The Command Post - Op-Ed - Hamas

June 15, 2003

Hamas - in their own words

Many people (myself included) have wondered about the nature of Hamas, whose leaders are now officially targets for the IDF. Recently, I found (courtesy of Yale University's Avalon Project) the "Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement", otherwise known as the Hamas Covenant, which clearly states the nature of the organisation, its aims and aspirations.

It contains things that surprise me, but in retrospect shouldn't have. (Not for the first time - I was aghast when I found out that Itzak Shamir, ex-PM of Israel, once headed a group that proposed an alliance with the Nazis against the British). No-one really believed what Adolph Hitler said in Mein Kampf until he started to implement the Endlosung, the "Final Solution". Think the comparison is invalid (as I tend to do when anyone ever starts talking about Nazis)? Read on, to find out exactly what Hamas's beliefs and aims are.

WARNING : May be offensive to Freemasons, Rotarians, members of the Lions Club, and other tools of the International Zionist Conspiracy (just read it, OK? I can't make this stuff up)

Some quotes;

Article Two:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Moslem Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times.

So while "Moslem Brotherhood" and "Hamas" are not synonyms, Hamas is part of the Moslem Brotherhood - support for it is support for Hamas.

Article Eight:
Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.

Taken literally, this would lead to Hamas members becoming Human Bombs to kill unbelievers. Hmm, I guess we do have to take this document's words literally, no matter how unbelievable. OK....

Article Six:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned....

Given the situation where Sharia law is practiced, I have grave misgivings about the truth of this proposition, but at least the intent is relatively sane and rational.

Article Seven:
...
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
(related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

You know what I said about "sane and rational"? I take it all back. Still, you can find equally crazy things in the Bible, the Torah, the Bhagavid-Ghita etc etc. But these people take it literally.

Article Ten:
As the Islamic Resistance Movement paves its way, it will back the oppressed and support the wronged with all its might. It will spare no effort to bring about justice and defeat injustice, in word and deed, in this place and everywhere it can reach and have influence therein.

More rationality, few could quarrel with these words as worthy objectives.

Article Eleven:
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.
...
This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.

This includes Spain, France as far north as Tours, India, and all parts of Europe east of Vienna. Osama Bin Laden is not alone in not accepting the "Tragedy of Andalucia" as he put it in one of his tapes, and so will continue to fight as long as Spain remains outside of the Caliphate. Hamas says they will do likewise, unless this translation is erroneous.

Article Twelve:
Nationalism, from the point of view of the Islamic Resistance Movement, is part of the religious creed. Nothing in nationalism is more significant or deeper than in the case when an enemy should tread Moslem land. Resisting and quelling the enemy become the individual duty of every Moslem, male or female. A woman can go out to fight the enemy without her husband's permission, and so does the slave: without his master's permission.

An interesting section from a Feminist perespective : to praise because it gives the Right of Women to blow themselves up (as long as they kill unbelievers), or to condemn because it portrays women as slaves? To an old Abolitionist like me, any slavery is odious, whether it be due to gender or otherwise, and I don't value the right to become human dynamite very highly.

Article Thirteen:
Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement....

OK, so they're being consistent. Peace is impossible as long as Hamas exists(and Israel, Spain, and India aren't under Sharia law). Rigghhht.

Article Fifteen:

...It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses). It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasion that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin). The Crusaders realised that it was impossible to defeat the Moslems without first having ideological invasion pave the way by upsetting their thoughts, disfiguring their heritage and violating their ideals. Only then could they invade with soldiers.

So the Renanaissance, the Enlightenment, in fact all of Western Civilisation is all just a plot, hatched over 8 centuries, to win the Crusades. Damn Cunning, these Fiendish Occidentals! These people really believe this....

Article Seventeen:
The Moslem woman has a role no less important than that of the moslem man in the battle of liberation. She is the maker of men. Her role in guiding and educating the new generations is great. The enemies have realised the importance of her role. They consider that if they are able to direct and bring her up they way they wish, far from Islam, they would have won the battle. That is why you find them giving these attempts constant attention through information campaigns, films, and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs.

So Feminists, Rotarians, and Freemasons are all part of the International Zionist Conspiracy. Sorry, my bogglemeter just pegged at maximum. I'm not playing Illuminati, these people are For Real.

Article Nineteen:

...All this is utterly serious and no jest, for those who are fighters do not jest.

Believe me, we're not laughing. there's nothing funny about Psychopathic Insanity and serial Killers.

Article Twenty:

...The society that confronts a vicious enemy which acts in a way similar to Nazism, making no differentiation between man and woman, between children and old people - such a society is entitled to this Islamic spirit. Our enemy relies on the methods of collective punishment. He has deprived people of their homeland and properties, pursued them in their places of exile and gathering, breaking bones, shooting at women, children and old people, with or without a reason. The enemy has opened detention camps where thousands and thousands of people are thrown and kept under sub-human conditions. Added to this, are the demolition of houses, rendering children orphans, meting cruel sentences against thousands of young people, and causing them to spend the best years of their lives in the dungeons of prisons.
In their Nazi treatment, the Jews made no exception for women or children. Their policy of striking fear in the heart is meant for all. They attack people where their breadwinning is concerned, extorting their money and threatening their honour. They deal with people as if they were the worst war criminals. Deportation from the homeland is a kind of murder.

Such sub-human conditions that the 750,000 Palestinians that left Israel, some "ethnically cleansed" by Jewish terrorists, some just temporarily vacationing until the victorious Arab Armies killed all the Jews, have now grown to 4 millions. There's no mention of the similar number of Jews in the surrounding Arab countries that were forcibly deported, or sometimes just exterminated. To compare the survivors of the Holocaust with the perpetrators of it is a classic case of "blaming the victim". What are suicide bombings against civilians but a classic case of "collective punishment" and "shooting at women, children and old people, with or without a reason." There's still more than just a smidgeon of justice in what they say though.

Article Twenty-Two:
For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.
You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.

Ummmmmm...... Genuine Moonbats. we're talking serious reality dysfunction and derangement here. Any moment now they'll start babbling on about the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion".

Article Twenty-Eight:
The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion.

So the International Zionists control the UN, the drug trade, the alcohol industry, the Freemasons, Lions, Rotarians... and it's all a part of an 800 year plot by the Crusaders.

Article Thirty-One:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement. It takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions.

<sarcasm>Whew! That's a relief!></sarcasm>

It does not antagonize anyone of them except if it is antagonized by it or stands in its way to hamper its moves and waste its efforts.

In other words, do what we say, ad no-one gets hurt.

Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.

As for Hindus or Buddhists - they don't count.

It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region, because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror. Everyone of them is at variance with his fellow-religionists, not to speak about followers of other religionists. Past and present history are full of examples to prove this fact.

We are the Master Race - er - Religion, destined to rule all Untermenschen - er - inferior religions, in a Thousand Year Reich - er - Caliphate.

Article Thirty-Two:
...The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.

There! Told you the good old Protocols would be making an appearance.

Summary:

Islam is the Master Religion, it is the duty of all other religions to peacefully submit to co-existence under the benevolent rule of Islam
Spain, Most of France, Israel, Europe east of Vienna, and India should be under Sharia Law
Until this is achieved, in full and in every particular, there can be no Peace
And any violence (as well as the French and Russian Revolutions, WW I and WW II) is all the fault of the Zionists, and their puppets, the Freemason, Rotarians, Lions Club, and 800-year-old Crusader Conspiracy against Islam

There's always a danger in any article quoting from another that parts may be taken out of context, that the lilly may end up being gilded. So rather than take my word for it, read what the original article actually says - then tell me where I've gone wrong with my interpretation. Because if I've got it right, then this organisation must be destroyed, root and branch, purely as a matter of self-defence. Especially if you're a Freemason, Rotarian or Lion.

Posted By Alan E Brain at June 15, 2003 01:05 AM | TrackBack

Comments

Uhm, I think I'll just dust off my series of Dune by Frank Herbert.

I read this and many more like it all over the web and by god, these people are truly scarey. I often wonder if they were here and like the missionaries that walk around the neighborhood, knocking on peoples doors and asking them if they have any questions on the Bible. If yousaid no then they would drag you out into the street along with your kids and wife and strip you naked and start breaking bones with thier 'bars'. That would be the least of your problems if you called the cops!

Yeah, I sure do miss the 14th century!

The whole thing is incredible beyond belief. I liked that part about using wealth to control the media. Rips at alot on its way down. Not the least of which lets the heads of Hammas own large estates and big pimpin' lifestyles as a matter of 'combating evil Zion'. Where have we heard that before? Must be some kind of recruitment tool?

Posted by: devils chewtoy at June 15, 2003 03:33 AM

I'm sure if they tried they could work Elvis in there somewhere.

Now I know where Baghdad Bob (AKA Comical Ali) was getting his material from!

Scarily these people are indoctrinated with this twaddle from an early age.

It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them.

Funny how the main motivating force behind not liberating the people of Iraq was the UN!

They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests.

What absolute bollox!!! So I suppose they were behind the American revolution as well hmmm I think George Washington would be spinning in his grave over that one. But oh he can't be trusted because he was a Freemason!!!

Anyway I'm biased because I'm a freemason too!

Take care all

Posted by: Big E at June 15, 2003 10:53 AM

Next we'll hear a Hamas mom whose kid was run over by a Cadillac screaming that Zionists were behind the whole nasty plot, founding the car manufacturer expressly for the purpose of having Caddie drivers run over Muslim children.

Posted by: Wolf at June 15, 2003 04:22 PM

Hamas needs to be hunted down like a rabid dog. I say turn the IDF loose and let them get on with the inevitable. Bunch of punk ass freaks. There isn't a solid lump of gray matter among the whole lot.

I woulda joined the Freemasons long ago, only I'm not making any bets on the whole "God" thingy, so I'm left with the reasonably priced masons, I guess.

Posted by: Elvis at June 16, 2003 04:29 AM

Victimology run amok. It's truly unfortunate that the brain deads which make up the upper management of the organization are the best and brightest the area has to offer. Makes you wonder what momma was smokin in her hookah pipe while pregnant with these defenders of freedom and the poor/weak. Too much time spent sitting in the sun doing nothing.

Posted by: Theresa at June 16, 2003 11:03 AM

Random, totally irrelevant comment: the "Free" in "Freemason" refers to the type of stone they work, not to their personal status or the cost of their work.

Free stone is stone that can be cut at any angle without fracturing, unlike, say, quartz, which will cleave if you cut with the crystal. Freemasons work with free stone.

Posted by: TBox at June 17, 2003 09:55 AM

Powell should go to the UN, read this stuff out loud, and demand a vote in the SC declaring Hamas a terrorist entity. Let the French go on record that people who have this written in their charter somehow arent terrorists. If the motion gets vetoed, we can safely go about this peace process with no further nods to the demonstrably corrupt UN. Keep letting them bury themselves.

Posted by: Mark Buehner at June 17, 2003 10:28 AM

MARK! Good Go!

Posted by: Dave Dub� at June 17, 2003 11:20 AM

This tells me that the rest of the world must actively work to eradicate the disease of Islam.

Posted by: gaiel at June 17, 2003 01:50 PM

You have pointed out what Hamas, which is part of the Muslim Brotherhood, believes. I agree it should be destroyed.

But it should also be made clear that this is a distorted interpretation of Islam. Islam believes that both Jews and Christians are "people of the book." Muslims believe in the same prophets that Jews and Christians venerate. They believe in one God and want peace.

I'm not a Muslim but a Jew. But we will never achieve peace in the Middle East by painting all Muslims as enemies of Westerners. Hamas is a terrorist group and should be destroyed. But let us seek understanding with real Muslims.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at June 17, 2003 05:56 PM

The problem, Paul, is that we never hear much from these "real" Muslims, while we hear an earful from the other kind. A violent earful.
If the "real" ones truly want peace, they need to let the world know it. At the moment, the only collective that seems to speak for Islam consists of terrorists, and until that changes and these "real" ones demonstrate that they want peace badly enough to fight the terrorists for it, we can only deduce that they are satisfied with the status quo.

Posted by: Wolf at June 18, 2003 02:13 AM

Paul - I'm curious. I've asked these questions before, but I don't get many answers. Now's your chance ----- Can the textual cites which radical Muslims use to justify their activities be misinterpreted? If these cites (they're called proof texts) cannot be misinterpreted, how do non-radical Muslims interpret them? If these proof texts are so straightforward that it is impossible to deny their meaning, where does that leave the non-radical Muslim?
Religiously speaking, if a 'believer' does not believe ALL, then he is not a believer. He is without 'faith'. It is my understanding that in Islam, he is worthy of death. Talk about peer pressure...
Am I correct on this, or can you point out the errors of my point of view?

Posted by: Dave Dub� at June 18, 2003 11:03 AM

Do you think, Dave, that the Bible doesn't contradict itself? If you are aware that it does, how do you deal with it and still call yourself Christian?

Muslims probably deal with it the same way.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at June 19, 2003 05:31 AM

Gabriel - HI! You been busy?

I'm not talking about contradictions in the Bible, although I would argue OT-NT you will find them. Contradictions in the NT? Don't know. I'd have to deal with that on a case-by-case basis. Which leads back to my question, because if the Rad said 'this is what it says without ambiquity', and there is none, then the Mod is stuck between the rock and hard spot. I'm assuming things here, to make an argument FOR a legitimate reason for abandonment on the part of the Mod. Can the proof text be so innarguably wrong, that one would have to deny faith? As an example, and I may be stretching here, but I'm going to put it very simply:
Kill the Infidel. The only room for ambiquity is the word Infidel. Who is the Infidel? There is no room for ambiquity in the other two words.

Posted by: Dave Dub� at June 19, 2003 08:09 AM

Yes, I am pretty busy, thanks for asking... and most of the threads I see now have hydrogen ballons in there somewhere and I'm not willing to get involved.

The Koran, like the Bible, is not without contradiction and ambiguity. We all know some fundamentalist Christians, I'm sure... they say that the prohibitions against homosexuality expressed in the Old Testament are still relevant today. Many mainstream Christians might argue that if this is so, then why are not the other regulations in the Old Testament still in force? The question is of what you choose to emphasize. Fundamentalists of any religion will ALWAYS say that the Scriptures are clear and explicit on whatever subject they believe, but it isn't true, whether OT, NT or Koran.

The Koran says a lot of things about how Muslims should treat Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians. It doesn't say that Muslims should always kill them, by any means. (Polytheists, such as Hindus, fare less well in the Koran...)

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at June 19, 2003 05:28 PM

Let's clear up our Bible misinformation a little. The New Testament condemns homosexuality too, it just doesn't condemn gays to death like the OT does.

There are contradictions in the New Testament --- 3 of the Gospels are called Synoptic because one of them may have been used as a basis for the other 2, they share a lot of info.

In fact, all 4 of the Gospels cover some of the same stories about Jesus and none of them agree perfectly on things like Jesus cursing a barren tree before he goes into the town or afterwards, did he heal the dude first or did he just launch into a sermon --- that kind of stuff is pretty common. Never does it say however, go kill heathen in one verse of the NT and treat infidels sorta ok in another. It's consistent --- sacrifice yourself for others, rather than sacrifice others.

Posted by: Trouble at June 19, 2003 08:45 PM

You won't find condemnation of homosexuality in the Gospels. But I was just using that as an example, and I'd rather not be drawn into discussion about it...

I suppose, if I were to be so foolish as to try to sum up the Scriptures in a few words, I should say that the Old Testament is concerned with the Law--what is the Law, and what happens to those who do not follow it. The New Testament, I think, says that Good is more important than Law, and there are times when one must disobey the Law in order to obey God. And that is one hell of a big difference.

No matter what sort of Christian you are, you have to decide what parts of the Bible you will follow. As do Muslims.

Now, in the Koran distinctions are made between different kinds of non-Muslims. Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians are not lumped in with Hindus and animists. This is a distinction that I think Dave and Trouble fail to appeciate: infidels, unbelievers and heathen are NOT synonyms to a Muslim. I think you are conflating these terms because you do not know this.

It doesn't say in the Koran that it is okay to kill Christian and Jews and Zoroastrians who are living in peace with Muslims.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at June 20, 2003 09:42 PM

Paul Siegel ....you state

" But it should also be made clear that this is a distorted interpretation of Islam."

.........says who..? you arent reading MEMRI.ORG, actual translations from the most honored Islamic schools and leaders. Have you seen any Islamic society that will demonstrate YOUR interpretation of some non existant moderate Islam.

Islam believes that both Jews and Christians are "people of the book."

.......right, so as people of the Book, Christians and Jews are allowed to remain ALIVE and follow their religion, if they pay the extortion JIZYA tax, and if they accept the superiority of Islam and are properly humbled...see Koran 9:29

Muslims believe in the same prophets that Jews and Christians venerate.

.........mulsims believe that Abraham, Joseph, Moses and Jesus were all Muslim, and that the Jewish Bible has been DELIBERATELY corrupted, to harm muslims.

They believe in one God and want peace.

.........Muslims define peace, as dar ul ISlam, the world where Islam is supreme...and dominant...if Islam is not dominant, dar ul Harb...that is the place of war and chaos...

Your ignorance and naivete is dangerous.

Posted by: ploome at June 21, 2003 05:05 PM

"It doesn't say in the Koran that it is okay to kill Christian and Jews and Zoroastrians who are living in peace with Muslims."

living in peace with Muslims, for people of the Book, is to enter into a dhimmya contract...

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-yeor020303.asp

http://www.cmep.com/by.htm

"It is an historical fact that all the Muslims countries around the southern and eastern Mediterranean were Christian lands before being conquered, during a millenium of jihad under the banner of Islam. Those vanquished populations -- here I am referring only to Christians and Jews - were then "protected," providing they submitted to the Muslim ruler's conditions- Therefore, "protection" in the context of a conquest is the consequence of a war, and this is a very important notion. "

.........a little knowlege and too much misplaced projection are a dangerous combination

........Islamic society is incompatible with secular democracy

read the Arab newspapers.

Posted by: ploome at June 21, 2003 05:13 PM

regarding...

"I suppose, if I were to be so foolish as to try to sum up the Scriptures in a few words, I should say that the Old Testament is concerned with the Law--what is the Law, and what happens to those who do not follow it. The New Testament, I think, says that Good is more important than Law, and there are times when one must disobey the Law in order to obey God. And that is one hell of a big difference."

the Bible and its laws, describes what is good...and what G-d requires...

the Gospels describe the life of Jesus, and that belief in Jesus as the son of G-d, who died for your sins, is the way to salvation. Faith, not good works, is the way to salvation.
......and remember what Jesus said....

Matthew:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Posted by: ploome at June 21, 2003 06:40 PM

I don't deny any of the things you've said about Islam, ptoome, and I would be the last to deny that in Islamic countries Christians and Jews were second-class (what Bat Yeor calls "dhimmitude"). I'm not trying to whitewash Islam.

As for your quotes from the New Testament, I counter with these:

John 8:3 - 11, the woman taken in adultery
Luke 6:1-10, 13:10-17; Matthew 12, Mark 2:13-22, 3:1-6; John 5, 7, 9; violations of the Sabbath

Mark 3:31-35 who are Jesus' family?

In all these cases the letter of the law is broken to save the spirit. Good is higher than Law.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at June 21, 2003 09:35 PM

Is it necessary to mention Jesus' words on the subject of "an eye for an eye"?

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at June 21, 2003 09:37 PM

Is it necessary to mention Jesus' words on the subject of "an eye for an eye"?

..........are you learned in Judiasm, ?

...........can you understand and quote the Jewish writings of 3 thousand years, discussing and explaing the essence of "an eye for an eye"....

and regarding: "As for your quotes from the New Testament, I counter with these:"

there is one Testament, one Bible, and then the Gospels....

counter the words of Jesus as much as you want!

either Jesus said this and he meant this, or he had second thoughts and changed his mind, and you get to choose whatever you want!

Just remember Jesus was a Jew who lived in Israel, a Jewish land.

to bring the word to the gentiles, it became necessary to explain "the son of G-d " in a Greek way......not a Jewish way.....

deification of heros was common

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01650b.htm
Apotheosis
(Gr. apotheosis, from, and theos, deify).

Deification, the exaltation of men to the rank of gods. Closely connected with the universal worship of the dead in the history of all primitive peoples was the consecration as deities of heroes or rulers, as a reward for bravery or other great services.

"In the same manner every city worshipped the one who founded it" (Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City, III, v). Because of the theocratic form of their government, and the religious character which sovereign power assumed in their eyes, the peoples of the great nations of the Orient-Persia, Chaldea, Egypt-paid divine honours to living rulers.

Hero-worship had familiarized the minds of the Greeks with the idea that a man by illustrious deeds can become a god, and contact with the Orient made them ready to accept the grosser form of apotheosis by which divine honours were offered to the living (Boissier, La religion romaine I, 112). Philip of Macedon was honoured as a god at Amphipolis, and his son, Alexander the Great, not only claimed descent from the gods of Egypt, but decreed that he should be worshipped in the cities of Greece

Posted by: ploome at June 22, 2003 09:58 PM

Gabriel Hanna..you may find this interesting

Faith versus Works in Salvation

http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:8QTch1YE3k4J:www.summitview.com/fc/public/docs/faithversusworks.PDF+works+versus+faith+christian&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

............as an aside.....its interesting that in order to make your point, you must denigrate Judiasm.

It is unfortunate that your belief is strengthened in that way.....why dont you denigrate another religion?

Jews have had enough. thankyouverymuch......

I dont mean to hurt your feelings.these discussions often prove to be hurtful...but speaking as a Jew...I am please you find comfort in religion.....

but please, dont assume to tell my people, how to read and understand our history, and our covenant, that we had thousand years before the Greeks and Romans claimed it, and then judge us despised because we would not abandon the Torah.

Posted by: ploome at June 22, 2003 10:13 PM

Hey, ptoome, I am not a Christian. I am in fact an atheist. I am not interested in running down Judaism or anyone else's faith either. I'm just trying to show Dave, and others, that just because SOME parts of the Koran say awful things about Jews and unbelievers, does not belive that every Muslim has to treat non-Muslims badly to live their faith.

OF COURSE I'm countering the words of Jesus with other words of Jesus! That's my whole point: that even in the Gospels themselves are contradictions!

And I can't see anything I've said that denigrates the faith of Jews!

I know very little of Judaism. I was raised a Christian, so I know how Christians look at the Old Testament. I'm primarily writing for them, because I know them best.

I don't know why you'd think I have a problem with Jews. I think it is very unfair for you to say that.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at June 22, 2003 10:50 PM

If you're not too upset with me, ptoome, maybe you can help me with a question I have...

Lately I've been rereading the books of Samuel and Kings and Chronicles (these have always been my favorite part of the Old Testament). I have got as far as Israel's secession from Judah... now my question is, why was David so favored but Saul was not? Comparing their lives, it is hard to see what Saul did that was so much worse, or David did that was so much better, that David should always be forgiven his mistakes--and Solomon forgiven his idolatry on David's account.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at June 22, 2003 11:23 PM

Well, not forgiven exactly--but he didn't suffer the promised consequences, Rehoboam did.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at June 22, 2003 11:24 PM

do you have chapter and verse on that.?

we can look it up, online

Posted by: ploome at June 23, 2003 12:12 AM

When it comes to Holy Books, please re-read the article. I quote

Still, you can find equally crazy things in the Bible, the Torah, the Bhagavid-Ghita etc etc.

There, I think I've offended everybody.

Gabriel said :

I don't know why you'd think I have a problem with Jews. I think it is very unfair for you to say that.

Please cut ploom some slack - some Red Sea Pedestrians are a little touchy - several thousand years of persecution will do that to you, as will articles like the one I wrote above.

Ploom said

but please, dont assume to tell my people, how to read and understand our history, and our covenant, that we had thousand years before the Greeks and Romans claimed it, and then judge us despised because we would not abandon the Torah.

Please cut Gabriel some slack. IMHO - not that that's worth much - you're being a little over-sensitive.

One thing though to both of you : please keep up the discussion re Rehoboam et al. It's always good to listen in to people engaging in rational discourse and debate. And may I apologise in advance for any offense I've caused - blame it on the fact that I'm Australian, and therefore lacking in the finer arts of Diplomacy.

Posted by: Alan E Brain at June 23, 2003 12:53 AM

Heh, Alan, I was just at the DAMOP conference in Boulder. Two Russian groups presented their findings, then Dr Peter Drummond of Queensland--he prefaced his presentation with "As an eccentric Australian, please excuse me for talking about theroretical physics, even though I'm not Russian."

Ploome, we CAN look it up online... it's a lot of reading, the first two books of Samuel!

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/Kjv1Sam.html

I like the English of KJV, and I recognize that there are more accurate translations. This site links to Revised Standard--17th century English can cause confusion.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at June 23, 2003 01:03 AM

Alan E Brain, this is what Gabriel said, that ticked me off

I cut him all the slack he wants...
notwithstanding he claims to be atheist

the problem in the context of the above statement.......he assumes that the NEW Testament is an improvement over the OLD Testament...

I dont recognise a NEW testament....I see the Gospels..thats the Christian Book......the Bible was forbidden to Christians for most of the history of Christianity..

my religion isnt based on denigrating and superceding his religion..

Posted by: ploome at June 23, 2003 01:25 AM

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Rashi+commentary+Prophets+samuel

Gabriel.......look at some of these....

Posted by: ploome at June 23, 2003 01:40 AM

Gabriel, try this

http://bible.ort.org/intro1.asp?lang=1

Posted by: ploome at June 23, 2003 01:42 AM

Ploome, the sentence of mine you quote does not anywhere say or imply that Christianity is superioir to Judaism, or that the New Testament is an improvement on the old. My statement is what it purports to be--a necessarily incomplete summary. When I say "that's a hell of a big difference", I don't understand how you can interpret that to be a value judgement. The New Testament is QUITE different from the Old Testament. That is all that it means. You would have to be LOOKING to be offended, to interpret it the way you did.

If you don't like my use of the names "Old And New Testament", I don't know what to tell you, as they are the commonly accepted names in this country. Those names also are not value judgements, as they imply merely chronological order. If seeing the word "God" in print should happen to offend you, I don't know what to tell you either--I can meet you halfway, and not write the Tetragrammaton where you can see it if you want.

And MY religion cannot possibly be based on denigrating yours, because I DON'T HAVE ONE. As for Christians, I cannot see how Christianity as a whole is based on denigrating Jews--it is not a central tenet of the faith, even if unfortunately some Christians insist on doing so. Christians do a lot of sinful things. It doesn't mean they believe God approves of them.

I am very offended by your statements implying that I have a problem with Jews. Please be careful, and pay close attention to what people are ACTUALLY saying.

That having been said, I thank you for the links, and I will look at them.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at June 23, 2003 02:25 AM

I found this, ploome:

http://www.jpost.com/com/Archive/14.Apr.1997/Columns/Article-1.html

"The lives of King David and King Saul illustrate these two approaches. Both committed sins, and yet their stamp on history is totally different.

"Saul commited the almost understandable sins of impatience and misdirected compassion, and yet the kingship was torn away from him. In contrast, David seemingly commited adultery with Bathsheva and had her husband killed in battle, but is nevertheless regarded as the prototype for the Messiah.

"The difference lies in the reaction of each to the one who chastised him. Saul's sins seem mild in comparison to David's. When the prophet Samuel questioned his lack of patience and resolution, Saul explained: "Because I saw that the people were scattering from me, and that you came not within the days appointed ... (1 Samuel 13:11)." It was their fault, it was your fault - but it wasn't my fault, he seemed to say. Saul's second sin involved misplaced compassion for the king of Amalek and their possessions. Saul had been warned by Samuel to kill King Agag and obliterate all the livestock. Yet he saved the king's life - as well as the healthy cattle. When confronted by Samuel, he first duplicitously declared that he had carried out God's command and then lamely attempted to justify his looting of the livestock by describing it as "the compassion of the nation ... in order to make sacrifice to the Lord your God" (Ibid 15: 13-15).

"Compare these self-serving justifications to David's heart-wrenching repentance. Indeed, David's crime was the more heinous; driven by sexual passion, he misused his power in order to send a rival to almost certain death. When Nathan the prophet heard of David's actions, he related the tale of two farmers, one wealthy and one so poor that he possessed only a solitary ewe. One day an important guest visits the rich farmer, who has the poor farmer's ewe slaughtered for the occassion.

""As the Almighty lives, the man who did that is worthy of execution!" thunders King David.

""You are that man," responds prophet Nathan.

""And David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned before the Lord.' " (II Samuel 12:5-13).

"In all Masoretic versions of the Bible, there follows an empty space; at that moment, interprets the Vilna Gaon, King David wordlessly sobbed in repentance. To err is human; to seek repentance is to be forgiven by the Divine."

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at June 23, 2003 02:47 AM

Gabriel Hanna.regarding your question....

"now my question is, why was David so favored but Saul was not? Comparing their lives, it is hard to see what Saul did that was so much worse, or David did that was so much better, that David should always be forgiven his mistakes--and Solomon forgiven his idolatry on David's account."

...........(Saul's) "self-serving justifications to David's heart-wrenching repentance"

you found some answers.....and now google Amelek...

Posted by: ploome at June 23, 2003 11:15 AM