capable of reporting the facts. So in fact the
        other thing is that in the US, most persons convicted of murder, lacking any
        witnesses and sentenced to death were either innocent of the charge of first
        degree murder, but were unable to prove that they were not guilty or guilty
        of a lesser charge or in fact were innocent. The reason is that under most
        laws in the democratic world everyone has a 'right to a fair trial'. That
        means that a person has a right to legal council if charged of serious
        crime. But the facts are that many lawyers are incompetent, judges are not
        impartial, and there serious legal procedural flaws in the trials often that
        result in wrongful death sentences. It says in Leviticus that the only
        persons that can be sentenced to death for a homicide are those persons that
        planned a 'pre-meditated murder'.

        Jud:
        I find those examples very upsetting John. There are many such examples of
        innocent people being framed by the British police - you may be aware of
        them. That doesn't excuse the Jews from penalising a woman with two weeks
        exclusion from society if she had a male child and four weeks if she had a
        female - why did God penalise women this way through his 'holy' laws? Please
        address the question of the unfair sentencing between a male baby and a
        female.

        John:
        You are making spurious allegations regarding Heidegger so you are no
        different than the false informant.

        Jud:
        I am merely reporting the existence of a book which makes the
        claim/supposition that Saul/Paul was a quisling and Roman agent. If you get
        hold of the book you can read it for yourself.

        John:
        Heidegger had nothing directly to do with the 'sending of Jews to the ovens'
        as you allege.

        Jud:
        Again you twist my words. I said he rang the police and had them picked up -
        he didn't actually drive them away himself or push them in the ovens
        personally.

        John:
        Just because he may have corresponded with Goebels does not implicate him
        either.

        Jud:
        Goebel's wasn't just any old Joe, he was the Reich's Propaganda minister.

        John:
        If that is the case, then the British Prime Minister would be equally guilty
        of sending Jews to the ovens since the British communicated with Hitler's
        government for a time.

        Jud:
        No logical connection at all - the British diplomats were trying to
        negotiate a peace or a way of avoiding war. They has no alternative but
        dealing with them through diplomatic channels.

        John:
        One case of interest in the US regarding sentencing of a woman charged with
        murder was the wife of the Dr. Scarsdale. There were no witnesses, but by
        having experts testify and make their opinions regarding the probability of
        the circumstantial evidence weighed against the woman, it was concluded that
        the wife did kill her former husband. She was on a drug that is called
        speed, which had been prescribed by her husband. She was addicted to it for
        years. There were no witnesses, and as a result of a 'balance of
        probabilities' approach to making inferences as to causality, she was
        convicted of second degree murder. What is remarkable here is that whether
        she actually killed her husband or not, there is no certainty that she did.
        . . . since there were no witnesses.

        John:
        So where is your evidence that Paul, disciple of Christ was involved in a
        mass murder or a single murder?

        Jud:
        I refer you to my answers above

        Jud [previously]
        quoting: Le 12: 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman
        have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven
        days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she
        be unclean. Le 12: 5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be
        unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the
        blood of her purifying threescore and six days. Why should a woman be
        'unclean' after giving birth - and why should she be awarded a 'double dose
        of uncleanness' if the baby was a girl.

        John:
        I can ask a similar question of you. Why do modern doctors recommend male
        genital mutilation by removal of the entire foreskin of one week old boy
        babies and not girls?

        Jud:
        What the priests did to women 2 or 3 thousand years ago has got nothing to
        do with modern medicine.

        John:
        www. foreskin. org

        Jud:
        An equally barbaric religious practice which should be banned by law.

        John: Why did Dr. Spock recommend not picking up babies from the crib when
        they cry?

        Jud:
        Because he was a nut-case.

        John:
        You seem to have a misplaced trust in anything approaching western science.
        Perhaps you can explain why the US government chose not to bomb the most
        famous spiritual city in Japan? Why did some officers in the US government
        desire to use the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki rather than on the
        spiritual center of Japan.

        Jud:
        Because they were sites of special and important historical interest.

        John:
        The Jewish practice of circumcision was completely different than the modern
        method. The Jewish practice was simply a little 'nick' which drew a small am
        ount of blood, not the removal of the entire foreskin. I think the Jewish
        laws were more humane and universally acceptable in large part than many
        modern laws and practices of a political nature.

        Jud:
        It is interesting the way that religion is obsessed with sex and the sex
        organs - personally I find it quite prurient that these priest's, many of
        them unmarried, should be so obsessed with little boys penises.

        John:
        It is interesting how almost all philosophical discussions appear to drift
        towards ethics. Ethics in my view is about habituation. Habituations are
        life styles set within a community context inclusive of a larger group
        (monotheistic, etc. ). The individual and the group are not therefore a true
        antithesis; certainly the individual and the group are faced with
        'indirection' depending on the circumstances and situations of the group and
        individual, respectively; however it is through 'laws' of some form that
        usually determine how decisions are made. In laws, whether of the Mosaic or
        Greek kind, there are some guiding principles which provide direction about
        how individuals and groups may comply with various 'universal' standards
        regarding human 'rights' and 'dignities'.

        Jud:
        trouble is that the 'guiding principles' are utilised by the priesthood to
        terrorise the flock.

        John:
        Laws are only effective if they are 'prescriptive' and habituate persons
        towards a 'higher law' (tempering the autonomous feeling of 'haughtiness' et
        cetera with benevolence for instance). The outcome of a set of categorial
        intutions regarding the existential status of a set of persons would lead to
        'haughtiness'. . . I suppose.

        Jud:
        If by 'haughtiness' you are alluding to the 'freedom of the human spirit' -
        then give me freedom every time.

        John:
        For instance it is supposed "biblically mediated intuitions" arise from out
        of a conceptual "categorical desert"; for instance in comparing the 'Code'
        of Hammarabi with the 'universal' kinds of laws in the Old Testament will
        rapidly reveal that 'individual rights' are universal in the case of Mosaic
        law.

        Jud:
        I agree that Mosaic law was superior to the laws of Hammarabi.

        John:
        "In Hammarabi's Code the death penalty for theft was commuted to thirtyfold
        restitution if the theft was from a royal estate, tenfold if from a
        gentleman, fivefold if from a commoner. A blow is punished by sixty stripes
        of an oxide scourge - it was directed at a superior. The idea that social
        dominance or prominence is profoundly irrelevant to the crucial issues of
        justice rests on the recognition that human deserts are at some level
        existential, and positive. That idea is alien to Hammarabi. Yet any broad
        uniformity militates in the direction of categorical deserts, and
        recognition of such deserts at some level is a moral necessity in any legal
        system: Minimally, for example, there is a uniform desert of access to the
        laws. The very idea of the rule of law presses for equal treatment of equal
        cases (Exodus 12: 49; Leviticus 24: 22, Numbers 15: 16, 29). Thus the
        provisions for a permanent, public, written law (Exodus 24: 7, Deuteronomy
        17: 11; 17: 3; 8; 31: 11-12, 24-26) press toward constitutionality, as
        evident in God's command that each king of Israel closely study and follow
        the Law:

        Jud:
        The same [or similar] hierarchical restitutional codes applied in Anglo -
        Saxon society. The peasants life wasn't worth a blow on a rag-man's
        trumpet.

        John:
        'When he sitteth on his royal throne, he shall write himself a copy of this
        Torah. . . . And he shall keep it by him and read from it all the days of
        his life, so that he learn to revere the Lord his God by keeping all the
        provisions of this Law and performing all these statutes, and his heart not
        grow haughty toward his brethren, and that he not diverge to the left or the
        right from its command, so that his reign and that of his offspring in the
        midst of Israel may long endure (Deuteronomy 17: 18 - 20)'

        Jud:
        Pity the corrupt rabble in the schules [tabernacles] didn't obey these
        admonitions.

        John:
        When fused with the idea of the inviolable worth or dignity of the
        individual as a creature of God, the invariancde of rules becomes humanity's
        most powerful ethical and legislative tool. It meant, to begin with, that
        recompense for deaths or injuries must be proportioned only to the injury
        and not the stature or grandeur of the party offended against (Exodus
        21: 23-26, Leviticus 24: 17-22, Numbers 35: 29-34). The dignity of all human
        beings is alike for free or slave or woman, or old. "

        Jud:
        Unless you're a women unfortunate enough to have given birth to a female
        child rather than a male. All this is great on paper, but remember that it
        was the rabbis who wanted Jesus dead and he had committed no crime.

        John:
        Accordingly, the

        ". . . values that form Israel inform the West as well. They give normative
        content to Israel's identity but also inderlie Christian claims to the
        testament of Israel, and Muslim claims to the parentage of Abraham and
        heritage of the prophets. The underwrite modern secular revisions too,
        whether the debt is openly acknowledged or concealed by recasting and
        restructuring - in Locke, Durkheim, Republicans, and Philosophes, Spinoza,
        Freud, Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Levi-Strauss. Even where specifics are
        sublimated or sublated, the original thematic remains crucial to the
        elaboration of the tradition. "

        Jud:
        There is no doubt that via Christianity the Jews have given a lot to the
        world. I am a great admirer of Jews and enjoy the company of Jews although
        I am [in their eyes] a goy.

        [Individual and Community in the Normative Traditions of Judaism, Len E.
        Goodman. In: "Religious Diversity and Human Rights". Edited by Irene Bloom,
        J. Paul Martin, and Wayne L. Proudfoot. ]

        John: It seems to me that the ancient Greeks, especially Aristotle, also
        had a conception of the "universal" sense regarding human rights, but this
        sense was tempered by categorial intuitions regarding 'slaves' and
        'freemen'. Only freemen were equal under the law.

        Jud: Yes, it's true and it's one of the features of Greek society which
        always makes me feel uneasy.

        BTW: Please remember that in my postings I am NEVER directing my comments
        towards you - but against the ideas that you formulate or espouse.

        Now Hitler, Goebels, Heidegger, - that's another ball game. : -)
      • John Foster
        ... who ... it ... John; This is the same sort of paranoic thinking that the Nazi s propagandized in their ideological fear mongering. One of Rosenbergs
        Message 3 of 5 , Jun 1 2:58 PM
          > Jud:
          > Simply that if the suggestion made by Eisenman is correct and the "Saul"
          who
          > invited Vespasian to destroy the Jews in Jerusalem was Paul himself, then
          it
          > is quite chilling rather like him being a Christian version of Adolf
          > Eichman?

          John;
          This is the same sort of paranoic thinking that the Nazi's propagandized in
          their ideological fear mongering. One of Rosenbergs' beliefs was that the
          Jews were responsible for the cruxifiction of Christ: therefore all Jews
          should be expelled and killed too, according to the kind of statements in
          "Mein Kampf", etc.

          You are simply perpetrating more hate statements here because you are
          promoting hate for an identifiable group that is not dedicated to violence
          in any form....Prove that Paul hurt a single hair on any one's head with
          reasons....

          > John:
          > Eichmann In Jerusalem is a very interesting book by Hiedeggers most famous
          > student, Hannah Arendt.
          >
          > Jud:
          > Infamous student - more like it. You know as well as I do that she was his
          > lover and what was the second commandment again? Go on remind me?

          John:

          Another hateful statement. Hannah Arendt is and still is highly respected
          for her mind. She is an exceptional philosopher. She was not Heideggers'
          lover, but Heidegger was her mentor. I don't know where you get the belief
          that they were sleeping together and that Heidegger was unchaste. Another of
          your 'untruths'...again where is the evidence?

          Here is Hannah Arendt's professional bio in short:

          "Ph.D from University of Heidelberg. Taught at U. of California, Columbia,
          Princeton, and Wesleyan, University of Chicago (Political Philosophy and New
          School of Social Research). Books include Origins of Totalitarianism, The
          Human Condition, Between Past and Future, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on
          the Banality of Evil.

          > John:
          > Eichmann was not a Christian at all. . . so don't imply that he was,
          >
          > Jud:
          > I never suggested that he was - I was referring to the fact that if the
          > suggestion made by Eisenman is correct and the "Saul" who invited
          Vespasian
          > to destroy the Jews in Jerusalem was Paul himself, then it is quite
          chilling
          > rather like him being a Christian version of Adolf Eichman? I am merely
          > reporting the existence of a book which makes the claim/supposition that
          > Saul/Paul was a quisling and Roman agent. If you get hold of the book you
          > can read it for yourself.

          John:
          What has this theory got to do with the facts? You said earlier that he was
          quilty by proxy, now you are making a different assertion here based on some
          'crackpot' theory that you have apparently dug up from the 'hate
          literature'....Then you say something to the effect that you are merely
          reporting a 'crackpot' theory, and trying to relieve yourself of being a
          believer in this 'suggestion' that Paul of Tarsus is also a man named Saul?

          > John:
          > nor that all of Europe, the Irish and so on were practicing Christians.
          >
          > Jud
          > I didn't say anything at all about the Christian West being made up of all
          > 'practicing' Christians, you are twisting my words and adding new ones
          that
          > didn't appear in my original text.

          John:

          Again you appear to be not standing by your statements regarding the history
          of Christianity in Europe. you are said that all Christian nations in Europe
          (and therefore all citizens) because there was intolerance, suffering, and
          murder, that Christianity is at fault. Now you are qualifying your
          statement.
          >
          > John:
          > It states clearly in the commandments: though shalt not kill, so how do
          you
          > make the inference that Christians are into killing as a habit? What you
          > mean to say perhaps is that some persons who live under Christian laws and
          > kill are atheists not keeping the commandments.
          >
          > Jud:
          > No, I don't mean to say that at all. I was referring to the two Christian
          > sects Catholics and Protestants who are murdering each other in N.
          Ireland.

          John:
          That is a very uncritical statement. Were catholic priests killing
          Protestant clergymen? Were practicing Christians killing other practicing
          Christians before they attended mass?. Those who live by the sword, often
          die by the sword. There is nothing in the teachings of Christ instructing
          believers to obtain any amount of revenge possible for almost 'trivial
          transgressions'. Christ and his disciples lived with petty theives, etc.,
          but they certaintly did not assent to and encourage murder. In fact the
          opposite of that was practiced: love the neighbour as thy self.



          >
          > John:
          > So what proof do you have that Christ or any other prophet advised killing
          > people? Where in the Jerusalem bible does it say that it is okay to slay
          > people?
          >
          > Jud:
          > It doesn't need to spell it out. The 'role-model' angels of the Lord were
          > cruel beasts.

          John:
          Angels are 'messengers' from the Greek <angelekos>, and there are many
          angels: prepositions are angels, and so are many other entities. You are
          taking a strictly literalist interpretation and leaving out the 'symbolic'
          in everything. There was one fallen angel apparently whose name was Lucifer,
          but this angel is a very important pyschic counterpart to the 'unconscious'
          as C. Jung would have said. Lucifer is not the personification of evil as
          some think, but rather something more. He is the 'temptor' or free will in
          that he represents 'feeling' and 'intuition' when it is different than what
          is 'preferred' by the conscious rational mind. Angels you have to know are
          'messengers'.....Even God who created the universe and the earth also
          created on Monday, the binarius, the devil. This personification is valid
          since the binarius indicates 'dualism' and to have a dual value response to
          things of value is conflict engendering, and a source of anxiety.

          Jud:
          > The modern notion of God's angels being serene, peaceful,
          > human-like or innocent, rosy-cheeked childlike cherubs is a thoroughly
          > misleading image, we must return to the dispatching tens of thousands of
          men
          > to their deaths. In the book of Genesis, for example, we read of the
          angels
          > of God who sent to Earth to destroy the evil city of Sodom: . "And the
          > 'men' [the two angels] said unto Lot: "We will destroy this pace [Sodom).
          > The outcry of the people has waxen great before the kc of the LORD, and
          the
          > LORD hath sent us to destroy it. "

          John:
          Reminds me of the destruction of the NSDP, the Stalinist forces, etc., in
          our times. Angels are as I have said 'messengers' and as such they can
          represent psychic, and unconscious forces, and they can represent forces in
          nature. When there is a great 'evil' in the land, it becomes intuitive that
          there is evil present. Sodom represented a profane society that worshipped
          Baal, a kind of false icon representing slavery to the flesh...I think it is
          a representation of a 'subculture' similar to heroin and cocaine addiction
          today. Most of the most serious crimes in the US are drug related....

          Jud:
          > Afterwards, the LORD (Yahweh-Elohim)
          > rained down brimstone fire out of Heaven, and Sodom was indeed destroyed,
          > along with the cities of the plain. All of the inhabitants were killed.
          > Later in the Bible, in the second book of Kings, we read how the agents of
          > Yahweh once again brought death to a vast number of people: "And it came
          to
          > pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and put to death in
          > the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and eighty five thousand men. So
          much
          > for the idea of sweet, smiling, rosy-faced cherubs.

          Indeed, God does indeed become wrathful at times. But this wrath is purely
          an anthropomorphic term. The wrath of God is nothing similar compared to the
          wrath of men. These two types of wrath are completely different. The wrath
          of God is an experience unlike any other. This wrath is identical to the
          fear <tremendum. that is felt when watching "The Birds", and all of us have
          felt this wrath at times. To feel the 'wrath of God' is to feel the fear of
          death present. I have felt this fear several times in my life and it changed
          me. Alfred Hitchcocks, "The Birds", is such a good movie that I cannot help
          to say it again. If you want to experience the wrath of God, then this fear
          that is felt watching this movie is for you....It is not like the fear of
          pain or anything like that but it is the fear of annihilation of the self,
          which is different. To annihilate the city of Sodom symbolized the
          annihilation of the selfish, addictive drives that form bad habits that lead
          to death. A sort of reverse form of symbolism since that is what the addict
          feels is happening if they do have to convert to a new habit of health.

          > Jud:
          > Again - you twist my words - I never accused him of 'WAR CRIMES' but of
          > reporting Jews to the nazis. There are books which deal with his
          > behaviour - but all references were lost in my last wipe- out.

          John:
          I already told you what happened. He was doing nothing any different than
          the Canadian government nor the US government did when they interned the
          Japanese during WW2. These people did not all speak Japanese but they did
          lose their possessions. Fortunately they were not murdered. Up to the time
          that Heidegger was the Recktor of Frieburg he was doing nothing different
          than what the US and Canadian governments did to the Japanese here,
          assisting in their relocation and dispossession of rights. But you have
          twisted the truth around to make it sound that Heidegger hated Jews,
          collaborated fully with the SS and so on to remove the Jews he knew and have
          them placed into ovens and murdered. On the one hand you are saying that
          Heidegger was having an affair with Hannah Arendt, a Jew, on the other that
          he was assisting in their genocide knowingly. Edmund Husserl was Jewish, and
          he was Heideggers' best friend and mentor until 1936.

          > Jud:
          > Does that mean that Heidegger had no option? No, he could have resigned
          and
          > taken a job as something else.

          John:
          Yes. He did resign as Recktor shortly after he was appointed to the
          position. There are some correspondence existing that Heidegger resigned
          because he was not happy being involved in expelling of Jews from
          universities, after all Arendt and Husserl are Jewish, right? I have some
          references that indicate that he was asked to resign by the superiors more
          sympathetic to the Nazi's. He was deeply hurt by what happened to some of
          the brightest students. Anway these Jewish students and professors were
          actually quite lucky because they left Germany before it was too late.

          Jud:
          > If you read the German newspapers of the
          > period that Heidegger was a Nazi and the crude anti-Jewish propaganda of
          the
          > period, it was quite obvious that heidegger and the German people knew
          > quite well what they were voting for when they put their cross against
          the
          > name of the Nazi candidate.

          John:
          Anti Jewish sentiment in Germany has existed since about the mid-1900's. You
          can see in the relationship between Wagner and Nietzsche how strained and
          finally how impossible the relationship was after Nietzsche discovered how
          anti-semitic Wagner was....The anti-semitic hatred in Germany still exists,
          but the fact was that Hitler himself was part Jewish. His grandmother gave
          birth to an illegitimate child who became his mother. This is the reason why
          Hitler destroyed the town of his birth, and why he asked his lawyer to find
          out the truth from going through all the records available about his
          grandparents.

          This form of genocide is referred to as 'fraticide' since the Jewish German
          is a German speaking person that is ultimately related by blood to everyone
          else. So by anti-semitic ideology we have the first mass fratricide in the
          history of mankind. Killing of ones' own people is called fratricide.
          Everyone in Germany at the turn of the century was related (Jews and
          Christians were all consanquines, affines). So when the NSDP killed and
          removed the Jewish Germans suddenly the average person saw a large segment
          of their own friends and neighbours dissappear: doctors, gardeners,
          teachers, etc.
          >
          > John:
          > The quote from Leviticus is interesting because if you read more here you
          > will find a very fair sense of justice that is very unique for the time.
          For
          > instance these laws are one of the first cases of universal human rights
          > declarations. Compare the Code of Hammarabi. The person that steals from
          the
          > rich person is to be punished much more severely than a person that robs a
          > poor person. In fact all the laws regarding crime against persons are
          > essentially based on 'equal treatment of equal cases. '
          >
          > Jud:
          > But the women hadn't committed any 'crime' other than giving birth to a
          > child.

          > Jud:
          > I find those examples very upsetting John. There are many such examples
          of
          > innocent people being framed by the British police - you may be aware of
          > them. That doesn't excuse the Jews from penalising a woman with two weeks
          > exclusion from society if she had a male child and four weeks if she had
          a
          > female - why did God penalise women this way through his 'holy' laws?
          Please
          > address the question of the unfair sentencing between a male baby and a
          > female.

          John:

          There may be a reason for this practice just as there is a reason for not
          eating pork. The forbidding of the eating of the animals with cloven hoofs
          is that the pig carries trichinosis. In sheep and goats these animals cause
          deforestation.

          My quess is that after a woman gives live birth that she continues to bleed
          from the uterus as it contracts for up to 3 weeks or a month. This puts the
          young mother into the risk of purpurial fever and of other forms of disease
          that may be transmitted to others. But I think that even today it is
          recommended that women rest for one month after natural childbirth, and
          restrict access and exposure of the baby to other people while his or her
          immune system recovers.

          There is obviously a medical reason for the seculsion. Babies eyes are very
          sensitive to direct sunlight as is their skin, and it is not recommended
          that they be exposed to direct sunlight (caucasions) for up to six months.
          They often do not have any hair on their heads for this time anyway. Mine
          was born with almost two inches of darm brown hair because the mother is
          Peruvian descent.


          > Jud:
          > Again you twist my words. I said he rang the police and had them picked
          up -
          > he didn't actually drive them away himself or push them in the ovens
          > personally.

          John:
          This is absolutely false. He assisted in expelling Jews from the University
          of Frieburg long before there were any concentration camps; he did not phone
          up police and watch the police cart the Jews off to the ovens. If you can
          come with evidence then show me it.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.