From: RFaussette@aol.com
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 07:55:28 EDT
In a message dated 7/29/03 6:52:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gmurphy@raex.com
writes:
> But it wasn't central to MY argument which you continue to avoid - not
> surprisingly, since it blows your putative theological case against
> homosexuality
> out of the water.
>
> I do not concede your point at all and in fact the statement that "there
> has
> been no later development of Judaism" is manifestly absurd. (E.g., no
> animal sacrifices
> have been offered in Jerusalem for quite awhile.) But that is peripheral to
> my original
> argument which - at least for Christians - can be stated quite well as
> follows:
>
> "There is a fairly clear way of making the necessary distinction between
> biology
> & theology. The directions in the OT for the extermination of non-Israelite
> populations
> represent one way of guarding against "contamination" of a group's gene pool
> & thus
> improving the chances for reproductive success & survival for that group.
> Yet such
> tactics are profoundly inconsistent with Christian theology & ethics.
>
I hope everyone's reading the same post I'm reading - the so called later
development of Judaism was the only support your argument had and now to say the
development was NOT sacrificing animals is a stretch isn't it? That's not a
development. The Jews didn't develop NOT sacrificing animals. They were stopped
in 70 AD when the Temple was destroyed.
Now let's try to absorb the significance of what you said and why I wanted to
know what the later development was that supported your argument, the later
development thhat turned out not to be a development at all. You wrote:
"The directions in the OT for the extermination of non-Israelite populations
represent one way of guarding against "contamination" of a group's gene pool &
thus
improving the chances for reproductive success & survival for that group. Yet
such tactics are profoundly inconsistent with Christian theology & ethics."
Yes, of course they are profoundly inconsistent with Christian theology &
ethics! But they continue. And that is why I wanted you to identify the
development you were talking about. The extermination of non-Israelite populations that
represents one way of guarding against "contamination" of a group's gene pool
& thus improving the chances for reproductive success & survival continues
and has even accelerated. You can see it if you follow the Palestinian plight
in Israel. You can't see it at work around the world because you haven't made
the connection yet. Judaism has not changed. They are still obeying the Old
Covenant and are smashing the sacred pillars of all peoples who host them. Maybe
now you can understand why a jewish millionaire like Ed Saatchi can finance a
synagogue in London and then finance the Virgin Mary in dung in the Brooklyn
Museum. Am I getting through to you. You are so close yet so far. The
legislation to take all religion out of America is coming from them as they
religiously carry out the demands of the Old Covenant.
I didn't say these practices were consistent with Christian theology and
ethics. I never said it, so you can stop saying it as if I did. There is no
sacrificial system in Christianity. But there is still a sacrificial system in
Judaism with which we must contend and the implications of that fact are profound.
Now if you made the connection with science, you kow that both Judaism and
Christianity are reproductive strategies with the central tenet to be fruitful
and multiply. They can't both be fruitful and multiply. On an ecological level
both religions are in opposition to one another.
Blow my argument out of the water?
rich faussette
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 07:55:53 EDT