Posted on 10/25/2002 12:14:19 AM PDT by jennyp
No. I am holding solidity with the jews, the witches, and the anabaptists, whom it would be best not to subject to another 1600 years of repression followed by mass murder because too many christians are too willfully, self-righteously smug to think about or address the principal targeting of the last 1600 years of repression, sitting in the bible like a poison-gas bomb waiting to be tripped by another Torquemada.
When did that happen? My argument has nothing to do with Europeans, anti-semitism, the holocaust, or even the Bible for that matter. You give reading-between-the-lines a whole new meaning.
Once again, I simply dispute your assertion that Pharisee=Jew. (So do you, by way of your contradictory statement that Pharisees were a Jewish tribe, or merely types of Jews).
I think you're confusing me with someone else you were arguing with.
Is this then your final arguement to support the assertion that 'Parisee=Jew' and simultaneously 'Pharisee=type of Jew'?
Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants (Matthew 18:23)
"In the parable introduced by the above verse, both servants bear the same relation to the king as each other. They are called "fellow servants" (28+29).
"The indulgence shown by the king to the destitute and desperate first servant, had ethical implications for him. He should have incorporated forgiveness into his lifestyle. There is an important organic relationship between the King, the servant, and his fellowservant. When the first servant, having had his entire debt canceled, threw his fellow servant in prison, his action bore jarringly on his relation to the fellow, as well as against his own relation to the king who had been so compassionate."
"The first servant's debt was enormous compared to that of the second servant. I am always the first servant. It is always better for me to think of my own debt to God, as having been greater than anyone else's. By keeping this perspective, mercy will loom large to me, and I will be more likely to forgive my fellow servants."
"In... humility---consider others better than yourselves" (Philippians 2:3).
Why not answer "answers to Him, and to his human peers?"
The confusion of a mundane justice with divine justice is a very dangerous civilizational mistake. The confusion is likely to substitute one for the other, or on the other hand, to set them in opposition to each other. The Christian teaching endorses neither of these extremes, although we don't need to be so intelligent to recognize the abuse of extremes throughout history. A certain poster here is exceptionally perspicacious in the deparment of abuse, hounding those who adopt a mundane law and tout it as divine justice--and I hope it has not thoroughly blinded him to other aspects in the understanding of law. I would hound them too, if they were still alive. For those who are still alive, the first order of business is to distinguish kinds of law. If we don't make that distinction, we will run the same mistake as the Enlightenment optimists.
The argument that our Constitution is grounded on this distinction between mundane and divine surfaces in the writings of Leo Strauss, especially in his critique of Carl Schmidt, a catholic who defended the inordinate presumption of mundane law.
LOL! I suppose I should wish him a Happy Thanksgiving for his contribution!
Are you kidding? A contradiction is nonsense. It is useful in code or arguement or whatever because it tells you that something wrong. A contradiction cannot make sense. That's why it is called contradiction.
Your statements are contradictory without appealing to any outside source by the way I outlined it. You are using the term in contradictory ways. Once again, 'A' cannot be both equivalent to 'B' and not equivalent to 'B'. "Pharisees" cannot be both equivelent to Jews and to just some subset, or tribe, of Jews (i.e. NOT equivalent to Jews).
You could save me a lot of typing by reading my posts the first time round.
Words of civility.
It doesn't mean I have to enjoy beating my head against a wall, however.
While I imagine there must be somebody out there who "tinks" this joke is funny, all I'm thinking is: There must have been something seriously wrong with your DI. To propose such a thing in active, on-the-line warfare. You don't get survivors -- let alone heroes -- by "emasculating" them immediately before putting them in harm's way.
Jokes are funny -- but only in proper context.
If America has ever done this before, I hope we've figured out by now that we need to STOP doing that....
Still, I think we can (and ought) to list this "joke" on our "Descartes Joke List du Jour"....
Thanks for writing, dude.
I'll say this one more time. Pharasee is a synonym for orthodox jew, and has been since the bible was written. I brought up a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia to demonstrate that to you. It was the intention of the writers of the gospels to paint the orthodox jews in a bad light in order to win converts from orthodox jewery to the catholic church. The catholic church officially admits to this. Defaming Pharasees served that purpose admirably, just as it served admirably to defame all jews throughout christendom for 1600 years. If I defame a non-evangelical, ethnic tribe of jews who have laws against intermarriage, and all of their children for all time, who am I condemning? All of the jews--you do the math.
Your insistence that the separation of the Pharasees from the rest of the jews matter of any gravity reminds me of the great battle between the hoomoosians and the hoomoeosians, over the question of whether Jesus was of the "substance", or of the "essence" of God. 23 priests were slaughtered in the debates over this question, which is why we now live with the doctrine of consubstantiation: jesus is of the substance of god. Which is why an orthodox jew regards being "saved" by accepting christ as a violation of the 1st commandment, and when you take the communion biscuit, of the 2nd commandment.
Sitting down to pee is pretty universal in basic training in the later half of the 2th century. It is a barricks rule, and it exists because we have to clean the latrine spotlessly, continuously. There is usually also a one-showerhead rule. It does not apply to battlefield conditions, and if I were to pick through the things that made me feel emasculated in basic training, this would be a far cry from heading the list.
20th century, sorry.
I suppose my take on this would best be described by a more libertarian (aaaagh! wash my mouth out with soap!) philosopy, viz., if one's actions don't adversely and maliciously affect others, then others have no right to sit in judgment of them. To employ a somewhat facetious example, if I'm not standing upwind of someone or ashing in his mocha latte, why can't I enjoy a cigarette or two? (I'm duking it out on one of the puff threads right now, can't ya tell... ;) I appreciate your comments about mundane versus divine... I suppose I have less regard for the former...
You have a surface familiarity with this issue you are entirely too sure of. There are many, many applications in the real world that are not wrong or mistaken, that nonetheless, cannot resolve because, stated as formal math instead of programs (which is doable if their grammars are chomsky-normal), they are contradictions, in that an attempt to return their truth values to the operating program result in endless loop hangups. A contradiction does not return a consistent truth value--that is why it is a contradiction. Whether it makes sense or not depends on what you are doing, and what your domain of discourse is. Contradictions occur when a domain of discourse which can be rendered as a venn diagram whose sets contain all the elements under discussion contains elements whose truth value is different for different, supposedly valid operators in the domain. Nothing forces you to be confined to said domain. If you are outside the domain, contradictions can have useful meaning, like "this domain is invalid" for example.
I have no trouble reading your irrelevant point over and over.
Your attempt at justifying contradictions is like performing neurosurgery to remove a hangnail--it's both overly complex, and misapplied.
We are talking about simple truth values. We need no more than a simple predicate calculus. A contradiction always has a truth value of false. It occurs with a conjunction of statements that cannot both be true. It is a fundamental of all rational logic. "A and not A" is false in all rational set theory, grammars, automatons--even Chomsky's (despite his political absurdities he apparently does not deny the law of noncontradiction, at least in his linguistic theories). That you have construed ways in which you think a contradiction is at times NOT false shows your misapplication of the fundamentals upon which the theories you think you understand are founded.
Besides. I don't fall for diversions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.