Eliyyahu

Dragoon, They all also link exactly the same way. http://forum.dune2k.com/index.php?/topic/23622-bush-tax-cuts-10-years/ http://forum.dune2k.com/index.php?/topic/23589-war-in-libya/ http://forum.dune2k.com/index.php?/topic/23604-everywhere-a-nation/ Not quite as distinctive as the #ell thing, but still a lack of effort distinguishing beyond dropping details they want to believed about each character.

Not only does Eras show he has been paying attention one way or another, but Curt has an intimate knowledge of things long before his time. The thing Eras doesn't seem to get is the differences in belief between him and Curt are not credible because of reasonable suspicion, and an unwillingness to flesh out these differences in actual debate. I know many good Christians, and I don't think any of them would exploit their good deeds on a message board as Eras has done here, nor go on the attack as Eras has here, yet they perfectly manage to get their beliefs across without compromising. This is something Hwi did as well. They have not been positive examples of Christianity, and it has little to do with their beliefs. I think Eras lacks the credibility to be believed in the things he says about himself in his main account, let alone possible other accounts. Whatever disagreements I have with Ath, I think he says what he is, says what he believes, and doesn't put up a front.

An obsessed person can use proxies which will make them appear to be coming from different ip addresses. I'm not sure if there is any way to trace them back to the person using them.

Arnoldo, When Dune was published I don't think Saddam had much if any recognition. If I remember correctly he did not become prominent until the late 60s, after he got out of prison, and after Dune was published. He was certainly nothing you would base a character like Shaddam after, and the character Shaddam was long gone by the time Saddam began to look anything like a ruler. I also do not see the support in the quote you posted from Frank for the claims of the person in the book.

Curt, Why should anyone expect you and Eras to espouse the same exact opinions on everything? Your posts come off as coming from the finger tips of the author of Eras' posts, regardless of the information being posted in them. So far I haven't seen much of anything from you outside of the topic of Eras. It seems you have come here for no other reason than to discuss Eras and his time on this board, which is the same thing Eras often came here to do. When your average person chooses to stop posting at a message board, they stop. They don't stop and then a friend of theirs shows up on said message board in their place doing nothing other than talking about them. As Wolf suggested, "Why don't you and Eras have a robust dialogue about politics, religion and philosophy? Let's see these disagreements! You know what, DenisAtreides should join in, too. Everyone's tired of hearing from me, naturally, let's see some new debates. Don't be shy, you three go at it! Really get into these points! In depth!"

I am sorry to jump in here so late in the discussion, and if I am off the current discussion. I just wanted to say that I never once felt that my beliefs and voicing my beliefs caused me to be looked at or spoken to in any particular way here by most of the long time regulars (esp. Dante and Wolf), despite being the only person here who believes what I believe. I was never attacked by these people, no nicknames were created for me, disagreement never crossed into any of the places that other posters, who have attributed it to their beliefs, found themselves in. I have tried logging in a few times over the months (finally remembered it today), but for the most part have been uninterested. And that was not because of intolerance on the part of most of the regulars here, it is because of the degeneration of the quality of discussion at the hands of only a few. It is because there is no point arguing with a know-it-all who does little other than spam the forum with Greek news (in Greek), pseudo-science, and baseless linguistic fabrications, on which there is no basis for discussion. There is a mold here, or a trend, and it is that the easier it is for one to be offensive to others, the easier that person seems to be offended by others. Except when they become offended they become a surrounded victim.

I agree, Wolf. I think if the offensive stuff had been dealt with it would have never come to this. Controversy generates responses, but it is a short term solution. Eras, Surely you do not believe that you have been acting respectably in this thread and recent ones? Would your family and your fellow congregants agree with how you have presented your arguments in these threads? You have repeatedly crossed the line in the guise of "telling it like it is," but "telling it like it is" is often a euphemism for being unapologetically, brutally mean. Nobody believes their own beliefs are wrong, but this is not an excuse to insult personally someone you believe to be wrong. You've already established who you think is wrong and how. Your facts should speak for themselves, and just because people do not agree does not mean you should perpetually repeat them with new insulting twists. You are not being an example to be followed.

Oh, I have enjoyed the actual discussion, which you have contributed a good deal to. I am talking about the thread's derailing and those behind it. Is it just expected to fizzle out? I don't get it. The baiting and trolling taking place in these threads is so transparent. Many of us disagree with each other on many things without becoming hostile.

It is a shame that quality threads have been locked while the people inciting the exchanges which condemned those topics lead newer threads down the same path. I can only speak for myself, despite my desire to participate it really kills the inclination to post thorough and quality responses when the discussion could be locked at any moment as a result of a small handful of posters.

arnoldo, That is not a comparison between the DSS Isaiah and the KJV, it is a comparison of an attempted English translation of the DSS Isaiah and of the KJV (also a translation). And none of it addresses the deception of translating mi- and m

1. You have no clue what the Torah and Halacha (Jewish Law) have to say about abortion. 2. You do not observe the Torah, and you reject Jewish Law as obsolete, so stop appealing to its authority in these discussions. Beside, are you ready to cast the first stone? Shabbat Shalom, Eliyyahu

Anybody who can speak modern Hebrew can read the Hebrew Bible, speak it, and understand it. A little Jewish child does what you for some uninformed reason think to be impossible and a nightmare. Greek is absolutely meaningless to understanding Hebrew, and has nothing to do with Hebrew whatsoever. LOL. Greek played no part in the survival of Judaism. More often than not the Greeks were antagonistic toward Jews and Judaism, some of them trying to wipe out Jewish observance entirely (no circumcision and no Torah and worship of a man as God or a god means no Jews), as did their Roman successors. Hellenism and Judaism do not mix. That's not to say that some Greeks weren't drawn to Judaism, or some Jews weren't drawn to Hellenism, but Hellenism and Judaism are at odds with eachother. Christianity is an attempt to mix them, and has never been internally consistent as a result. It is not worth explaining the Talmud to you, nor do I feel inclined to defend it against poor translations, and even poorer interpretations. You can read the Talmud as well as you can read the Hebrew Bible, which is to say not at all. The bottom line is that the NT will never have the status among real Jews as the Talmud, which is authentic Jewish tradition, has had.

Who are you to doubt the KJAV?

Rabban in Hebrew comes from the same root that rabbi comes from, meaning great, much, numerous, important. Paul claims to have studied under Rabban Gamli

I am not surprised by your hostility to the Talmud considering it is authentically Jewish, whereas you are in the unenviable position of trying to sell us a Greek book with Greek ideas foreign to the Hebrew Bible. So long as we continue to exist, our own traditions about ourselves will always be threatening to those who try re-create our history for us to sell their beliefs. I did not say nobody tried to translate different books of the prophets and writings into Greek, but that the Septuagint (which people mistakenly apply to the entire Greek "OT") was only a translation of the "law", the five books of Moses, into Greek. The only authorized Jewish translation of any part of the Hebrew Bible into Greek before the common era was the Torah. This is recorded in the early sources that relate the story. If you do not believe those sources on that point you do not believe them, but they are also the only basis for accepting that Jews ever translated any of their Hebrew Bible into Greek. Regardless, no matter what books or when, they are still not the original Hebrew. You are still relying on a translation, just like those Christians you look down on for relying on KJVs.

1. I don't require translations, I read and study in the original Hebrew. 2. The real Septuagint, as confirmed by a number of sources (Josephus and Talmud among them), was only a translation of the five books of the Torah. There was never an authorized Jewish translation of Isaiah before the time of Jesus, or any of the other books of the prophets and writings. I also want to point out an amusing thing you have done. A few weeks back you were trying to convince people that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, so to lend a Greek book Hebrew/Jewish credibility. Yet in this thread you are appealing to the authority of a Greek translation (and I use "a" loosely) over the Hebrew original.

I don't mean to offend you, but Revelation has no relevence whatsoever to a Jew. It's fan fiction to us. We will just have to agree to disagree, as I am positive any reference I give to Paul doing exactly that, or speaking about the Torah in a way that would be offensive to any Jew, will be explained as somehow meaning something else.

Hwi, Regarding Isaiah 53, Jews interpret this (it begins in Isaiah 52:13) as referring to the righteous remnant of Israel (which is spoken of throughout the Prophets). It is the custom in the book of Isaiah to call Israel/Jacob/Jeshurun by the word avdi/My servant (a conjugation of the noun 'eved'), and the things described in these verses are things which appear throughout the Hebrew Bible in reference to Israel. Psalm 44 includes many the same themes. Psalms 44:1-26 (KJV) 1. We have heard with our ears, O God, our fathers have told us, what work thou didst in their days, in the times of old. 2. How thou didst drive out the heathen with thy hand, and plantedst them; how thou didst afflict the people, and cast them out. 3. For they got not the land in possession by their own sword, neither did their own arm save them: but thy right hand, and thine arm, and the light of thy countenance, because thou hadst a favour unto them. 4. Thou art my King, O God: command deliverances for Jacob. 5. Through thee will we push down our enemies: through thy name will we tread them under that rise up against us. 6. For I will not trust in my bow, neither shall my sword save me. 7. But thou hast saved us from our enemies, and hast put them to shame that hated us. 8. In God we boast all the day long, and praise thy name for ever. Selah. 9. But thou hast cast off, and put us to shame; and goest not forth with our armies. 10. Thou makest us to turn back from the enemy: and they which hate us spoil for themselves. 11. Thou hast given us like sheep appointed for meat; and hast scattered us among the heathen. 12. Thou sellest thy people for nought, and dost not increase thy wealth by their price. 13. Thou makest us a reproach to our neighbours, a scorn and a derision to them that are round about us. 14. Thou makest us a byword among the heathen, a shaking of the head among the people. 15. My confusion is continually before me, and the shame of my face hath covered me, 16. For the voice of him that reproacheth and blasphemeth; by reason of the enemy and avenger. 17. All this is come upon us; yet have we not forgotten thee, neither have we dealt falsely in thy covenant. 18. Our heart is not turned back, neither have our steps declined from thy way; 19. Though thou hast sore broken us in the place of dragons, and covered us with the shadow of death. 20. If we have forgotten the name of our God, or stretched out our hands to a strange god; 21. Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart. 22. Yea, for thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter. 23. Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever. 24. Wherefore hidest thou thy face, and forgettest our affliction and our oppression? 25. For our soul is bowed down to the dust: our belly cleaveth unto the earth. 26. Arise for our help, and redeem us for thy mercies' sake. I have run across only a handful of Christian translations which translate Isaiah 53 accurately according to the Hebrew, and which acknowledge that the plain meaning of the text refers to the righteous of Israel. I can point you to a much more in depth article which examines the translations against the original Hebrew (which I do not have the time to do right now). What I will do is point out a few of these translation problems. Since you provided your own translation I will use that.

Caid, My comments about Jewish tradition and Jewish law in Israel were not to imply some unique Jewish reason for stopping the flotilla, but to try to give you a better idea of how Israel is a Jewish state, which you asked about. The biggest issues which take into account halacha tend to deal with internal issues within the country. Off the top of my head, I am not sure if any significant areas of Israeli foreign policy are guided or have been impacted by halacha. There is nothing Hamas doesn't benefit from. They are in a win/win situation, because that is what the big-talk no-walk international community has given them. Look at what the Palestinians have been offered and rejected over the last 60 years. But why buy cow if you can get the milk for free?

LOL, no apologies necessary my friend, I was just making note of that since you brought it up.

Wolf, I pointed those two verses out myself in a previous post, and how they pose no problem whatsoever for religious Jews.

Never to be rebuilt if you believe Ezekiel to be a false prophet. Otherwise he vividly describes a Third Temple, and resumption of offerings on the Temple Mount. And btw, a religious Jew is inherently a Zionist in the true sense of the word. You fling the word around the same way your bible flings pharisee around, with poison (and ignorance), when you really have no clue what one is. You do not know anything about the Hebrew language, that much is for certain. I think I started to glean the picture with the "Jews worship Satan" links you posted, and is becoming a little bit clearer with the increasingly conspiratorial tone. Hey man, to each his own. I've learned that you can't argue with a gimmick, you lose either way, and so I will make that my last attempt at putting forth a rational and detailed argument in your direction.

There is no point in taking anything KJA and BH as a continuation of Frank's work, because it is clear from their own interviews that they made up the entire thing. If they had really read Frank's books they would have realized that Marty and Daniel (whom all of those ridiculous pre-Dune books were written to "set up" being Omnius and Erasmus) are explicitly revealed as Face Dancers.

Israel still has laws from the Ottoman and British periods, and they do not always go according to halacha, but it still plays a large role. For instance, while Israel does not enforce all Jewish law regarding Shabbat, public buses and trains are pretty much non-existent in most of the country on Shabbat, and there are laws which prevent an employer from forcing someone to violate Shabbat by working on that day. Hospitals in Israel are full of machines which are designed for Shabbat use without violation. When I made the point about the Torah and halacha still having an impact in modern Israel, it was to point out that Israel is not just a "Jewish state" (as you put it) in name, or in blood (which neither determines that someone is, nor prevents someone from being a Jew). What does it matter what Turkey thinks? Does Turkey ask Israel how to run Turkey? Regarding the flotilla, I have already long ago in this thread addressed Israel's justification for intercepting the flotilla, and doing it in international waters. If you don't accept it, ok, but it was explained. Turkey sent (or "backed" sending) ships to break through Israel's blockade of Gaza (the "country" in question), and when a few dozen people on one ship resisted rather than divert their aid (iirc, the boat didn't even end up having any useable aid) to Ashdod, there were deaths (a number of which, it has turned out, whose families said they were looking for martyrdom) and injuries. Reports say that most of the people in the flotilla were on that one boat, and most of those people were rounded up into certain parts of the ship before the incident, while a group of a few dozen men awaited to attack the coming Israelis on the top deck. If the organizers (I have no doubt many individuals really thought they were doing a good thing and were bringing Gazans things they don't have) were worried about being humanitarians they would bring their aid to the border crossings, but they were not, and they are not. They are trying to create pressure on Israel to lift the blockade, which would allow Hamas to receive all of the things it requires to make war with Israel. So long as Hamas controls Gaza they will always have dibs on what comes through. So while everyone is making jokes about how Israel is evilly depriving Gazans of chocolate, the fact is that the Gazans are not the ones who will benefit from a lifting of the blockade. They will continue to be oppressed by Hamas and other "resistance" groups until the world actually begins caring about Palestinians, and not just using them as a tool to delegitimize and weaken Israel.

athanasios, Genesis 3:14-15 (KJV) 14. And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Do you think all snakes are Satan, or are descent from Satan? If Satan pulled this stunt all the in the beginning, why is Ha-Satan still portrayed as still being in God's service in the midst of His angels in Job and Zechariah? Also, your interpretation requires that snakes are cursed are a result of Satan, an angel, disguising himself as, or possessing (?) a snake to tempt the human. But the story portrays a snake being punished, and all its descendants, not rebellious angels. However one interprets the historicity of the story of Adam and Eve, there are certain points, certain truths that we Jews take out of it. For instance, the conversation that takes place between God and Adam is significant to us. God asks questions He surely already knows answers to. He initiates a dialogue with Adam. But Adam shifts the blame to God in the guise of blaming the woman "You gave me". God then addresses the woman, and she blames the serpent. Isn't it apparent that God is looking for honesty, and for personal responsibility here? Does He come out swinging? Does He say, "Sorry y'all, I'm afraid I've gotta kill yous now"? Even when He is described as laying down curses, He does not tell the woman "I curse you," and when He speaks of making things more difficult for Adam He curses the ground, not man. Following this incident God is portrayed as caring for them. God is not described as suddenly cutting Himself off from them. Eve credits God with the birth of Cain. And later, when Cain is upset at the response to his offering, this is what God tells him. Genesis 4:7 (KJV) 7. If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. This is after the supposed "fall of man." God tells Cain that he can rule over sin, not that he is a slave to it, or that he is inherently a sinner. And again, as with Adam and Eve, God asks questions to Cain that He surely knew the answers to. He initiates a dialogue with the transgressor. But Cain was not instantly struck down by the wrath of God. He had children and descendants, he built a city, he was given a chance to live. Adam, Eve, and Cain are often portrayed as villains, but all three are treated with mercy after their transgressions. This is all too often overlooked. We may yearn for the ideals of a Gan