Re: [Sartre] Where's the Evidence?
> Simply that if the suggestion made by Eisenman is correct and the "Saul"
> invited Vespasian to destroy the Jews in Jerusalem was Paul himself, thenit
> is quite chilling rather like him being a Christian version of AdolfJohn;
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
> Eichmann In Jerusalem is a very interesting book by Hiedeggers most famous
> student, Hannah Arendt.
> 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?
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.
> Eichmann was not a Christian at all. . . so don't imply that he was,
> 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
> to destroy the Jews in Jerusalem was Paul himself, then it is quitechilling
> rather like him being a Christian version of Adolf Eichman? I am merelyJohn:
> 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.
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?
> nor that all of Europe, the Irish and so on were practicing Christians.
> 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
> 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
> It states clearly in the commandments: though shalt not kill, so how do
> make the inference that Christians are into killing as a habit? What youIreland.
> mean to say perhaps is that some persons who live under Christian laws and
> kill are atheists not keeping the commandments.
> 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.
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.
> 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
> It doesn't need to spell it out. The 'role-model' angels of the Lord were
> cruel beasts.
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.
> The modern notion of God's angels being serene, peaceful,men
> human-like or innocent, rosy-cheeked childlike cherubs is a thoroughly
> misleading image, we must return to the dispatching tens of thousands of
> to their deaths. In the book of Genesis, for example, we read of theangels
> of God who sent to Earth to destroy the evil city of Sodom: . "And thethe
> '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
> 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....
> Afterwards, the LORD (Yahweh-Elohim)to
> 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
> pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and put to death inmuch
> the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and eighty five thousand men. So
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> Does that mean that Heidegger had no option? No, he could have resigned
> 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.
> If you read the German newspapers of thethe
> period that Heidegger was a Nazi and the crude anti-Jewish propaganda of
> period, it was quite obvious that heidegger and the German people knewthe
> quite well what they were voting for when they put their cross against
> 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
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,
> 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.
> instance these laws are one of the first cases of universal human rightsthe
> declarations. Compare the Code of Hammarabi. The person that steals from
> rich person is to be punished much more severely than a person that robs aof
> poor person. In fact all the laws regarding crime against persons are
> essentially based on 'equal treatment of equal cases. '
> But the women hadn't committed any 'crime' other than giving birth to a
> I find those examples very upsetting John. There are many such examples
> innocent people being framed by the British police - you may be aware ofa
> 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
> 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 aJohn:
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
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
> Jud:up -
> Again you twist my words. I said he rang the police and had them picked
> he didn't actually drive them away himself or push them in the ovensJohn:
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.