ANUS mentions The Genius Forum

[Talking Ass]

'For the record', Robert, what I wrote here is a response to you also.

I would take issue with arguing Jewish theology through stand-up comics, though it is certainly not irrelevant or useless. But all of them, as far as I know, come right out of the Eastern European scene, and Judaism is broader. It also has a very long history that does not include only the Eastern European personality.

The other part, about the nature of the Jewish concept of God and their relationship to it, is far more intreresting and also very problematic. It is absolutely reasonable that anyone would question it. I hope to be able to make a response.

Instead of just piping in here with your girlish chiding, why don't you contribute something (anything!) of substance to any conversation presently taking place. Has your job become to follow me around, read my posts, hate them, and quip?

[Tomas]

Yeah Kelly seemed to have dropped the ball there.

Jews are a religion, not a race.

Prime example being my sister's husband. Steve's dad was German and his mother Russian. They both shared the Jewish religion - well - they met, married and had two children.

17-year-old Steve announced to his parents he was leaving the Jewish religion, moved out of the house attended university then medical school ended up in North Dakota for intership. He met my sister Gloria (the nurse) - they 'fell in love' and begat two children from this union. The kids were raised in Gloria's Lutheran 'faith' with not a thought of what Jewish was all about.

Does this make their adult children part-Jewish? I think not.

Secondly, my great-grandmother was one of those Germans-from-Russia types who's father was of the Jewish faith. So am I part Jewish? I think not.

PS - Steve's parents were wealthy to the tune of $20-30 million easily. When his dad died his mother removed him out of the will and gave the money to her daughter. Yup, those Jews are tight-fisted with their money and don't leave the faith cuz if you do..........

Jews for Jesus - What a beautiful choice!

[Conservationist]

Steve's dad was German and his mother Russian. They both shared the Jewish religion - well - they met, married and had two children.

Let me fix that for you:

Steve's dad was a Jew from Germany and his mother a Jew from Russia. Although they had German and Russian political citizenship -- a piece of fucking paper, since they were not indigenous to either place -- they were ethnically Jewish. They both shared the Jewish religion - well - they met, married and had two children who are now both ethnically and religiously Jewish.

Here, open your mind to science:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/ ... -question/
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/labels/Jewish%20Genetics.php
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001719.html
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2009/12/more-j ... netics.php

As history tells us, Jews are an ethny, a religion, and a culture -- all at the same time.

Unless you have contrary evidence, I consider this matter closed.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hey, tell the defective autistic half-Jew owner of that site VJ Prozak, who also owns amerika.org & corrupt.org, that 'you know who' says to get off the computer, get back on the meds, stop churning out several lengthy articles weekly and stop posting them & commenting under 2 DOZEN sockpuppets.

My apologies to pierdog, I think he was right all along, in his lighting-bolt style. Clearly we're playing host for (yet another) fried brain who shouldn't be on the computer so much but take very long walks in the countryside instead. Notice all those puppets appearing last days.

More information Meet Robert Shvern, Creepy Boyfriend.

[Conservationist]

Clearly we're playing host for (yet another) fried brain who shouldn't be on the computer so much but take very long walks in the countryside instead.

That's rather autistic of you. I guess I don't understand what your beef is, other than that you don't like debating me.

[Kelly Jones]

The other part, about the nature of the Jewish concept of God and their relationship to it, is far more intreresting and also very problematic. It is absolutely reasonable that anyone would question it. I hope to be able to make a response.

Are you qualified to judge what is absolutely reasonable? I thought you believed anyone who made such judgements was "adolescent" and "brattish".

Are you qualified to assess the truth or falsehood in the Judaic concept of God? If not, how are you going to proceed? By your emotions?


.

[Talking Ass]

'Absolutely reasonable' is a turn of phrase, you nut!

People who make stupid posts (like this one of yours) are 'brattish and adolescent' in my book.

"Are you qualified to ASSess the truth or falsehood in the Judaic concept of God? "

How would you define 'qualified', little sister?

"If not, how are you going to proceed? By your emotions?"

Hmmmm. Good question, Haughty Grasshopper. I have a method, a very unusual method I learned from a China Cat, that involves the rolling of dice on a backgammon board. As if to prove---as against MahatmaQuinn---that God does indeed play dice with the universe...

What I feel about the throws is irrelevant...

;-)

As to Pierdog and his 'lightening-bolt style', I'd be inclined to this representation.

[Conservationist]

'brattish and adolescent'

I have returned to the word "brat" to describe most people on the internet. They have insignificant lives, and come here to be Important. Anything anyone says that contradicts their personal mythos makes them irate.

Brattish and adolescent to me implies a denial of reality for a personal ethic of convenience.

There's a lot of that going around in humanity in general. I think it's our biggest problem, and I see a lot of it here.

[Kelly Jones]

What I find marginally psychologically interesting about Alex is his tendency to rely on the wrong use of argumentum ad hominems for virtually everything I pose to him. That is, I always ask plain, direct, simple questions. He strangely sees such behaviour as rude. But as long as an approach is couched verbosely, in an overly complex and abstruse manner, he relaxes and has a sense of humour. He really does have a serious problem with making substantial comments, mistaking substance for lots of words.

There's really not getting anywhere with Alex. He's not interested in the truth, only in defending his ideology from rational challenge.

It's Alex who is throwing hissy fits left, right and centre. He is quite a seriously hypocritical person for calling me a brat for pointing these things out, when it's clearly himself who is constantly getting his knickers knotted up. I can't be bothered with him anymore.


.

[Talking Ass]

It is also 'marginally interesting', that is to say just coming into the area where it might be slightly interesting, that you don't recognize that your style and approach to 'reasoning', with your questioning ritual, is just the ridiculous way that you assert your will. You could use your recent impasse with Conservationist as an example: you have a concrete and monolithic definition of 'genius', which is supported by the (I won't say invalid but I will say spurious) definition of genius offered by this board. You are locked into an a priori view and the only purpose of your interaction is to prove your a priori. It is not that I see it as rude, I see it as a tactic that you use to move through interactions where your pre-established and rigid view comes out as dominant. This is the style of thinking that GF is famous for; it attracts people who, I can only assume, are sort of weak, effeminate, disempowered persons who yet have a certain level of intelligence, but an intelligence of a peculiar sort. You are 'birds of a feather' in this sense. You desire to come together, carrying what is unseen and unrecognized to you but which I believe is yet perceivable---but how could it be proven to you?---as a kind of neurosis, a defect of thinking and perhaps acting. As I've said, you seem to me particularly emblematic of this.

Kelly writes: "But as long as an approach is couched verbosely, in an overly complex and abstruse manner, he relaxes and has a sense of humour. He really does have a serious problem with making substantial comments, mistaking substance for lots of words."

No, that is not it. Nothing that you write could be called abstruse nor very complex, except when you begin to glory outloud about the marvels of the A is A formula. There, it seems, the energies turn back into themselves and the gyroscope spins a little 'abstrusely'. I always have a sense of humor with you and all of the 'geniuses' and 'forming geniuses' here, but what you are noting is that when I sense there is a basic and genuine sincerity in you, and a desire to participate in a conversation, I always come to meet you halfway. But when you slip into your neurosis, your control-freak trip (which you certainly know you play on EVERYONE in your life as you continue to isolate yourself step-by-neurotic step) I go right back into the 'reflective style', as it were, out of which the Talking Ass came into existence; a style of pantomime, wouldn't you say? If there weren't a great deal that I gain from entertaining my humor, and watching the assholes squirm, I don't think I would have made it this far. As to "He really does have a serious problem with making substantial comments, mistaking substance for lots of words", my retort to you is that my contributions, over the 3 years I have been here, utterly pale your own. The reason you and others can't perceive the strength or the value of my contributions, I believe, is because you are lop-sided, deformed and 'afflicted' intellects. You have such a terribly limited sense of what has value and importance that, perhaps, all you really have left is the strange fury of strict 'rationalistic-intellectual' processes combined with delusions of grandeur about your intellectual and spiritual value, the gloriousness of the path you trod, the goals you strive for, etc.

The long and the short of it is that you don't own genius or intelligence or spirituality or value or consciousness or beauty or life, and yet in truth you propose that you do. You establish yourselves as the ultimate arbiters of the most important question and yet, and yet, universally you are only dimly aware of the importance or the wide ramifications of these questions/problems. And in this---if you will permit me---you transform yourself not into geniuses but into a group of ASSES.

"It's Alex who is throwing hissy fits left, right and centre. He is quite a seriously hypocritical person for calling me a brat for pointing these things out, when it's clearly himself who is constantly getting his knickers knotted up. I can't be bothered with him anymore."

Hissy fit? You gotta be kidding. The 'hissy fits' belong to Robert, Kelly, Jupiviv, Prince and Diebert if you really were going to be honest. I remain constant---which is a talent I have as a donkey---and just keep plodding along. Hypocricy---again if you really were to be honest---is a universal possession. If I am hypocritical it is carried out with a great deal of élan and a wonderfully expressed grâce, but the real point is that 'hypocricy' is most certainly built into this intellectual environment and is engaged in pretty regularly by the main players here. Why single me out?

Can't be bothered with me, eh? Well, if the past is any indicator, when the Talking Ass, through reverse-stubbornness, wears away the humorless and transparent thrusts of the GoFer dolts, I usually wax loquacious and mellifluent...

I feel a song comin' on...

PS: I would only remind you that one of the standard articles of faith here is the Sacred Necessity of telling the truth and 'attacking the heart of delusion'. One represents oneself as doing this disinterestedly and in the name of a higher truth or principal. And it is in this spirit---as a guru, a sad-guru even for this fallen age---that I condescend to take you under my hoof, so to speak, to beat you into self-knowledge. Perhaps you feel you haven't made much progress? Well, think again. In fact you are doing just fine and are coming along splendidly.

You heard it on the GF from an Ass who Talks©.

[Talking Ass]

PS: And I don't wear knickers. Can't get them in my size...

[Animus]

I have nothing against Jew-as-ethnicity, but Jew-as-ideology is a bit different. When the ideology sets us up an international organization like the ADL that engages in distorting perceptions of anti-semitism, it has crossed the line. The ADL says that Zionism is the goal of setting up an all-Jewish state in Israel, it claims this is not racism, and it claims that claiming it is racism is racism. It labels protesters who protest Israeli foreign policy as "Anti-Israel" and consequently "Anti-semitic".

See, they have it set up so that you don't criticize what Israel is doing, because if you do you are a racist. Meanwhile they can do the Uberracist thing of securing an ethnically pure land.

Interestingly, the Holocaust was in some respect aimed towards ethnic purification of Europe. There seems to be a repeated pattern in history of persecuted peoples justifying reverse persecution by their persecuted past. Consider for example the Afrocentrism of the Rastafari movement, who believe that "Zion" is properly Ethiopia and the Tribes of Israel are actually black Africans. Or the way in which they altered the English language in defiance of being forced to learn it. The new dialect is known as Iyaric and consists of reversals of English compound words like "Understand" becomes "Overstand", "Oppression" becomes "Downpression" and so forth. And some of the movements texts are heavily ethnocentric, such as the Royal Parchment Scroll of Black Supremacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Parc ... _Supremacy). This ideology has led some Rastafari to militate against their host country and migrate to Ethiopia in an attempt to bring back what they think is a lost ethnic purity.

[Animus]

Some of the angst directed at Jews probably originates from religious differences, and in particular a difference in the interpretation of Exodus 22:25 "If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury." At the time "usury" was the lending of money at interest, in modern times it has come to mean "the lending of money with excessive interest." Up to the middle ages both Christianity and Islam explicitly banned the charging of interests on loans, taking the verse to mean one should never charge interest to anyone. Judaism on the other hand interprets it ethnocentrically and figure it applies only to the lending of money to other Jews. The door was open for Jews to lend at interest to Goyyim (Gentiles). By the medieval era, Christian kings were using Jewish bankers for their financial needs. There were no Christian or Muslim banks that turned a profit. Few Christians or Muslims engaged in banking as there was no profit in it. So Jews became the big bankers of the ancient and medieval world. This came to an end when Christianity reinterpreted Exodus 22:25 and like passages to open up usury to Christians. To-date, Islamic banking still inhibits the charging of any interest for profit. But by this time Jews already established themselves as international bankers, such as the Rothchilds who adopted the name for the purpose of banking under an alias. During WWII, as part of the Nazi "propaganda" the National Socialist party distributed pamphlets and speeches aimed at exposing this history of banking in Europe and the existence of the Rothchilds banking cartel.

Of course, this is just one of many Jewish beliefs that discriminated against Gentiles which may have led to their being hated.

[Animus]

In the ADL's own words:

"To question the Jewish people's right to national existence and freedom is not only to deny to the Jewish people the right accorded to every other people on this globe, but it is also to deny the central precepts of the United Nations."

The right to an ethnically pure homeland is accorded to every other people on this globe? Hmmm. I actually find it difficult to find one example of an ethnically pure state. Or of anyone being granted that right besides the Jews.

And goes on to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism:

"Abba Eban

There is no difference whatever between anti-Semitism and the denial of Israel's statehood. Classical anti-Semitism denies the equal right of Jews as citizens within society. Anti-Zionism denies the equal rights of the Jewish people its lawful sovereignty within the community of nations. The common principle in the two cases is discrimination.

New York Times, November 3, 1975"


Actually, in the United States, Canada and most developed nations, discrimination is defined as follows:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws


The United Nations supports Israel contrary to its other goals, for example:

"Holocaust and the United Nations Discussion Paper Series
Wholesale destruction of five to six million Jews and the cataclysmic invasions of most of Europe and the USSR that made it possible required an advanced economy and a heavily-armed modern state. Yet the Nazi killing machine also had a more antiquated power source. It was operated by interlocking ideological levers that celebrated race, history, territory, and cultivation – all notions which may crop up in a range of technological contexts."

Sorry, how is that different from Zionism?

"I will juxtapose Nazi ideology with that of two other genocide perpetrators: the Khmer Rouge rulers of Cambodia from 1975 to 1979, and Rwanda’s Hutu Power regime of 1994. Leaders of all three regimes held visions of the future partly inspired by ancient pasts – mythical and pristine – in which they imagined members of their original, pure, agrarian race, farming once larger territories that contained no Jews, no Vietnamese, and no Tutsis. The perpetrators of genocide against those victim groups shared preoccupations not only with ethnic purity but also with antiquity, agriculture, and expansionism. Genocidal thinking is usually racialist, reactionary, rural, and irredentist."

Heh, no see contradiction?

"On 10 November 1975, the General Assembly adopted resolution 3379 (XXX), which
“determine(d) that zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”. On 16 December 1991,
that resolution was revoked. Panelists will discuss how and why this chain of events occurred."

“The fight against anti-Semitism must be our fight, and Jews everywhere must feel that the United Nations is their home, too”, Secretary-General Kofi Annan today told a seminar entitled “Confronting Anti-Semitism: Education for Tolerance and Understanding”.

"Had it not been for Mr. Annan’s courageous intervention, the infamous resolution comparing Zionism to racism would still be in effect, he said. At the 2001 Durban World Conference against Racism, the Secretary-General’s efforts had been less successful, however. Instead of being a conference against hatred, it had become a conference of hatred -- for Israel, the State and the people.

He turned to the United Nations, together with the Secretary-General, to ask the world’s leadership to fulfil its mission and use its political and moral authority to outlaw the plague of anti-Semitism."

So even the United Nations thinks that Anti-Purely-Jewish-State is Anti-Jew. But for Cambodia or Germany to attempt an ethnically pure state is the height of racism and genocide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsRO026bNNM

[Talking Ass]

Concerns about ethnic issues in Israel are valid and discussed very widely in Israel, for example Ha'aretz and to a lesser extent the Jerusalem Post.

All facets about Israel have to be put on the table and considered, and there are many. Generally, in viewing this region and the conflict, there is a narrative that asserts itself as absolutely true and another that exists and operates against it.

If one is inclined to do so---if one has that intention---all the points can be examined and considered. If one is inclined, say, toward a position that is anti-Israel from the start, most often the conclusion that is the starting point will be the one that is concluded.

Most Israelis---at least half the population (if the polls I have seen are accurate)---would now trade the land occupied for security reasons after the Six Day War if a secure peace could be established. There is doubt that Israel's surrounding neighbors would be content with a peace, and there are players in the region who, it would seem, are exploiting the conflict for their own purposes or in accord with their own ideology (Iran for example).

There are numerous reasons---military and security reasons---why the occupied areas are vital to Israel's security, and you could find out about them on your own.

Israel represents a fairly unique situation in world history: a people who at a point in history were predominantly 'dispersed' from their land but held to the memory of it, and resolved to return. I have found that one is either in sympathy with it or one is not---there is rarely too much middle ground. But to understand Israel, there are many different details and aspects that have to be considered.

One significant factor---and again you or anyone will take their side as an a priori---is that in these early days a war was conducted to defeat the incipiant Israeli state. It didn't work. Other roads might have been taken prior to that point, but in a sense they were wiped out because of the will of the surrounding nations. It is just something to take into consideration. Israel came into existence in 'crisis' and the crisis has never let up.

Some things in life come down to a bottom line. I think it is good to know what those bottom lines are. I don't think Israelis---so to speak (and excuse the pun on your usurious Jews)---are going to close up shop and 'go home' (a la Helen Thomas). I don't think that Israelis are going to allow themselves into a compromised situation where, again, a devastating blow cold be delivered. You'd have to understand Jewish and Israeli psychology to understand why that is so---despite any wrong Israelis may, or may not, be committing.

Anti-Semitism is real and more complex than your usury argument. An 'informed' and dedicated anti-Semite is, generally speaking, impossible to convince otherwise.

[Animus]

Umm... what?

Sure its complicated, but I've made attempts at addressing a few of the issues. I think all you've done is said it's larger than that. Fine, it's larger than that.

Jews who believe they are God's chosen people are also real, just as real as Rastafari who believe they are God's chosen people, and Muslims who believe the above are "infidels".

I honestly don't give a crap about ethnic boundaries. There are no "Jews" in my view of reality outside of the fact that there are Jews who call themselves Jews. I take just as much issue with Caucasians, and Africans trying to set us up apartheid. Or anyone who calls themselves a 'cubs fan' or a "Jays fan".

[Talking Ass]

The term 'chosen people' is an almost exclusively Christian usage. But the term is more similar to 'treasured people'. Jews see themselves---interpret themselves if you will---as being selected or 'chosen' to receive the revelation of Torah (the revelation at Sinai). For Jews who identify with this view or story or interpretation, to have received Torah (both the 'written Torah' and the 'unwritten' (i.e. verbal) Torah, is a special dispensation. There are various references to this in Jewish scripture:

• Exodus 19:5 'Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine;
  
  Exodus 19:6 and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel."
  
  Deuteronomy 4:20 "But the LORD has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, from Egypt, to be a people for His own possession, as today.
  
  Deuteronomy 14:2 "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
  
  Deuteronomy 26:18 "The LORD has today declared you to be His people, a treasured possession, as He promised you, and that you should keep all His commandments;
  
  Here is some Christian commentary on the idea of Israel's selection (just FYI):
  
  (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary)
  
  "For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God---that is, set apart to the service of God, or chosen to execute the important purposes of His providence. Their selection to this high destiny was neither on account of their numerical amount (for, till after the death of Joseph, they were but a handful of people); nor because of their extraordinary merits (for they had often pursued a most perverse and unworthy conduct); but it was in consequence of the covenant or promise made with their pious forefathers; and the motives that led to that special act were such as tended not only to vindicate God's wisdom, but to illustrate His glory in diffusing the best and most precious blessings to all mankind."

Anyone who takes the time to read a basic Jewish History, will quickly understand that though Jews have kept to this 'mission' of clinging quite strongly to their sacred texts and the ethical commands, there have been also many deviations. When one gets a full picture of the history of Jews, and the history of Jews in the Occident where they had the most impact, one comes away with a group of different impressions or feelings. So: love 'em or hate 'em, one can take this into account (or not) as one makes those crucial internal decisions.

If one were to be fair though (and you may not have the slightest desire or longing to be 'fair' if, at the outset, you have undermined the entire Jewish historical project because you don't believe in a God who 'chose' Jews as the people to receive or to carry through history this 'special dispensation' of the Torah) at that point you have no other choice available to you but to seal yout ears (so to speak---a deliberately Biblical sounding turn of phrase) against the entire view or ideology that has informed the Western world for over 2000 years, and still exists even if only a subcurrent. If only to be 'fair', one needs to place onself into the mind-set of people of a radically different view from that of our own, of 'modernity'.

Animus writes: "Sure its complicated, but I've made attempts at addressing a few of the issues. I think all you've done is said it's larger than that. Fine, it's larger than that."

I am only encouraging you to consider the possibility that the issue is much larger than it might appear. It is merely a polite suggestion. I am speaking about trhe modern state of Israel but also about Jews and Jews in history more generally.

Animus again: "Jews who believe they are God's chosen people are also real, just as real as Rastafari who believe they are God's chosen people, and Muslims who believe the above are "infidels".

You COULD make that point, and many people do. I would suggest that it is too blunt to be useful. I have, as you know, been using the term 'binary' pejoratively. To understand things, especially human consciousness and its evolution, requires a greater apprehension of nuance. Usually, to gain 'nuance', it takes a good deal of time and reflection. Conclusions should not be snap-conclusions. I am sure you get my point. The only thing I would have to say about the Rastafari and the Muslim reference, is to say that the Rastafari's views, and the Muslims, stem directly from the Jewish scriptures. Now, you may (or may not) like to hear it, but historically Jews---rabbinical Jews---are extremely meticulous in analyzing interepretations of Torah scripture. They would take issue with the Rastafarian's claims in certain concrete terms, and generally speaking see the Muslims, in Mohammed, as crashing the gate as it were. All the reasonings are elaborately expounded (not so much in the Rastafarian's case but certainly in the case of the Muslim's claims). Those strict Torah Jews listen to all arguments (and also those that originate in their own communities) and spend years mulling them over, and then decide. The decisions are always (IMO) quite interesting.

I think you would need to understand, as an a priori that runs counter to what seems to be your current view, that although Jews see the reception of Torah as an infinite blessing---such that that is part of their prayers---it has been extremely costly to them to 'hold onto it', as it were. Life gets much easier for a Jew when a Jew ceases to be a Jews (as Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin assert in Why the Jews?: The Reason for Anti-Semitism).

If you understand some of the basic prayers, such as the Aleinu prayer, you will at least have an authentic means to (begin to) grasp the Jewish concept of 'election', and (if you are generous) a way to see how and why Jews have clinged (cling, clang, clung?) to (what they consider to be) Divine Revelation. The more you know, and the more you can see things not through strict modern eyes but through the eyes of a different temporal modality, the better understanding you will have (of Jews, and Jews in Occidental history). And before you jump to (rather terrible) concusions, consider the power in clinging to the strength of an idea. Even in GF philosophy the notion of an overarching idea is present, and is necessary for...well, for whatever it is you-all are attempting to do, which is none too clear (to me, an afflicted ass). (The Amidah is considered the core Jewish prayer.

[Animus]

The term 'chosen people' is an almost exclusively Christian usage. But the term is more similar to 'treasured people'. Jews see themselves---interpret themselves if you will---as being selected or 'chosen' to receive the revelation of Torah (the revelation at Sinai). For Jews who identify with this view or story or interpretation, to have received Torah (both the 'written Torah' and the 'unwritten' (i.e. verbal) Torah, is a special dispensation. There are various references to this in Jewish scripture:

• Exodus 19:5 'Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine;
  
  Exodus 19:6 and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel."
  
  Deuteronomy 4:20 "But the LORD has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, from Egypt, to be a people for His own possession, as today.
  
  Deuteronomy 14:2 "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
  
  Deuteronomy 26:18 "The LORD has today declared you to be His people, a treasured possession, as He promised you, and that you should keep all His commandments;
  
  Here is some Christian commentary on the idea of Israel's selection (just FYI):
  
  (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary)
  
  "For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God---that is, set apart to the service of God, or chosen to execute the important purposes of His providence. Their selection to this high destiny was neither on account of their numerical amount (for, till after the death of Joseph, they were but a handful of people); nor because of their extraordinary merits (for they had often pursued a most perverse and unworthy conduct); but it was in consequence of the covenant or promise made with their pious forefathers; and the motives that led to that special act were such as tended not only to vindicate God's wisdom, but to illustrate His glory in diffusing the best and most precious blessings to all mankind."

Anyone who takes the time to read a basic Jewish History, will quickly understand that though Jews have kept to this 'mission' of clinging quite strongly to their sacred texts and the ethical commands, there have been also many deviations. When one gets a full picture of the history of Jews, and the history of Jews in the Occident where they had the most impact, one comes away with a group of different impressions or feelings. So: love 'em or hate 'em, one can take this into account (or not) as one makes those crucial internal decisions.

If one were to be fair though (and you may not have the slightest desire or longing to be 'fair' if, at the outset, you have undermined the entire Jewish historical project because you don't believe in a God who 'chose' Jews as the people to receive or to carry through history this 'special dispensation' of the Torah---at that point you have no other choice but to seal yout ears (so to speak---a deliberately Biblical sounding turn of phrase) against the entire view or ideology that has informed thre Western world for over 2000 years. If only to be 'fair', one needs to place onself into the mind-set of people of a radically different view from that of our own, of 'modernity'.

Animus writes: "Sure its complicated, but I've made attempts at addressing a few of the issues. I think all you've done is said it's larger than that. Fine, it's larger than that."

I am only encouraging you to consider the possibility that the issue is much larger than it might appear. It is merely a polite suggestion.

Animus again: "Jews who believe they are God's chosen people are also real, just as real as Rastafari who believe they are God's chosen people, and Muslims who believe the above are "infidels".

You COULD make that point, and many people do. I would suggest that it is too blunt to be useful. I have, as you know, been using the term 'binary' pejoratively. To understand things, especially human consciousness and its evolution, requires a greater apprehension of nuance. Usually, to gain 'nuance', it takes a good deal of time and reflection. Conclusions should not be snap-conclusions. I am sure you get my point. The only thing I would have to say about the Rastafari and the Muslim reference, is to say that the Rastafari's views, and the Muslims, stem directly from the Jewish scriptures. Now, you may (or may not) like to hear it, but historically Jews---rabbinical Jews---are extremely meticulous in analyzing interepretations of Torah scripture. They would take issue with the Rastafarian's claims in certain concrete terms, and generally speaking see the Muslims, in Mohammed, as crashing the gate as it were. All the reasonings are elaborately expounded (not so much in the Rastafarian's case but certainly in the case of the Muslim's claims). Those strict Torah Jews listen to all arguments (and also those that originate in their own communities) and spend years mulling them over, and then decide. The decisions are always (IMO) quite interesting.

I think you would need to understand, as an a priori that runs counter to what seems to be your current view, that although Jews see the reception of Torah as an infinite blessing---such that that is part of their prayers.

If you understand some of the basic prayers, such as the Aleinu prayer, you will at least have an authentic means to (begin to) grasp the Jewish concept of 'election', and (if you are generous) a way to see how and why Jews have clinged (cling, clang, clung?) to (what they consider to be) Divine Revelation. The more you know, and the more you can see things not through strict modern eyes but through the eyes of a different temporal modality, the better understanding you will have (of Jews, and Jews in Occidental history). And before you jump to (rather terrible) concusions, consider the power in clinging to the strength of an idea. Even in GF philosophy the notion of an overarching idea is present, and is necessary for...well, for whatever it is you-all are attempting to do, which is none too clear (to me, an afflicted ass). (The Amidah is considered the core Jewish prayer.

I don't really contend any of that, but you are correct, I don't believe Jews are special in any way, shape or form. Whatever it is they believe was inherited from elsewhere or came about via synthesis of ideas.

I respect the Torah, but I interpret it quite differently. The Judaism that dominates Israel is not Hassidic or Kabbalah, but I would be more inclined to agree with those two than the Orthodox. Where; Israel is a "spiritual" body and not a physical collective per se. Nor is it necessarily Jewish. I would be more inclined to view it as those who keep God's word in truth are Israelites and the rest are not, whether they are Jewish or Icelandic makes no difference.

The Jews were also banished from Eretz Yisrael by God, if they weren't, they'd never have left.

[Talking Ass]

Animus wrote: "but you are correct, I don't believe Jews are special in any way, shape or form. Whatever it is they believe was inherited from elsewhere or came about via synthesis of ideas."

I would imagine that this view would flow necessarily from your basic presuppositions, not the least of which is that there is no 'God consciousness' who would 'dispense'.

"The Judaism that dominates Israel is not Hassidic or Kabbalah, but I would be more inclined to agree with those two than the Orthodox."

They are inter-blended. Most of the Hassidim are very orthodox. Kabbalah is more up in the air insofar as there is a sort of New Age version. Chabad is a very Kabbalistic viewpoint, and quite interesting, philosophical and metaphysical, but they are also quite strict. But, there is no reason for someone who is not a Jew or who has not chosen to be a Jew (converted, or 'convoited' if you wanted to be exact in pronunciation) to observe anything but what Jews call The Noahide Laws. Every 'benefit' that is offered to a Torah observant Jew is also offered to any non-Jew who observes (or tries to) the Noahide Laws. (I am only offering this for information purposes).

As to my own beliefs, I am rather puzzled by the idea/fact of revelation. As a point of comparison, one could consider the fruitful Greek period that gave us our entire thinking system (basically) as a 'revelation'. Just a few years before the Classical period, there was nothing or little. Then all of a sudden there was a great eruption. How does one explain that? I don't know if there is an explanation (personally). As to the other end of the spectrum---the Israelite Sinai Revelation---I see it as similar. All of a sudden a great abundance of material comes 'into manifestation'.

"I would be more inclined to view it as those who keep God's word in truth are Israelites and the rest are not, whether they are Jewish or Icelandic makes no difference."

I'm puzzled. I would imagine you do not believe in 'God'. So how could 'God's word' be kept?

And how could they hear 'God's Word' if there was not someone to bring it to them? To (in fact) force it on them? (As was the case). (Paul, a Jew, having begin this process that was taken up zealously and continued for many centuries). That is, in truth, how it got to Iceland...right?

;-)

I am supposing that we might agree there is an 'essence'. I feel that 'essences' are quite difficult to define, which is what makes them essences.

[FYI: a list of Jewish blessings and prayers.]

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Paul, a Jew, having begin this process

Yes, Paul, being such a key pseudo-historical figure which reveals a lot about Christianity in relation to the Jewish religion. Born in what's now Turkey and a Roman state citizen was before as well after his conversion between one sect to another, oriented intensely international. Which was already the case for the majority of Jews. It's estimated 10% of the whole Roman Empire was Jewish in the first century, with only around a third of them actually living in Palestine. This is not because of procreation skills or being forced out, it can only be explained by some extremely proselytizing element in Judaism at the time combined with a spread out existence of Jewish communities BCE! Which fits exactly into the profile of a Paul, the nature of the 'beast', so to speak.

Although Jewish evangelism died off after the ascend of Christianity and the Islam (who out-proselyted the proselytes), there is is recurring pattern embedded in the texts, in the history: one is encouraged to colonize crucial territory for political gains, supported by calculating political forces, once out of Persia, later out of Europe and America, and once established the network is expanded, diffused again outward. Such international oriented, networked, outreaching existence I therefore suggest to be inherently Jewish, and the inward, isolating, nationalist, even the fascist tendencies would be more the exception, an upside down corruption, a shadow of the typical Jewish nature and history.

[Talking Ass]

Just for the record. Some alternatives to the prefix 'pseudo':

Pseudo: affected, apocryphal, artificial, assumed, bastard, bogus, brummagem, colorable, colored, counterfeit, counterfeited, distorted, dressed up, dummy, embellished, embroidered, ersatz, factitious, fake, faked, false, falsified, feigned, fictitious, fictive, forged, garbled, hokey, illegitimate, imitation, junky, make-believe, man-made, mock, perverted, phony, pinchbeck, plagiarized, pretended, put-on, quasi, queer, self-styled, sham, shoddy, simulated, snide, so-called, soi-disant, spurious, supposititious, synthetic, tin, tinsel, titivated, twisted, unauthentic, ungenuine, unnatural, unreal, warped, wrong.

The Siege of Jerusalem.

What is the meaning of what you wrote, Diebert? Sometimes I get the impression that you state without stating, you present without presenting, you suggest without suggesting.

There is no doubt that this Paradigm, this Grand Idea that came onto the platform of existence and has been a supreme motivator and moulder of the world, can be broken down and analyzed in different ways: perhaps as 'inevitable' in a blind sense, or inevitable in a necessary sense, in a bad sense or a good sense.

• 8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
  neither are your ways my ways,"
  declares the LORD.
  
  9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
  so are my ways higher than your ways
  and my thoughts than your thoughts.
  
  10 As the rain and the snow
  come down from heaven,
  and do not return to it
  without watering the earth
  and making it bud and flourish,
  so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
  
  11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
  It will not return to me empty,
  but will accomplish what I desire
  and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

One could see it as a progressive infection or as an inevitable process set in motion by (invisible?) forces difficult to define. Where is it all tending, Diebert?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Pseudo: affected, apocryphal, artificial, assumed, bastard, bogus, brummagem, colorable, colored, counterfeit, counterfeited, distorted, dressed up, dummy, embellished, embroidered, ersatz, factitious, fake, faked, false, falsified, feigned, fictitious, fictive, forged, garbled, hokey, illegitimate, imitation, junky, make-believe, man-made, mock, perverted, phony, pinchbeck, plagiarized, pretended, put-on, quasi, queer, self-styled, sham, shoddy, simulated, snide, so-called, soi-disant, spurious, supposititious, synthetic, tin, tinsel, titivated, twisted, unauthentic, ungenuine, unnatural, unreal, warped, wrong.

That's it: you're a pseudo-Paul! A Jew, born out of some winged bird, American state citizen, who has embraced, or tries to embrace, some kind of universal, encompassing ideology in favor of the religion of his heritage. And also a Pharisee! Wow, and you write a lot of letters to all these online communities too.

[Talking Ass]

That really hurts, Diebert. ;-)