Obama wants Israel to go back to 1967 borders

President Obama’s peace plan for the Middle East calls for Israel to go back to its borders before the 1967 war.  In that war, the Arab states attacked Israel from all sides but were route.  Israel seized the rest of Jerusalem, the West Bank, and other regions–originally all the way to the border with Egypt, though much of that land has been given back.  But Israel has retained a buffer for its own security.

So are the Arab states less hostile to Israel now than they were in 1967?

 

Netanyahu, Obama and 1967 borders: Reactions to the speech – BlogPost – The Washington Post.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Porcell

    The Arab states and people of the streets have consistently made it clear that Israel should be abolished and its evil people driven into the sea.

    As to Barrack Hussein Obama, he has made it clear , despite rhetorical flourishes, that he sides with the Palestinians and other Arabs on the subject of Israel.

  • Porcell

    The Arab states and people of the streets have consistently made it clear that Israel should be abolished and its evil people driven into the sea.

    As to Barrack Hussein Obama, he has made it clear , despite rhetorical flourishes, that he sides with the Palestinians and other Arabs on the subject of Israel.

  • Jonathan

    Who recommended this one to the president? And why now?! Kiss the Florida vote goodbye.

  • Jonathan

    Who recommended this one to the president? And why now?! Kiss the Florida vote goodbye.

  • Econ Jeff

    Didn’t Israel attack first, albeit preemptively, in 1967?

  • Econ Jeff

    Didn’t Israel attack first, albeit preemptively, in 1967?

  • Steve Billingsley

    Econ Jeff,

    No….

  • Steve Billingsley

    Econ Jeff,

    No….

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Yes, the Six-Day War of 1967 was a decisive, preemptive strike by Israel.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Yes, the Six-Day War of 1967 was a decisive, preemptive strike by Israel.

  • SKPeterson

    Here’s the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War.

    There was also the Yom Kippur War, which is why Israel is reluctant to return to the 1967 borders.

  • SKPeterson

    Here’s the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War.

    There was also the Yom Kippur War, which is why Israel is reluctant to return to the 1967 borders.

  • Porcell

    In 1967 with Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian troops massed on its borders and ample intelligence that they were about to be attacked, Israel for good reason launched a devastating preemptive attack that thoroughly defeated its enemies in six days.

    Anyone who claims that the Arabs were not then and are not now deadly enemies of Israel is rather mistaken.

  • Porcell

    In 1967 with Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian troops massed on its borders and ample intelligence that they were about to be attacked, Israel for good reason launched a devastating preemptive attack that thoroughly defeated its enemies in six days.

    Anyone who claims that the Arabs were not then and are not now deadly enemies of Israel is rather mistaken.

  • G

    People talk a lot about who started the war and whether its allowable etc. War is always an evil, so why justify it? The better question now is: who is our friend, and who is our enemy? Do we wish to punish allies and reward opponents? It seems odd.

  • G

    People talk a lot about who started the war and whether its allowable etc. War is always an evil, so why justify it? The better question now is: who is our friend, and who is our enemy? Do we wish to punish allies and reward opponents? It seems odd.

  • Kirk

    popcorn w/ extra butter

  • Kirk

    popcorn w/ extra butter

  • Joe

    G – “War is always an evil, so why justify it?” Well actually no, its not always evil. If it were that would make God evil. It was God who gave gov’t the sword. Romans 13:1-7. There must be some good use for it or God is evil. Certainly, we can get it wrong and abuse the sword but to say it is always evil is wrong.

  • Joe

    G – “War is always an evil, so why justify it?” Well actually no, its not always evil. If it were that would make God evil. It was God who gave gov’t the sword. Romans 13:1-7. There must be some good use for it or God is evil. Certainly, we can get it wrong and abuse the sword but to say it is always evil is wrong.

  • Joe

    The President has tried to walk this statement back by pointing out that he had advocated land swaps in the past to take the current population dispersals in to account. We were apparently supposed to understand that by “1967 boarders” he meant to say, new boarders that will be agreed upon by the two states.

  • Joe

    The President has tried to walk this statement back by pointing out that he had advocated land swaps in the past to take the current population dispersals in to account. We were apparently supposed to understand that by “1967 boarders” he meant to say, new boarders that will be agreed upon by the two states.

  • kerner

    I fault Obama not so much for seeking a 2 state solution as for the ham-handed way he handled this. I don’t think he has given this subject much serious thought, and it shows. Yet one more rhetorical, beautifully crafted, speech that means nothing and pleased nobody.

    I’ve never been a big fan of the state of Israel. I think the USA puts a whole lot more into our relationship with the state of Israel than we get out of it. And I do not agree that Israel has a moral or geopolitical imperitive to exist that is any greated than, say, Tibet or Kurdistan or an independent Tamil nation.

    One of the problems with the status quo is that the territory controled by Israel has about 6 M Jewish inhabitants and about 5.5 M Arab inhabitants. Of the Arabs, only about 1.2 M are considered citizens to the extent that they can vote in elections to the Knesset.

    But if the Israelis allowed all those Arabs to vote, Israel would lose its character as a Jewish state. Which is to say that the only way that Israel can maintain the status quo is to control about 35% of its current population by tyranny. And this percent may grow if the Arab population continues to grow relative to the Jewish population.

    I know all the arguments for not letting the Arabs have greater control over a national government that many of them would like to abolish. But that doesn’t change the fact that they are being controlled by tyranny.

    This is a very difficult problem and facile speeches won’t produce a policy that will solve it.

  • kerner

    I fault Obama not so much for seeking a 2 state solution as for the ham-handed way he handled this. I don’t think he has given this subject much serious thought, and it shows. Yet one more rhetorical, beautifully crafted, speech that means nothing and pleased nobody.

    I’ve never been a big fan of the state of Israel. I think the USA puts a whole lot more into our relationship with the state of Israel than we get out of it. And I do not agree that Israel has a moral or geopolitical imperitive to exist that is any greated than, say, Tibet or Kurdistan or an independent Tamil nation.

    One of the problems with the status quo is that the territory controled by Israel has about 6 M Jewish inhabitants and about 5.5 M Arab inhabitants. Of the Arabs, only about 1.2 M are considered citizens to the extent that they can vote in elections to the Knesset.

    But if the Israelis allowed all those Arabs to vote, Israel would lose its character as a Jewish state. Which is to say that the only way that Israel can maintain the status quo is to control about 35% of its current population by tyranny. And this percent may grow if the Arab population continues to grow relative to the Jewish population.

    I know all the arguments for not letting the Arabs have greater control over a national government that many of them would like to abolish. But that doesn’t change the fact that they are being controlled by tyranny.

    This is a very difficult problem and facile speeches won’t produce a policy that will solve it.

  • Pingback: "Key elements of President Barack Obama’s approach to the Middle East, as outlined in his speech Thursday:" and related posts » The One World Focus

  • Pingback: "Key elements of President Barack Obama’s approach to the Middle East, as outlined in his speech Thursday:" and related posts » The One World Focus

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The Arab states and people of the streets have consistently made it clear that Israel should be abolished and its evil people driven into the sea.”

    Hey didn’t they say the same about us, “the Great Satan”?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The Arab states and people of the streets have consistently made it clear that Israel should be abolished and its evil people driven into the sea.”

    Hey didn’t they say the same about us, “the Great Satan”?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “But that doesn’t change the fact that they are being controlled by tyranny.”

    Giving them the vote wouldn’t change that. It would just mean that the Jews would also be living under tyranny. Check out every other Arab state.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “But that doesn’t change the fact that they are being controlled by tyranny.”

    Giving them the vote wouldn’t change that. It would just mean that the Jews would also be living under tyranny. Check out every other Arab state.

  • steve

    This is a prime example of using speech to appease without saying a whole lot of anything. By throwing in the bit about 1967 borders, he tried to appease the pro-Palestinian crowd and by tossing in the bit about mutually agreed land-swaps, he’s somewhat trying to soften the blow to the Israelis but then, essentially, not saying much different than the Bush administration policies. To top it off, the bit about a contiguous state makes to whole proposal so untenable as to amount to nothing. There’s no way the Gazans are going to give up Gaza and there’s no way the West Bank Palestinians are going to give up the West Bank and there’s no way the Israelis are going to allow a swath of Palestinian territory to split the country in half.

  • steve

    This is a prime example of using speech to appease without saying a whole lot of anything. By throwing in the bit about 1967 borders, he tried to appease the pro-Palestinian crowd and by tossing in the bit about mutually agreed land-swaps, he’s somewhat trying to soften the blow to the Israelis but then, essentially, not saying much different than the Bush administration policies. To top it off, the bit about a contiguous state makes to whole proposal so untenable as to amount to nothing. There’s no way the Gazans are going to give up Gaza and there’s no way the West Bank Palestinians are going to give up the West Bank and there’s no way the Israelis are going to allow a swath of Palestinian territory to split the country in half.

  • kerner

    sg:

    So…your saying that Israel is good and we should support it indsefinitely because the Arabs are worse?

  • kerner

    sg:

    So…your saying that Israel is good and we should support it indsefinitely because the Arabs are worse?

  • steve

    kerner, #12

    The Lebanese, Jordanians, and Syrians are all concerned about the same thing. Why do you think the refugee camps still exist? The Lebanese, for example, say why should we allow our voting population to be skewed by half a million towards what would undoubtedly be a pro-Palestinian, probably pro-Hamas style government? They don’t, however, allow for the same logic to be used by Israel.

    On the other hand, there is about a 20,000 square mile patch of sparsely populated land between Israel and Egypt that’s just sitting there and about 30,000 square miles of prime real estate in the al Jouf province of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi’s have such a heart for the Palestinians that they would certainly give up some unused land, wouldn’t they?

    No, it’s all just lip service.

  • steve

    kerner, #12

    The Lebanese, Jordanians, and Syrians are all concerned about the same thing. Why do you think the refugee camps still exist? The Lebanese, for example, say why should we allow our voting population to be skewed by half a million towards what would undoubtedly be a pro-Palestinian, probably pro-Hamas style government? They don’t, however, allow for the same logic to be used by Israel.

    On the other hand, there is about a 20,000 square mile patch of sparsely populated land between Israel and Egypt that’s just sitting there and about 30,000 square miles of prime real estate in the al Jouf province of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi’s have such a heart for the Palestinians that they would certainly give up some unused land, wouldn’t they?

    No, it’s all just lip service.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    kerner @ 16, Nah, just agreeing with you and carrying it further.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    kerner @ 16, Nah, just agreeing with you and carrying it further.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    I think obama is shrewd enough to know that the state of israel and its entitlements from uncle sam are a political 3rd rail much as are ss and medicare.

    He was foolish to raise the issue the way he did close to the 2012 election. There was absolutely nothing to gain for him politically. Usually ideas that cut the baby in two please no one. Often that is proof of their fairness…

    This is an intractable problem that was created by those who refused to protect the jews during wwII to their immense shame. so the solution to easing guilty conscience was to create israel and take land away from those who had lived on that land for generations. and the wounds were created not all that long ago…..

    The truly best solution would be to remove the massive financial aid from both israel and egypt. Israel is sort of like the 51st state for the usa financially. we really are borrowing from china to keep israel alive. it makes no sense at all. add in the aid to egypt that is also soley to keep peace with israel and….

    But that will never ever happen.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    I think obama is shrewd enough to know that the state of israel and its entitlements from uncle sam are a political 3rd rail much as are ss and medicare.

    He was foolish to raise the issue the way he did close to the 2012 election. There was absolutely nothing to gain for him politically. Usually ideas that cut the baby in two please no one. Often that is proof of their fairness…

    This is an intractable problem that was created by those who refused to protect the jews during wwII to their immense shame. so the solution to easing guilty conscience was to create israel and take land away from those who had lived on that land for generations. and the wounds were created not all that long ago…..

    The truly best solution would be to remove the massive financial aid from both israel and egypt. Israel is sort of like the 51st state for the usa financially. we really are borrowing from china to keep israel alive. it makes no sense at all. add in the aid to egypt that is also soley to keep peace with israel and….

    But that will never ever happen.

  • Jonathan

    Porcell @1
    Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

  • Jonathan

    Porcell @1
    Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    fws @ 19

    Yup.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    fws @ 19

    Yup.

  • kerner

    fws and sg:

    Yup indeed.

  • kerner

    fws and sg:

    Yup indeed.

  • Porcell

    Jonathan, at twenty, further proof of your remanrkable crudity.

  • Porcell

    Jonathan, at twenty, further proof of your remanrkable crudity.

  • Porcell

    Pardon the spelling of remarkable.

  • Porcell

    Pardon the spelling of remarkable.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    I’m rather pleased that a POTUS is, for once, not blindly supporting Israel. This, however, is really stupid.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    I’m rather pleased that a POTUS is, for once, not blindly supporting Israel. This, however, is really stupid.

  • Jonathan

    A rather interesting take on Obama’s position, from an American Jewish perspective.

    http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/67979/the-acrobat/

  • Jonathan

    A rather interesting take on Obama’s position, from an American Jewish perspective.

    http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/67979/the-acrobat/

  • Stephen

    Jonathan @ 20

    It’s nothing new. I’ve seen this before. Porcell is used to employing slurs of that sort. He’s got it in for Germans too. That’s Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot.

    Porcell @ 23, you are a “remarkable” prig and hypocrite who uses racial slurs and thinks they mean something other than to display how vulgar you yourself behave toward your neighbor. What sort of conclusions shall we draw from your name Senor Leavitt?

  • Stephen

    Jonathan @ 20

    It’s nothing new. I’ve seen this before. Porcell is used to employing slurs of that sort. He’s got it in for Germans too. That’s Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot.

    Porcell @ 23, you are a “remarkable” prig and hypocrite who uses racial slurs and thinks they mean something other than to display how vulgar you yourself behave toward your neighbor. What sort of conclusions shall we draw from your name Senor Leavitt?

  • Porcell

    For an incisive analysis today of Obama’s “peace” proposal see BretStephen’s article today in the WSJ, An Anti-Israel President
    The president’s peace proposal is a formula for war,
    including:

    That’s not all. Mr. Obama got some applause Sunday by calling for a “non-militarized” Palestinian state. But how does that square with his comment, presumably applicable to a future Palestine, that “every state has a right to self-defense”? Mr. Obama was also cheered for his references to Israel as a “Jewish state.” But why then obfuscate on the question of Palestinian refugees, whose political purpose over 63 years has been to destroy Israel as a Jewish state?

    And then there was that line that “we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and their rhetoric.” Applause! But can Mr. Obama offer a single example of having done that as president, except perhaps at the level of a State Department press release?

  • Porcell

    For an incisive analysis today of Obama’s “peace” proposal see BretStephen’s article today in the WSJ, An Anti-Israel President
    The president’s peace proposal is a formula for war,
    including:

    That’s not all. Mr. Obama got some applause Sunday by calling for a “non-militarized” Palestinian state. But how does that square with his comment, presumably applicable to a future Palestine, that “every state has a right to self-defense”? Mr. Obama was also cheered for his references to Israel as a “Jewish state.” But why then obfuscate on the question of Palestinian refugees, whose political purpose over 63 years has been to destroy Israel as a Jewish state?

    And then there was that line that “we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and their rhetoric.” Applause! But can Mr. Obama offer a single example of having done that as president, except perhaps at the level of a State Department press release?

  • Louis

    So here’s a question for those here that fume against Obama’s speech: What would be an acceptable solution for the Peace Process in the Middle East. Give us some suggestions?

  • Louis

    So here’s a question for those here that fume against Obama’s speech: What would be an acceptable solution for the Peace Process in the Middle East. Give us some suggestions?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Louis (@29), what if we tried what we’ve been doing … only moreso?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Louis (@29), what if we tried what we’ve been doing … only moreso?

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    @29,

    Give the land to the Swiss.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    @29,

    Give the land to the Swiss.

  • Porcell

    Louis, The peace process in the Middle East will truly begin when the Arabs and Iranians recognize the state of Israel as valid and the Jewish people as worthy human beings. Israel has amply shown that it is willing to negotiate in good faith; Netanyahu made that clear today in speech to a joint session of our Congress.

    George Gilder in an NRO interview
    as follows gets to the real reason why Israel is hated by the people in the Middle East as well as by many in the West:

    Israel epitomizes the excellence and accomplishment of Jewish culture. It is hated by anti-Semites not because of any flaws or legal infractions but because of its unique virtues, which show up and shame the forces of mediocrity everywhere.

  • Porcell

    Louis, The peace process in the Middle East will truly begin when the Arabs and Iranians recognize the state of Israel as valid and the Jewish people as worthy human beings. Israel has amply shown that it is willing to negotiate in good faith; Netanyahu made that clear today in speech to a joint session of our Congress.

    George Gilder in an NRO interview
    as follows gets to the real reason why Israel is hated by the people in the Middle East as well as by many in the West:

    Israel epitomizes the excellence and accomplishment of Jewish culture. It is hated by anti-Semites not because of any flaws or legal infractions but because of its unique virtues, which show up and shame the forces of mediocrity everywhere.

  • Louis

    Porcell, I’m not so much thinking about attitudes, as to what needs to happen on the ground – borders, population movements, rights, governments, sovereignty …. that kind of thing. Because even if everybody comes around singing Kumbaya, something still needs to be done…

  • Louis

    Porcell, I’m not so much thinking about attitudes, as to what needs to happen on the ground – borders, population movements, rights, governments, sovereignty …. that kind of thing. Because even if everybody comes around singing Kumbaya, something still needs to be done…

  • Jonathan

    Porcell @32, I repeat @20.

  • Jonathan

    Porcell @32, I repeat @20.

  • Louis

    BTW, insofar as Veith’s question, I do think that the Arab nations are less hostile to Israel now than in 1967. Many still pay lip service to the hatred and destruction theme, but remember: Now you can safely cross the border from Israel to Jordan, and from Egypt to Israel. Neither Syria, nor Lebanon, nor Egypt, nor Jordan, nor Iraq, etc etc are poised to attack Israel. Fatah, though often condeming Israel, seems opposed to war itself. The majority of security threats to Israel come from Hamas, and from Hezbollah.

    Discount Iran, Ahmadinejad has to say the stuff he says to maintain credibility, given his powerbase. Westerners must realise that rhetoric and (apparent) loyalty to the cause are far more important than reality in a lot of non-Western politcal discourse. Thus, if Ahmadinejad would say – I’m going to bomb the Seychelles, I’d be much less likely to take it seriously than if Obama said that he is going to bomb the Seychelles. This is a lesson I learnt after decades of watching African politics.

  • Louis

    BTW, insofar as Veith’s question, I do think that the Arab nations are less hostile to Israel now than in 1967. Many still pay lip service to the hatred and destruction theme, but remember: Now you can safely cross the border from Israel to Jordan, and from Egypt to Israel. Neither Syria, nor Lebanon, nor Egypt, nor Jordan, nor Iraq, etc etc are poised to attack Israel. Fatah, though often condeming Israel, seems opposed to war itself. The majority of security threats to Israel come from Hamas, and from Hezbollah.

    Discount Iran, Ahmadinejad has to say the stuff he says to maintain credibility, given his powerbase. Westerners must realise that rhetoric and (apparent) loyalty to the cause are far more important than reality in a lot of non-Western politcal discourse. Thus, if Ahmadinejad would say – I’m going to bomb the Seychelles, I’d be much less likely to take it seriously than if Obama said that he is going to bomb the Seychelles. This is a lesson I learnt after decades of watching African politics.

  • Porcell

    Louis, at thirty-three, it’s not a matter of Kumbaya. It has to do with reasonable respect despite religious and cultural differences. Since the state of Israel was legally founded in 1948 most of the Arab and Iranian nations and peoples have made it clear that the state of Israel must be eliminated.

    Netanyahu today in his before Congress remarked:

    “I am willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace,” he said, adding that it would not be easy, because “in a genuine peace, we will be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland.”

    The New York Times online article quotes Netanyahu as follows:

    Mr. Netanyahu said that the Palestinian leader must do what he has done: “I stood before my people and I said, ‘I will accept a Palestinian state.’ It’s time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say, ‘I will accept a Jewish state.’ ”

    President Abbas is unlikely to do this, especially due to its recent alliance with the radical Islamic Hamas organization. The stark reality is that most of its Arabs neighbors hate Israel with a fierce passion. If America faced such a lethal threat from its neighbors it would wipe them out. Israel is not really in a position to do this, though the Arabs have learned from hard war experience that Israel is not to be trifled with.

    Unfortunately in America the leftist pacifists and paleo isolationists are not wiling to support this small, noble and democratic nation, though note today that Congress gave Netanyahu several standing ovations.

  • Porcell

    Louis, at thirty-three, it’s not a matter of Kumbaya. It has to do with reasonable respect despite religious and cultural differences. Since the state of Israel was legally founded in 1948 most of the Arab and Iranian nations and peoples have made it clear that the state of Israel must be eliminated.

    Netanyahu today in his before Congress remarked:

    “I am willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace,” he said, adding that it would not be easy, because “in a genuine peace, we will be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland.”

    The New York Times online article quotes Netanyahu as follows:

    Mr. Netanyahu said that the Palestinian leader must do what he has done: “I stood before my people and I said, ‘I will accept a Palestinian state.’ It’s time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say, ‘I will accept a Jewish state.’ ”

    President Abbas is unlikely to do this, especially due to its recent alliance with the radical Islamic Hamas organization. The stark reality is that most of its Arabs neighbors hate Israel with a fierce passion. If America faced such a lethal threat from its neighbors it would wipe them out. Israel is not really in a position to do this, though the Arabs have learned from hard war experience that Israel is not to be trifled with.

    Unfortunately in America the leftist pacifists and paleo isolationists are not wiling to support this small, noble and democratic nation, though note today that Congress gave Netanyahu several standing ovations.

  • Stephen

    At one time I thought the simple solution ought to be (for the US as world cop perhaps) something like promising to keep Israel armed to the teeth under the condition that they give up the settlements and allow for a Palestinian state. That might make things settle down. But nah. I truly think there will always be forces among the Israelis that want all of Jerusalem, the lion’s share of Palestine and all the Muslims out. This stuff goes way too deep. The same is true for the Palestinians. They feel robbed and some them won’t ever stop until they get their homes back. And I will never forget Ariel Sharon and all his goofiness.

    But then what ought we to expect from a people like the Jews who were nearly eradicated from the planet while the rest of the world pretended it didn’t know what was happneing? THis is their history. If I were them, I would likely use about any means necessary to secure land and priviledges for my children and their descendants in such a hostile world. So if they have the western world feeling guilty and hamstrung as to what to do about their precarious situation, I’m still not sure I blame them much. Just sayin’.

  • Stephen

    At one time I thought the simple solution ought to be (for the US as world cop perhaps) something like promising to keep Israel armed to the teeth under the condition that they give up the settlements and allow for a Palestinian state. That might make things settle down. But nah. I truly think there will always be forces among the Israelis that want all of Jerusalem, the lion’s share of Palestine and all the Muslims out. This stuff goes way too deep. The same is true for the Palestinians. They feel robbed and some them won’t ever stop until they get their homes back. And I will never forget Ariel Sharon and all his goofiness.

    But then what ought we to expect from a people like the Jews who were nearly eradicated from the planet while the rest of the world pretended it didn’t know what was happneing? THis is their history. If I were them, I would likely use about any means necessary to secure land and priviledges for my children and their descendants in such a hostile world. So if they have the western world feeling guilty and hamstrung as to what to do about their precarious situation, I’m still not sure I blame them much. Just sayin’.

  • kerner

    Louis:

    I wish I had a good answer to your question. The best I can come up with is coupling the Israeli policy of building a very high and secure wall along the “Green Line” (which is, incidentally, pretty close to the 1967 border) with the Palestinian demand that the Israelis stop building (and demolish at least some existing) settlements on the West Bank. Plus, the Arabs will want some kind of access to Jerusalem.

    In the Arab State (West Bank and Gaza) they should establish their own government and develop their own economy.

    These are pretty tentative suggestions, because they would require a certain level of good faith between the parties, which does not exist. While I believe, like you, that the average Palestinian Arab would consider the foregoing a vast improvement over the status quo, both sides have spent the past 63 years building up severe levels of mutual animosity.

    If such a two state solution were tried, some anti Israeli group would be almost certain to use the absence of Israeli control to set up rocket launchers in Arab territory, and the New Palestinian government would be very likely to fail to stop this, thus triggering a violent response from the IDF.

    I think a good analogy is the “two state solution” that has been in effect in Ireland for almost a century. Ancient hatreds, long violent struggle, and a two state solution that did not put an end to terrorist violence. But the partition had to be done and the last 90 years had to be endured.

    My ideas may not be very good, but they are all I’ve got.

  • kerner

    Louis:

    I wish I had a good answer to your question. The best I can come up with is coupling the Israeli policy of building a very high and secure wall along the “Green Line” (which is, incidentally, pretty close to the 1967 border) with the Palestinian demand that the Israelis stop building (and demolish at least some existing) settlements on the West Bank. Plus, the Arabs will want some kind of access to Jerusalem.

    In the Arab State (West Bank and Gaza) they should establish their own government and develop their own economy.

    These are pretty tentative suggestions, because they would require a certain level of good faith between the parties, which does not exist. While I believe, like you, that the average Palestinian Arab would consider the foregoing a vast improvement over the status quo, both sides have spent the past 63 years building up severe levels of mutual animosity.

    If such a two state solution were tried, some anti Israeli group would be almost certain to use the absence of Israeli control to set up rocket launchers in Arab territory, and the New Palestinian government would be very likely to fail to stop this, thus triggering a violent response from the IDF.

    I think a good analogy is the “two state solution” that has been in effect in Ireland for almost a century. Ancient hatreds, long violent struggle, and a two state solution that did not put an end to terrorist violence. But the partition had to be done and the last 90 years had to be endured.

    My ideas may not be very good, but they are all I’ve got.

  • Louis

    Stephen, I understand what you are saying, but otoh, what about the Paestinians, who have lived in that land for a very long time themselves? How must they feel?

    Thing is, feelings and attachment to the land goes deep, very, very deep. On BOTH sides.

    Reminds me of the situation in Kosovo – remember, this was the ancient Serbian hertland. Except that by today, the majority of the population is “Albanian” Moslems, hence their independance, which the US supported. Right, or wrong?

    Where must we draw the borders? As Kerner mentioned @ #12, the current borders imply that 4.3 million Arabs/Palestinians must remain disenfranchised. Must the remain forever so? It did not work in apartheid SA, it is not going to work in Israel forever.

    Who is going to move the people? Who is going to tell them that they must abandon the land of their ancestors (on both sides)??

  • Louis

    Stephen, I understand what you are saying, but otoh, what about the Paestinians, who have lived in that land for a very long time themselves? How must they feel?

    Thing is, feelings and attachment to the land goes deep, very, very deep. On BOTH sides.

    Reminds me of the situation in Kosovo – remember, this was the ancient Serbian hertland. Except that by today, the majority of the population is “Albanian” Moslems, hence their independance, which the US supported. Right, or wrong?

    Where must we draw the borders? As Kerner mentioned @ #12, the current borders imply that 4.3 million Arabs/Palestinians must remain disenfranchised. Must the remain forever so? It did not work in apartheid SA, it is not going to work in Israel forever.

    Who is going to move the people? Who is going to tell them that they must abandon the land of their ancestors (on both sides)??

  • Stephen

    And for that matter, can you blame the Palestinians for being pissed off?

    And as for the reasonableness and the moral superiority of the Israelis Porcell, yeah right. No one gets a pass. I’ve got no sympathy for people who teach their children to blow themselves up, but by the same token, do you remember how the Iraelis got the British to leave? Terrorism. There’s plenty of blood to go around. Heck, whatever happened to Issac Rabin? Oops, somebody machine gunned him for shaking hands with Yassir Arafat I guess. Who was that guy? I could swear he had peyess.

    See what I mean? Some people will never give this up. I think we have to be more forceful in our rhetoric like James Baker was and tell both sides to quit screwing around. But that is too politically risky. So when this president says something along those lines, conservatives just have to mock it. It couldn’t possibly be for our benefit, it must be for the ascendency of the Muslims because of his middle name. Right.

  • Stephen

    And for that matter, can you blame the Palestinians for being pissed off?

    And as for the reasonableness and the moral superiority of the Israelis Porcell, yeah right. No one gets a pass. I’ve got no sympathy for people who teach their children to blow themselves up, but by the same token, do you remember how the Iraelis got the British to leave? Terrorism. There’s plenty of blood to go around. Heck, whatever happened to Issac Rabin? Oops, somebody machine gunned him for shaking hands with Yassir Arafat I guess. Who was that guy? I could swear he had peyess.

    See what I mean? Some people will never give this up. I think we have to be more forceful in our rhetoric like James Baker was and tell both sides to quit screwing around. But that is too politically risky. So when this president says something along those lines, conservatives just have to mock it. It couldn’t possibly be for our benefit, it must be for the ascendency of the Muslims because of his middle name. Right.

  • Stephen

    Hey Louis, we were writing at the same time. I realized I left that thought out. I am aware of the dilemma. I hope my post @ 40 clears it up a little.

  • Stephen

    Hey Louis, we were writing at the same time. I realized I left that thought out. I am aware of the dilemma. I hope my post @ 40 clears it up a little.

  • Louis

    Kerner. I think you might be right, except that I’d put all of ancient Jerusalem (ie, the Old City in immediate environs) under permanent UN supervision, with access guarenteed to all (peaceful) worshippers etc. Now I know the UN is pretty inefficient, but it is guarenteed to be less explosive than either a Palestinian or a Jewish controlled Jerusalem.

    Mabye a council of 50% UN appointees, 25% Palestinian and 25% Israeli representation could run it. Sure, it will be like a circus, but these copmromises can work. Just look at N-Ireland now, compared to the 70′s & 80′s.

  • Louis

    Kerner. I think you might be right, except that I’d put all of ancient Jerusalem (ie, the Old City in immediate environs) under permanent UN supervision, with access guarenteed to all (peaceful) worshippers etc. Now I know the UN is pretty inefficient, but it is guarenteed to be less explosive than either a Palestinian or a Jewish controlled Jerusalem.

    Mabye a council of 50% UN appointees, 25% Palestinian and 25% Israeli representation could run it. Sure, it will be like a circus, but these copmromises can work. Just look at N-Ireland now, compared to the 70′s & 80′s.

  • Louis

    Stephen -yes, it does.

  • Louis

    Stephen -yes, it does.

  • Grace

    Keep in mind, the Qur’an doesn’t mention Jerusalem even one time.

    The Jews built the First Temple, it was theirs, and so is the land that sits beneath it.

    Palestine a derogatory term used for Israel.

    “The Hebrew Bible reports that the First Temple was built in 957 BCE by King Solomon (reigned c.970-c.930 BCE). As the sole place of Jewish sacrifice, the Temple replaced the portable sanctuary constructed in the Sinai Desert under the auspices of Moses, as well as local sanctuaries, and altars in the hills. This temple was however sacked a few decades later by Sheshonk I, Pharoah of Egypt. Although efforts were made at partial reconstruction, it was only in 835 BC when Jehoash, King of Judah in the second year of his reign invested considerable sums in reconstruction, only to have it stripped again for Sennacherib, King of Assyria in c700 BC. The First Temple was totally destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE when they sacked the city.”

    Another excerpt:

    After the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in the 7th century, Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan ordered the construction of an Islamic shrine, the Dome of the Rock on the site of the Temple. The shrine has stood on the mount since 691 CE; the al-Aqsa Mosque, from roughly the same period, also stands in the Temple courtyard. The mount bears significance in Islam as it acted as a sanctuary for many Hebrew prophets. Islamic tradition says that a temple was first built on the Temple Mount by Jacob and later renovated by Solomon, son of David. The Temple Mount, along with the entire Old City of Jerusalem, was captured by Israeli forces in 1967 during the Six-Day War. Israel officially unified East Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, with the rest of Jerusalem in 1980 under the Jerusalem Law, though United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 declared the Jerusalem Law to be in violation of international law to be in violation of international law.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_in_Jerusalem

  • Grace

    Keep in mind, the Qur’an doesn’t mention Jerusalem even one time.

    The Jews built the First Temple, it was theirs, and so is the land that sits beneath it.

    Palestine a derogatory term used for Israel.

    “The Hebrew Bible reports that the First Temple was built in 957 BCE by King Solomon (reigned c.970-c.930 BCE). As the sole place of Jewish sacrifice, the Temple replaced the portable sanctuary constructed in the Sinai Desert under the auspices of Moses, as well as local sanctuaries, and altars in the hills. This temple was however sacked a few decades later by Sheshonk I, Pharoah of Egypt. Although efforts were made at partial reconstruction, it was only in 835 BC when Jehoash, King of Judah in the second year of his reign invested considerable sums in reconstruction, only to have it stripped again for Sennacherib, King of Assyria in c700 BC. The First Temple was totally destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE when they sacked the city.”

    Another excerpt:

    After the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in the 7th century, Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan ordered the construction of an Islamic shrine, the Dome of the Rock on the site of the Temple. The shrine has stood on the mount since 691 CE; the al-Aqsa Mosque, from roughly the same period, also stands in the Temple courtyard. The mount bears significance in Islam as it acted as a sanctuary for many Hebrew prophets. Islamic tradition says that a temple was first built on the Temple Mount by Jacob and later renovated by Solomon, son of David. The Temple Mount, along with the entire Old City of Jerusalem, was captured by Israeli forces in 1967 during the Six-Day War. Israel officially unified East Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, with the rest of Jerusalem in 1980 under the Jerusalem Law, though United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 declared the Jerusalem Law to be in violation of international law to be in violation of international law.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_in_Jerusalem

  • Jon

    There are some native Americans who wish American Christians were consistent in recognizing the rights of ancient peoples to their ancestral lands.

  • Jon

    There are some native Americans who wish American Christians were consistent in recognizing the rights of ancient peoples to their ancestral lands.

  • Joe

    Stephen @ 40 – Obama declare a return to the 1967 borders is not telling both sides to quit screwing around. Its merely telling one side to give up.

    As for what the plan should be, there is only one plan and it must remain the same regardless of who is in the White House – play mediator. We can’t dictate the outcome – it won’t work. Both sides have to buy in or there’ll be another war. There is no new idea that anyone is going to come up with. There is no magic bullet answer that we just haven’t discovered.

  • Joe

    Stephen @ 40 – Obama declare a return to the 1967 borders is not telling both sides to quit screwing around. Its merely telling one side to give up.

    As for what the plan should be, there is only one plan and it must remain the same regardless of who is in the White House – play mediator. We can’t dictate the outcome – it won’t work. Both sides have to buy in or there’ll be another war. There is no new idea that anyone is going to come up with. There is no magic bullet answer that we just haven’t discovered.

  • Grace

    Louis at 32

    “I’d put all of ancient Jerusalem (ie, the Old City in immediate environs) under permanent UN supervision, with access guarenteed to all (peaceful) worshippers etc. Now I know the UN is pretty inefficient, but it is guarenteed to be less explosive than either a Palestinian or a Jewish controlled Jerusalem. “

    Northern and southern Ireland are not a comparison to Israel.
    The UN has not one thing to do with the land of Israel.

  • Grace

    Louis at 32

    “I’d put all of ancient Jerusalem (ie, the Old City in immediate environs) under permanent UN supervision, with access guarenteed to all (peaceful) worshippers etc. Now I know the UN is pretty inefficient, but it is guarenteed to be less explosive than either a Palestinian or a Jewish controlled Jerusalem. “

    Northern and southern Ireland are not a comparison to Israel.
    The UN has not one thing to do with the land of Israel.

  • Stephen

    I don’t have a solution except perhaps something along the lines of us somehow backing off and demanding THEY settle it. Whenever we show up, like when Hillary goes over there and meets with the Israelis and not the Palestinians, it is a diss to someone. We need to use whatever diplomatic means in a multilateral fashion to get the two parties to solve it on their own. Perhaps we can use the destabilized situation in the surrounding countries to our advantage in this by somehow pressuring them with the use of force if they interfere in the peace process.

    In other words, we put these kids in a room and tell them to sort it out or no one gets any supper. A dumb analogy perhaps, but the Palestinians really do not have any friends. They are only being used by others as a lightning rod for inflamed anti-Israeli rhetoric. It is easier to enter Jordon as a Jew than as a Palestinian. As a people, other Muslims do not actually give a flip about them. The Israelis have us and the Europeans, and we can do a lot to pressure them to negotiate. We tell them “solve it or else.” But who has the guts to do that?

    What bugs me is we are so politicized, so enamored with the next election cycle, that we are unwilling to consider the situation at hand, prioritize, and set aside our political concerns for the larger needs of our country. That does not mean agreeing with leaders wholeheartedly, but does it have to mean mocking and decrying everything they do day in and day out if they are not of our particular political stripe? Here, Obama is putting some pressure on Israel it would seem. It may be a bad idea politically. I could see a lot of liberal American Jews not liking it. But in another sense, maybe it is more gutsy than he is being given credit.

  • Stephen

    I don’t have a solution except perhaps something along the lines of us somehow backing off and demanding THEY settle it. Whenever we show up, like when Hillary goes over there and meets with the Israelis and not the Palestinians, it is a diss to someone. We need to use whatever diplomatic means in a multilateral fashion to get the two parties to solve it on their own. Perhaps we can use the destabilized situation in the surrounding countries to our advantage in this by somehow pressuring them with the use of force if they interfere in the peace process.

    In other words, we put these kids in a room and tell them to sort it out or no one gets any supper. A dumb analogy perhaps, but the Palestinians really do not have any friends. They are only being used by others as a lightning rod for inflamed anti-Israeli rhetoric. It is easier to enter Jordon as a Jew than as a Palestinian. As a people, other Muslims do not actually give a flip about them. The Israelis have us and the Europeans, and we can do a lot to pressure them to negotiate. We tell them “solve it or else.” But who has the guts to do that?

    What bugs me is we are so politicized, so enamored with the next election cycle, that we are unwilling to consider the situation at hand, prioritize, and set aside our political concerns for the larger needs of our country. That does not mean agreeing with leaders wholeheartedly, but does it have to mean mocking and decrying everything they do day in and day out if they are not of our particular political stripe? Here, Obama is putting some pressure on Israel it would seem. It may be a bad idea politically. I could see a lot of liberal American Jews not liking it. But in another sense, maybe it is more gutsy than he is being given credit.

  • Grace

    Obama is not interested in Israel, or the Jews. The man has made a mess here in the U.S. – Israel certainly doesn’t need his advice.

  • Grace

    Obama is not interested in Israel, or the Jews. The man has made a mess here in the U.S. – Israel certainly doesn’t need his advice.

  • Joe

    Grace @ 47: “The UN has not one thing to do with the land of Israel.”

    Really? Try looking up United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181. It kind of created the State of Israel. The UN has everything to do with Israel.

    Louis @ 42 – you should check out Res. 181 because it is exactly what you are suggesting and it already didn’t work once.

  • Joe

    Grace @ 47: “The UN has not one thing to do with the land of Israel.”

    Really? Try looking up United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181. It kind of created the State of Israel. The UN has everything to do with Israel.

    Louis @ 42 – you should check out Res. 181 because it is exactly what you are suggesting and it already didn’t work once.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    In other news, the League of Nations has not one thing to do with the British mandate of Palestine.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    In other news, the League of Nations has not one thing to do with the British mandate of Palestine.

  • Stephen

    Joe @ 46

    I agree. I don’t know what the calculation is. Maybe he thinks this is the right moment to speak to Israel and he’s got something up his sleeve for the Palestinians. At this stage, I’m speculating and giving the president the benefit of the doubt I admit. I think my post @ 48 sort of agrees with your strategy. They have clearly reached out to Israel already, and Netanyahu is like a lot of Israeli leaders – hard to pin down. For that matter, I don’t know why we have to play chess with them anyway. I think it is generally good to show that we can be forceful in what we have to say, that we won’t be intimidated by any perceived “boundaries” that others think are off limits. This should hold true for the Palestinians as well. I hope he will be forthcoming with similar things for them.

  • Stephen

    Joe @ 46

    I agree. I don’t know what the calculation is. Maybe he thinks this is the right moment to speak to Israel and he’s got something up his sleeve for the Palestinians. At this stage, I’m speculating and giving the president the benefit of the doubt I admit. I think my post @ 48 sort of agrees with your strategy. They have clearly reached out to Israel already, and Netanyahu is like a lot of Israeli leaders – hard to pin down. For that matter, I don’t know why we have to play chess with them anyway. I think it is generally good to show that we can be forceful in what we have to say, that we won’t be intimidated by any perceived “boundaries” that others think are off limits. This should hold true for the Palestinians as well. I hope he will be forthcoming with similar things for them.

  • Porcell

    The truth is that Israel is in a position very similar to that of the West in dealing with Hitler back in the thirties. The moralists, pacifists, and isolationists including Chamberlain were attempting negotiate a peace, while Hitler had no intention of peace.

    The Middle East doesn’t have a Hitler, except that Ahmadinejad comes close, though in toto the Arabs and Iranians underneath it all wish to destroy Israel, just as Hitler wished to destroy the West including the Christian religion.

  • Porcell

    The truth is that Israel is in a position very similar to that of the West in dealing with Hitler back in the thirties. The moralists, pacifists, and isolationists including Chamberlain were attempting negotiate a peace, while Hitler had no intention of peace.

    The Middle East doesn’t have a Hitler, except that Ahmadinejad comes close, though in toto the Arabs and Iranians underneath it all wish to destroy Israel, just as Hitler wished to destroy the West including the Christian religion.

  • Louis

    Porcell, are you saying Arabs=Nazi’s?

  • Louis

    Porcell, are you saying Arabs=Nazi’s?

  • Jon

    We’re getting into Camping area here….evangelicals have a vested, emotional interest in “Israel” that supercedes political reality because they believe the land plays a significant role in their end times’ scenarios. By their irrational lights, a challenge to Netanyahu (or any Israeli PM) is equivalent to a challenge to King David.

    But I’m surprised to see amillennial Lutherans getting to worked up.. I assume it is for political reasons.. But are they other border issues around the world that attract this kind of attention?

  • Jon

    We’re getting into Camping area here….evangelicals have a vested, emotional interest in “Israel” that supercedes political reality because they believe the land plays a significant role in their end times’ scenarios. By their irrational lights, a challenge to Netanyahu (or any Israeli PM) is equivalent to a challenge to King David.

    But I’m surprised to see amillennial Lutherans getting to worked up.. I assume it is for political reasons.. But are they other border issues around the world that attract this kind of attention?

  • Louis

    Joe – it did not work, because it was rejected by most (not all Arab) leaders at the time. Also, it was a suggestion only, ie, it was never an official policy that was put into place and then failed.

    Jon – the Lutherans here are divided on the issue – but the most vociferous anti-Palestinian/Arab opinions here come from non-Lutherans (Porcell, Grace). But your remark regarding the feelings of First Nations is quite apt, I agree….

  • Louis

    Joe – it did not work, because it was rejected by most (not all Arab) leaders at the time. Also, it was a suggestion only, ie, it was never an official policy that was put into place and then failed.

    Jon – the Lutherans here are divided on the issue – but the most vociferous anti-Palestinian/Arab opinions here come from non-Lutherans (Porcell, Grace). But your remark regarding the feelings of First Nations is quite apt, I agree….

  • Louis

    Stephen @ 48:

    What bugs me is we are so politicized, so enamored with the next election cycle, that we are unwilling to consider the situation at hand, prioritize, and set aside our political concerns for the larger needs of our country. That does not mean agreeing with leaders wholeheartedly, but does it have to mean mocking and decrying everything they do day in and day out if they are not of our particular political stripe?

    Preach it, brother!!

  • Louis

    Stephen @ 48:

    What bugs me is we are so politicized, so enamored with the next election cycle, that we are unwilling to consider the situation at hand, prioritize, and set aside our political concerns for the larger needs of our country. That does not mean agreeing with leaders wholeheartedly, but does it have to mean mocking and decrying everything they do day in and day out if they are not of our particular political stripe?

    Preach it, brother!!

  • Grace

    Joe,

    The UN has stuck their nose into Israel and other areas they had no business, just like Obama does.

  • Grace

    Joe,

    The UN has stuck their nose into Israel and other areas they had no business, just like Obama does.

  • Stephen

    Joe,

    I suppose I should clarify. I don’t agree that Obama is telling Israel to “give up” but I do think he is telling them in one sense to “stop screwing around” in the manner I was suggesting – that is, offering up something that is hard to swallow. Perhaps he knows it will go nowhere but simply by saying it he gains the advantage that he is willing to put it out there. Now when he goes to the other side, can he be more forceful or less so? I think it is more likely they will listen to him.

  • Stephen

    Joe,

    I suppose I should clarify. I don’t agree that Obama is telling Israel to “give up” but I do think he is telling them in one sense to “stop screwing around” in the manner I was suggesting – that is, offering up something that is hard to swallow. Perhaps he knows it will go nowhere but simply by saying it he gains the advantage that he is willing to put it out there. Now when he goes to the other side, can he be more forceful or less so? I think it is more likely they will listen to him.

  • Grace

    Louis – 56

    Back in the 30′s and 40′s there were people who would have chimed the same notes your ringing now. Thank God, their chimes were SILENCED, at least for the time being.

  • Grace

    Louis – 56

    Back in the 30′s and 40′s there were people who would have chimed the same notes your ringing now. Thank God, their chimes were SILENCED, at least for the time being.

  • Grace

    The Jews RECLAIMED their sovereignty in 1948, one nation, the nation of Israel as a united people.

    21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:

    22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.

    23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwelling places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.

    24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
    Ezekiel 37

    TODAY we see many in the middle east who sneer, and desire that which is not theirs. God says in His Word — “in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.”

    1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

    2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.

    3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

    9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

    10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
    Zachariah 12

  • Grace

    The Jews RECLAIMED their sovereignty in 1948, one nation, the nation of Israel as a united people.

    21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:

    22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.

    23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwelling places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.

    24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
    Ezekiel 37

    TODAY we see many in the middle east who sneer, and desire that which is not theirs. God says in His Word — “in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.”

    1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

    2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.

    3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

    9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

    10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
    Zachariah 12

  • Louis

    Grace – I don’t think you understand what Joe is saying. He is saying, and he is entirely correct in this, that the modern State of Israel was created by a UN resolution. Thus they have everything to do with it.

    Plus, the UN was created as an organisation for dealing with crises between nations etc. Israel is a member of the UN, and has not withdrawn its membership of the body either. Thus it supports in principle the involvement of the UN, though it might not always agree with UN resolutions etc.

  • Louis

    Grace – I don’t think you understand what Joe is saying. He is saying, and he is entirely correct in this, that the modern State of Israel was created by a UN resolution. Thus they have everything to do with it.

    Plus, the UN was created as an organisation for dealing with crises between nations etc. Israel is a member of the UN, and has not withdrawn its membership of the body either. Thus it supports in principle the involvement of the UN, though it might not always agree with UN resolutions etc.

  • Louis

    Grace, given your stance, do you think that the 5.5 million Arabs/Palestinians, many of whom are Christians, should be deported from the land to make way for your prophetic Israel? Really? Are you going to stand in front of a Palestinian mother with her children, saying – you should not exist? Or you should abandon the land where your ancestors have lived for maybe 1500 years?

    Note that Christ did not preach the expulsion of the Samaritans from “Eretz Israel” either….

  • Louis

    Grace, given your stance, do you think that the 5.5 million Arabs/Palestinians, many of whom are Christians, should be deported from the land to make way for your prophetic Israel? Really? Are you going to stand in front of a Palestinian mother with her children, saying – you should not exist? Or you should abandon the land where your ancestors have lived for maybe 1500 years?

    Note that Christ did not preach the expulsion of the Samaritans from “Eretz Israel” either….

  • Grace

    Louis

    I don’t need you to explain the UN. The UN is ineffective, it is not a friend to either Israel or the United States, or England – I don’t expect you to understand this.

    All one needs to do is look at the Human Rights Councel….

  • Grace

    Louis

    I don’t need you to explain the UN. The UN is ineffective, it is not a friend to either Israel or the United States, or England – I don’t expect you to understand this.

    All one needs to do is look at the Human Rights Councel….

  • Stephen

    I think Grace is going to launch a Luther-buster rocket in just few more posts. Head for the hills!

  • Stephen

    I think Grace is going to launch a Luther-buster rocket in just few more posts. Head for the hills!

  • Grace

    Louis,

    I doubt you understand anything more regarding prophecy, than you do the UN.

    Those who oppose Israel and disregard the promises made by God to Israel, OR most likely have never studied the the prophecies in Scripture don’t have a clue.

  • Grace

    Louis,

    I doubt you understand anything more regarding prophecy, than you do the UN.

    Those who oppose Israel and disregard the promises made by God to Israel, OR most likely have never studied the the prophecies in Scripture don’t have a clue.

  • Grace

    Obama can’t remember what year it is, yet this blithering nut tells Israel how to care for their borders.

    President Obama Has No Idea What Year It Is
    5/24/11

    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/05/president_obama_has_no_idea_wh.html

    Then there is this gem!

    Awkward Moment During Obama Toast to Queen
    May 24, 2011

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/awkward-moment-during-obama-toast-to-queen-.html

  • Grace

    Obama can’t remember what year it is, yet this blithering nut tells Israel how to care for their borders.

    President Obama Has No Idea What Year It Is
    5/24/11

    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/05/president_obama_has_no_idea_wh.html

    Then there is this gem!

    Awkward Moment During Obama Toast to Queen
    May 24, 2011

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/awkward-moment-during-obama-toast-to-queen-.html

  • Louis

    Grace, so should those 5.5 million people be forcibly removed? And where to?

  • Louis

    Grace, so should those 5.5 million people be forcibly removed? And where to?

  • Jon

    Grace, I think that when you were named, your parents were indulging a rich sense of irony. Unless your last name happens to be Less.

  • Jon

    Grace, I think that when you were named, your parents were indulging a rich sense of irony. Unless your last name happens to be Less.

  • Porcell

    Louis, at fifty-four: Porcell, are you saying Arabs=Nazi’s?
    The Arabs are not equal to the Nazis, as they lack the Nazis industrial/military power and military strength. They are equal in seeking the destruction of their enemy, just as the Nazis sought the destruction of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the Soviet Union, while engaging in bogus negotiations.

  • Porcell

    Louis, at fifty-four: Porcell, are you saying Arabs=Nazi’s?
    The Arabs are not equal to the Nazis, as they lack the Nazis industrial/military power and military strength. They are equal in seeking the destruction of their enemy, just as the Nazis sought the destruction of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the Soviet Union, while engaging in bogus negotiations.

  • Louis

    So. Grace, you have never made a typo? It is an honour to share a thread with such a perfect person…

    Seriously, grow up!

  • Louis

    So. Grace, you have never made a typo? It is an honour to share a thread with such a perfect person…

    Seriously, grow up!

  • Grace

    Louise – 71

    “So. Grace, you have never made a typo? It is an honour to share a thread with such a perfect person…”

    No I have never made a blunder such as Obama, .. with his memory dating back 3 years. He needs his teleprompter to sign dates, and haul it behind his car when attending state dinners, especially when he can’t remember protocal, when to speak, and when to be silent.

    “Grow up” – it’s not a matter of growing up, it called good breeding and maners, which is lost on BO and ‘many others…….

  • Grace

    Louise – 71

    “So. Grace, you have never made a typo? It is an honour to share a thread with such a perfect person…”

    No I have never made a blunder such as Obama, .. with his memory dating back 3 years. He needs his teleprompter to sign dates, and haul it behind his car when attending state dinners, especially when he can’t remember protocal, when to speak, and when to be silent.

    “Grow up” – it’s not a matter of growing up, it called good breeding and maners, which is lost on BO and ‘many others…….

  • Louis

    Porcell, such gross generalisation is unwarrented. Plus, in debate, the X = Nazi’s/Hitler is a shameful tactic.

    Poe’s law, I believe?

  • Louis

    Porcell, such gross generalisation is unwarrented. Plus, in debate, the X = Nazi’s/Hitler is a shameful tactic.

    Poe’s law, I believe?

  • Grace

    That should have been:

    “it’s not a matter of growing up, it called good breeding and manners, which is lost on BO and ‘many others…….”

  • Grace

    That should have been:

    “it’s not a matter of growing up, it called good breeding and manners, which is lost on BO and ‘many others…….”

  • Jon

    Grace, your “good breeding and maners” [manners?] are evident in each of your posts.

  • Jon

    Grace, your “good breeding and maners” [manners?] are evident in each of your posts.

  • Louis

    Grace @ 72: Oh, the irony!

  • Louis

    Grace @ 72: Oh, the irony!

  • Stephen

    Grace, do you know how many youtube videos there are of the last president acting like moron? And he unilaterally took us to war. What is your point? Oh yeah, as usual, you don’t have one really, just a lot of inflamed nonsense.

  • Stephen

    Grace, do you know how many youtube videos there are of the last president acting like moron? And he unilaterally took us to war. What is your point? Oh yeah, as usual, you don’t have one really, just a lot of inflamed nonsense.

  • Louis

    Actually, it was double irony, as you managed to misspel my name, thus changing my gender!

  • Louis

    Actually, it was double irony, as you managed to misspel my name, thus changing my gender!

  • trotk

    Though I can’t see it happening for a long time, if ever, part of me believes that there will be no peace outside of a one state solution.

  • trotk

    Though I can’t see it happening for a long time, if ever, part of me believes that there will be no peace outside of a one state solution.

  • Jon

    @73 Louis, with Porcell I suspect it’s not a tactic; it’s apparently a firmly held belief about “Arabs,” many of whom are in reality Christians but not lucky or elite enough, in Porcell’s eyes, to be worth a fig.

  • Jon

    @73 Louis, with Porcell I suspect it’s not a tactic; it’s apparently a firmly held belief about “Arabs,” many of whom are in reality Christians but not lucky or elite enough, in Porcell’s eyes, to be worth a fig.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    You know who I look to as the final word on all things minute and technical?

    It’s the person who incorrectly calls a man named Louis “Louise”, who follows a comma with two periods, who misspells the word protocol as “protocal”, who writes phrases like “it called good breeding”, who misspells the word manners as “maners”, and who abuses punctuation like nobody’s business (e.g. random, floating single quotes and ending sentences with an arbitrary string of periods) — all in one comment (@72).

    Oh, and then, to top things off, notices and corrects exactly one of those mistakes in a follow-up comment (@74).

    Yes, that’s the person I will listen to when it comes to stories of other people making simple writing mistakes.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    You know who I look to as the final word on all things minute and technical?

    It’s the person who incorrectly calls a man named Louis “Louise”, who follows a comma with two periods, who misspells the word protocol as “protocal”, who writes phrases like “it called good breeding”, who misspells the word manners as “maners”, and who abuses punctuation like nobody’s business (e.g. random, floating single quotes and ending sentences with an arbitrary string of periods) — all in one comment (@72).

    Oh, and then, to top things off, notices and corrects exactly one of those mistakes in a follow-up comment (@74).

    Yes, that’s the person I will listen to when it comes to stories of other people making simple writing mistakes.

  • Grace

    Jon

    I don’t know one individual who is trying to move to an Arab country, it’s obvious as to why. They cannot make a success of their own countries so they come to the U.S., England, France, or anywhere… they would love to own Israel, only because it’s the Jewish state – and the Jews are God’s chosen people.

  • Grace

    Jon

    I don’t know one individual who is trying to move to an Arab country, it’s obvious as to why. They cannot make a success of their own countries so they come to the U.S., England, France, or anywhere… they would love to own Israel, only because it’s the Jewish state – and the Jews are God’s chosen people.

  • Grace

    poor tODD

    The way in which I write has nothing to do with the blithering man who sits in the Oval Office.

    There are many professionals who use …, —, when writing – including, doctors, lawyers and bankers. :lol: poor, poor tODD

  • Grace

    poor tODD

    The way in which I write has nothing to do with the blithering man who sits in the Oval Office.

    There are many professionals who use …, —, when writing – including, doctors, lawyers and bankers. :lol: poor, poor tODD

  • Porcell

    Grace is right, Israel, the holy land of the Judeo Christian religion, was created millennia ago by the Jewish people. Read the Bible Old Testament passim regarding this. They strongly and cleverly reclaimed the land during the late nineteenth and the twentieth-century, something that was recognized by the, however ineffectual, UN in 1948. In recent years it has ably defended its possession of the land through decisive political, economic, and military strength.

    The historical truth is that the Arab Muslims took over the Judeo-Christian holy lands, mainly in the eighth and ninth centuries. During the Crusades, the Christians, knowing that the Muslims had destroyed Christian holy sites and killed Christian pilgrims, defeated the Muslims and took back the holy land.

    Americans who wax moralistic about Israel’s “unjust” possession of its land might reflect on how we American folk took over our land from the Indians. Contemporary American moralists in the comfort of their homes preach the perfidy of the Jews who are merely defending their ancient homeland.

  • Porcell

    Grace is right, Israel, the holy land of the Judeo Christian religion, was created millennia ago by the Jewish people. Read the Bible Old Testament passim regarding this. They strongly and cleverly reclaimed the land during the late nineteenth and the twentieth-century, something that was recognized by the, however ineffectual, UN in 1948. In recent years it has ably defended its possession of the land through decisive political, economic, and military strength.

    The historical truth is that the Arab Muslims took over the Judeo-Christian holy lands, mainly in the eighth and ninth centuries. During the Crusades, the Christians, knowing that the Muslims had destroyed Christian holy sites and killed Christian pilgrims, defeated the Muslims and took back the holy land.

    Americans who wax moralistic about Israel’s “unjust” possession of its land might reflect on how we American folk took over our land from the Indians. Contemporary American moralists in the comfort of their homes preach the perfidy of the Jews who are merely defending their ancient homeland.

  • Louis

    Grace, I was waiting for your trademark “poor, poor …”.

    You have no idea wht a ridiculous spectacle you are. Or how the idiocies you multiply here prove our every point and notion about biblicist evan”jelly”cals. I have never, in all my life, seen such oblivion. Remarkable!

  • Louis

    Grace, I was waiting for your trademark “poor, poor …”.

    You have no idea wht a ridiculous spectacle you are. Or how the idiocies you multiply here prove our every point and notion about biblicist evan”jelly”cals. I have never, in all my life, seen such oblivion. Remarkable!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Well, I called that one! I left an HTML comment in my comment (@81) that predicted Grace would lob one of her entirely predictable “poor tODD” non-reply replies. You can see it if you “view source” for this page in your browser.

    “The way in which I write has nothing to do with the blithering man who sits in the Oval Office.” No, it merely says something about the blithering woman who sits at your computer. Seriously, you have no business criticizing anybody’s writing errors. Your comments here frequently are little more than semi-unintelligible mishmashes of ellipses, em dashes, block quotes, and overly lengthy stretches of bold type.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Well, I called that one! I left an HTML comment in my comment (@81) that predicted Grace would lob one of her entirely predictable “poor tODD” non-reply replies. You can see it if you “view source” for this page in your browser.

    “The way in which I write has nothing to do with the blithering man who sits in the Oval Office.” No, it merely says something about the blithering woman who sits at your computer. Seriously, you have no business criticizing anybody’s writing errors. Your comments here frequently are little more than semi-unintelligible mishmashes of ellipses, em dashes, block quotes, and overly lengthy stretches of bold type.

  • trotk

    Grace, do those doctors, lawyers and bankers use “, ..” ?

  • trotk

    Grace, do those doctors, lawyers and bankers use “, ..” ?

  • Porcell

    Todd, at eighty-one, thanks for pedantically alerting us to Grace’s rather minor technical language faults. We should be grateful, however, if you could deign to give us your view of the basic issues being discussed on this thread.

    Grace, despite your obsessive concern about her minor language faults, is actually a thoughtful person whose arguments deserve careful attention.

  • Porcell

    Todd, at eighty-one, thanks for pedantically alerting us to Grace’s rather minor technical language faults. We should be grateful, however, if you could deign to give us your view of the basic issues being discussed on this thread.

    Grace, despite your obsessive concern about her minor language faults, is actually a thoughtful person whose arguments deserve careful attention.

  • Louis

    Porcell, if I had a penny for every one of Grace’s thoughtful comments, I’d be…..

    .. A pauper.

    Meanwhile, your homework is to first look up the meaning of the word “irony”, and then to find it in this thread.

    Hint: It is between comments 67 and 75…

  • Louis

    Porcell, if I had a penny for every one of Grace’s thoughtful comments, I’d be…..

    .. A pauper.

    Meanwhile, your homework is to first look up the meaning of the word “irony”, and then to find it in this thread.

    Hint: It is between comments 67 and 75…

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@88), please retire your little Comment Cop uniform with the plastic badge. It’s clear that you don’t actually care about the things you’re complaining about.

    After all, you offer not a single complaint in reply to Grace’s completely off-topic nitpicking on Obama’s “rather minor technical language faults” (@67). No, in fact you laud her as “a thoughtful person whose arguments deserve careful attention” — as if we couldn’t read what she’s actually written here.

    Give it up, man. You’re obviously doing nothing more than merely playing favorites. And contributing even further to the number of comments that violate your little made-up rules.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@88), please retire your little Comment Cop uniform with the plastic badge. It’s clear that you don’t actually care about the things you’re complaining about.

    After all, you offer not a single complaint in reply to Grace’s completely off-topic nitpicking on Obama’s “rather minor technical language faults” (@67). No, in fact you laud her as “a thoughtful person whose arguments deserve careful attention” — as if we couldn’t read what she’s actually written here.

    Give it up, man. You’re obviously doing nothing more than merely playing favorites. And contributing even further to the number of comments that violate your little made-up rules.

  • Porcell

    Todd, at ninety, Grace has made her view on the basic issue of this thread clear. Pray tell, what is your view? So far, you have merely pointed out Grace’s minor language faults. We know where Louis, Kerner, Joe, et al stand on the issue, though so far you say nothing of your view on the issue.

    You are great at technical ad hominem slams, though rather thin on substantial points.

  • Porcell

    Todd, at ninety, Grace has made her view on the basic issue of this thread clear. Pray tell, what is your view? So far, you have merely pointed out Grace’s minor language faults. We know where Louis, Kerner, Joe, et al stand on the issue, though so far you say nothing of your view on the issue.

    You are great at technical ad hominem slams, though rather thin on substantial points.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Comment Cop (@91), could you please provide us all with a full set of your rules, as well as the ID number on your tiny plastic badge? Because I’m trying to figure out how this works. Let’s see if I’ve got it right: if you’ve made your “view on the basic issue of this thread clear”, then (but only then) you’re allowed to write completely off-topic comments pointing out others’ “minor language faults”? Is that how it goes? Oh, and if you’re elected Comment Cop, you’re allowed to write as many off-topic posts as you want, criticizing others for not staying on topic, even if you frequently post off-topic comments yourself, even when not playing at Comment Cop?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Comment Cop (@91), could you please provide us all with a full set of your rules, as well as the ID number on your tiny plastic badge? Because I’m trying to figure out how this works. Let’s see if I’ve got it right: if you’ve made your “view on the basic issue of this thread clear”, then (but only then) you’re allowed to write completely off-topic comments pointing out others’ “minor language faults”? Is that how it goes? Oh, and if you’re elected Comment Cop, you’re allowed to write as many off-topic posts as you want, criticizing others for not staying on topic, even if you frequently post off-topic comments yourself, even when not playing at Comment Cop?

  • Grace

    poor tODD –

    Did you lose your badge? – and now find it useful to see if Porcell found it? – I hope you find your precious little piece of plastic, maybe it’s under your “snicker” wrappers? :lol:

  • Grace

    poor tODD –

    Did you lose your badge? – and now find it useful to see if Porcell found it? – I hope you find your precious little piece of plastic, maybe it’s under your “snicker” wrappers? :lol:

  • Porcell

    Todd, if anyone is a “comment cop” it, would be you. On this thread you have policed Grace’s spelling and punctuation, while not addressing the main issue of the thread. Pardon me for calling this to your attention, knowing that you are part and parcel of the elite of this blog.

  • Porcell

    Todd, if anyone is a “comment cop” it, would be you. On this thread you have policed Grace’s spelling and punctuation, while not addressing the main issue of the thread. Pardon me for calling this to your attention, knowing that you are part and parcel of the elite of this blog.

  • Grace

    poor tODD

    Check out the chair Louis sits in, maybe he’s sitting on your little badge right now, or maybe it stuck him, and that’s why he’s having a bad time.

    poor Louis

  • Grace

    poor tODD

    Check out the chair Louis sits in, maybe he’s sitting on your little badge right now, or maybe it stuck him, and that’s why he’s having a bad time.

    poor Louis

  • Grace

    I have always marveled at those who have nothing to say, however long their written or spoken statements. They often times have done little or no research on a given subject, but inflict uneducated ideas as something to be considered.

    Strange as some of you might find, …. I have used this style of writing for a long time – all through my career, (medicine) never once being called on it. Most likely because others, such as bankers, lawyers, doctors, and other professionals do the same thing. Perhaps you’ve never witnessed it before, because you are not within these fields. When writing a formal paper, one uses a formal approach. This blog, is not a formal venue, nor are most of the commenters below using foul language, mocking or otherwise making themselves look like cry babies in middle school when caught.

    Nit-picking has become a habit for many of the “poor you” commenters, you bemoan your tribulations on this blog, perhaps with nothing else to do, or SAY!

  • Grace

    I have always marveled at those who have nothing to say, however long their written or spoken statements. They often times have done little or no research on a given subject, but inflict uneducated ideas as something to be considered.

    Strange as some of you might find, …. I have used this style of writing for a long time – all through my career, (medicine) never once being called on it. Most likely because others, such as bankers, lawyers, doctors, and other professionals do the same thing. Perhaps you’ve never witnessed it before, because you are not within these fields. When writing a formal paper, one uses a formal approach. This blog, is not a formal venue, nor are most of the commenters below using foul language, mocking or otherwise making themselves look like cry babies in middle school when caught.

    Nit-picking has become a habit for many of the “poor you” commenters, you bemoan your tribulations on this blog, perhaps with nothing else to do, or SAY!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    As to Israel, I will offer up the completely pessimistic opinion that this area will not see peace any time soon (defined as, oh, 100 years from now), regardless. There are simply too many legitimate, competing claims to the region. And nobody ever seems interested in considering all the claims.

    I mean, the modern state of Israel has certainly been there long enough now to qualify for legitimacy, even if it hadn’t already been granted recognition by the UN, which of course it has. And before that, an extremely long succession of Muslim rulers ruled to the territory — the Ottomans, the Egyptian Mamluks, and various caliphates (Abbasid, Umayyad, and Rashidun). That takes us all the way back to 636, with only two intervening centuries, tops, in which the land was not ruled by Muslims (that being the time of the Crusades). Not that Christians seem to be trying to lay much overt claim to Israel these days.

    Of course, before 636, it still wasn’t ruled by the Jews, but yet another lot of foreign Christians — the Romans. And, of course, the non-Christian Romans before them — all the way back to 64 BC. Best I can tell, 64 BC was actually the last time (before 1948) when the Jews actually controlled Israel. But even that was for a relatively short time, because most of the time between 600 and 200 BC saw other foreign invaders ruling the place — Greeks, Persians, Babylonians.

    And, of course, before that, the Israelites still weren’t the first people in the land, as the Bible makes very clear. Where do you think we get the name “Palestine” from?

    So to read into that that any one group of the current competitors deserves sole control (a one-state solution) is ridiculous.

    Of course, to read that history as somehow requiring America or Christians to support the current state of Israel, because God promised it to the Jews, is even more ridiculous. First of all, God doesn’t need our military or political help in keeping his promises. Second of all, he seems to have had little problem letting anyone but the Jews rule that patch of land for most of the past two millenia or more — a fact that modern-day Zionists don’t seem to address very often when making their claims from the Bible.

    Anyhow, it seems the best way to make your somewhat-recent occupation stick is either through genocide or copious intermarrying. The former hopefully isn’t an option anyone is considering at this point, and the latter doesn’t seem that popular for those involved, either. As such, we’re left with hoping that the passage of time makes the Jews latest claim to the land more accepted. But, frankly, that involves levels of optimism I’m not used to.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    As to Israel, I will offer up the completely pessimistic opinion that this area will not see peace any time soon (defined as, oh, 100 years from now), regardless. There are simply too many legitimate, competing claims to the region. And nobody ever seems interested in considering all the claims.

    I mean, the modern state of Israel has certainly been there long enough now to qualify for legitimacy, even if it hadn’t already been granted recognition by the UN, which of course it has. And before that, an extremely long succession of Muslim rulers ruled to the territory — the Ottomans, the Egyptian Mamluks, and various caliphates (Abbasid, Umayyad, and Rashidun). That takes us all the way back to 636, with only two intervening centuries, tops, in which the land was not ruled by Muslims (that being the time of the Crusades). Not that Christians seem to be trying to lay much overt claim to Israel these days.

    Of course, before 636, it still wasn’t ruled by the Jews, but yet another lot of foreign Christians — the Romans. And, of course, the non-Christian Romans before them — all the way back to 64 BC. Best I can tell, 64 BC was actually the last time (before 1948) when the Jews actually controlled Israel. But even that was for a relatively short time, because most of the time between 600 and 200 BC saw other foreign invaders ruling the place — Greeks, Persians, Babylonians.

    And, of course, before that, the Israelites still weren’t the first people in the land, as the Bible makes very clear. Where do you think we get the name “Palestine” from?

    So to read into that that any one group of the current competitors deserves sole control (a one-state solution) is ridiculous.

    Of course, to read that history as somehow requiring America or Christians to support the current state of Israel, because God promised it to the Jews, is even more ridiculous. First of all, God doesn’t need our military or political help in keeping his promises. Second of all, he seems to have had little problem letting anyone but the Jews rule that patch of land for most of the past two millenia or more — a fact that modern-day Zionists don’t seem to address very often when making their claims from the Bible.

    Anyhow, it seems the best way to make your somewhat-recent occupation stick is either through genocide or copious intermarrying. The former hopefully isn’t an option anyone is considering at this point, and the latter doesn’t seem that popular for those involved, either. As such, we’re left with hoping that the passage of time makes the Jews latest claim to the land more accepted. But, frankly, that involves levels of optimism I’m not used to.

  • Porcell

    Grace, it might be under his Snicker wrappers, though it could be more directly on his Teutonic shield.

  • Porcell

    Grace, it might be under his Snicker wrappers, though it could be more directly on his Teutonic shield.

  • steve

    kerner #38,

    I don’t know, I think forcibly removing 8,600 of your own citizens from their homes to honor the promised disengagement from the Gaza strip sounds like a “good faith” gesture, don’t you? Though I doubt the residents of Gush Katif, who were prompted to rebuild the settlements by the Israeli government after they were forcibly removed in three decades earlier, may not feel it was good faith towards them.

    Let’s face it, someone’s going to get the shaft when its all said and done.

  • steve

    kerner #38,

    I don’t know, I think forcibly removing 8,600 of your own citizens from their homes to honor the promised disengagement from the Gaza strip sounds like a “good faith” gesture, don’t you? Though I doubt the residents of Gush Katif, who were prompted to rebuild the settlements by the Israeli government after they were forcibly removed in three decades earlier, may not feel it was good faith towards them.

    Let’s face it, someone’s going to get the shaft when its all said and done.

  • Stephen

    And Porcell shows what he is really made of once again. See, I told you he had it in for the Germans. Yet another fine ethnic slur. When all else fails, go there. Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot Porcell? Are you really so fundamentally racist?

  • Stephen

    And Porcell shows what he is really made of once again. See, I told you he had it in for the Germans. Yet another fine ethnic slur. When all else fails, go there. Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot Porcell? Are you really so fundamentally racist?

  • Grace

    Porcell – 98

    I think you’ve got it, … a shield, with little monkey’s surrounded with daisy’s painted ever so carefully.

  • Grace

    Porcell – 98

    I think you’ve got it, … a shield, with little monkey’s surrounded with daisy’s painted ever so carefully.

  • Stephen

    @98 & 101

    Now who’s going off topic?

  • Stephen

    @98 & 101

    Now who’s going off topic?

  • Grace

    Now Stephen, certainly you wouldn’t deprive tODD his “Teutonic shield” .. after all, he needs it!

  • Grace

    Now Stephen, certainly you wouldn’t deprive tODD his “Teutonic shield” .. after all, he needs it!

  • kerner

    Porcell @84:

    Much of what you say is true enough, but some of it seems a little romanticized to me. Leave aside the questions of whether today’s Israelis are ethnically the same as the pre-diaspora Judeans of ancient times, or whether in the New Testament the term “Israel” (i.e., God’s Chosen People) can properly be used to refer to anyone who has rejected Jesus Christ.

    The tone of your comment puts you in the same category as those Americans who “wax moralistic” against the Israelis. Except, you wax moralistic in their favor. It is my position that the USA’s decision to wax moralistic on this point was what got us committed to our present position in 1948. And now we can’t find a way to get out of this dispute (in which we have no national interest) without losing face.

    It is true that early Zionists established the modern state of Israel. But it is not their military strength that has preserved it, much less their largely socialist economy. And it certainly isn’t their faith in a non-triune god. Israel exists today because they have been utterly successful in convincing the United States to provide it with arms, supplies and money in any quantity necessary to keep Israel propped up. Including, as Stephen pointed out, sufficient money to bribe the surrounding Arab governments.

    In my mind, the question is whether we should continue doing this, and why.

  • kerner

    Porcell @84:

    Much of what you say is true enough, but some of it seems a little romanticized to me. Leave aside the questions of whether today’s Israelis are ethnically the same as the pre-diaspora Judeans of ancient times, or whether in the New Testament the term “Israel” (i.e., God’s Chosen People) can properly be used to refer to anyone who has rejected Jesus Christ.

    The tone of your comment puts you in the same category as those Americans who “wax moralistic” against the Israelis. Except, you wax moralistic in their favor. It is my position that the USA’s decision to wax moralistic on this point was what got us committed to our present position in 1948. And now we can’t find a way to get out of this dispute (in which we have no national interest) without losing face.

    It is true that early Zionists established the modern state of Israel. But it is not their military strength that has preserved it, much less their largely socialist economy. And it certainly isn’t their faith in a non-triune god. Israel exists today because they have been utterly successful in convincing the United States to provide it with arms, supplies and money in any quantity necessary to keep Israel propped up. Including, as Stephen pointed out, sufficient money to bribe the surrounding Arab governments.

    In my mind, the question is whether we should continue doing this, and why.

  • Porcell

    Todd, at ninety-seven, thanks for finally stating your view on the issue.

    You say: So to read into that that any one group of the current competitors deserves sole control (a one-state solution) is ridiculous.

    Israel, as Netanyahu makes clear, favors a two-state solution, as long as Israel’s borders are secure. Israel, despite its military power, has no interest in taking over the whole of the West Bank or Gaza.

    The basic problem is that the Arabs on its border wish to destroy Israel and throw its people into the Mediterranean Sea.

  • Porcell

    Todd, at ninety-seven, thanks for finally stating your view on the issue.

    You say: So to read into that that any one group of the current competitors deserves sole control (a one-state solution) is ridiculous.

    Israel, as Netanyahu makes clear, favors a two-state solution, as long as Israel’s borders are secure. Israel, despite its military power, has no interest in taking over the whole of the West Bank or Gaza.

    The basic problem is that the Arabs on its border wish to destroy Israel and throw its people into the Mediterranean Sea.

  • steve

    tODD, #97, there are other options: 1) their neighbors stop holding the Palestinians virtual hostages and allow them to, in reasonable manner, over time, to assimilate into their respective societies. 2) their Arab and/or neighbors give some of the vast lands their sitting on to be turned into a future Palestinian state. Land for which the future state will pay as they become more self-sufficient.

    Of course, Israel doesn’t have much say over either of those options. And to their neighbors, it’s not about helping the Palestinians, it’s about punishing the Israelis. All of which goes back to your first point.

  • steve

    tODD, #97, there are other options: 1) their neighbors stop holding the Palestinians virtual hostages and allow them to, in reasonable manner, over time, to assimilate into their respective societies. 2) their Arab and/or neighbors give some of the vast lands their sitting on to be turned into a future Palestinian state. Land for which the future state will pay as they become more self-sufficient.

    Of course, Israel doesn’t have much say over either of those options. And to their neighbors, it’s not about helping the Palestinians, it’s about punishing the Israelis. All of which goes back to your first point.

  • Stephen

    Poor Grace

    “Teutonic” is an ethnic slur.

  • Stephen

    Poor Grace

    “Teutonic” is an ethnic slur.

  • kerner

    steve @99:

    Actually, I think that was more of a strategic retreat.

  • kerner

    steve @99:

    Actually, I think that was more of a strategic retreat.

  • steve

    @106, should read “their neighbors give some of the vast lands…” Got a little lost with my revisions there.

  • steve

    @106, should read “their neighbors give some of the vast lands…” Got a little lost with my revisions there.

  • Grace

    Kerner – 104

    God’s Everlasting Covenant with Israel, the Jews

    God does not break His Covenants, no matter what we do, they stand – too many people have forgotten or never studied the Old Testament, the promises of God.

    21And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:

    22And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:

    23Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwelling places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.

    24And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

    25And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

    26Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.

    27My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

    28And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore. Ezekiel 37

    “everlasting covenant”

    “set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.”

    “my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.”

    This is God’s Covenant with Israel for “evermore” and “everlasting”-

  • Grace

    Kerner – 104

    God’s Everlasting Covenant with Israel, the Jews

    God does not break His Covenants, no matter what we do, they stand – too many people have forgotten or never studied the Old Testament, the promises of God.

    21And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:

    22And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:

    23Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwelling places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.

    24And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

    25And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

    26Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.

    27My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

    28And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore. Ezekiel 37

    “everlasting covenant”

    “set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.”

    “my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.”

    This is God’s Covenant with Israel for “evermore” and “everlasting”-

  • kerner

    steve @106:

    Your suggestions sound great in theory. Let the surrounding Arab countries give the Palestinian Arabs a place to live, or assimilate them into their own societies. But the Palestinians don’t want that. There are older Palestinians alive today who still have the deeds and the keys to the homes that the Israelis took from them in the 1940s. It’s kind of like when Achmadinijad suggested that the Jews be given part of Germany as a homeland, since it was the Germans who persecuted them. It sounds very sensible until you realize that nobody wants it.

  • kerner

    steve @106:

    Your suggestions sound great in theory. Let the surrounding Arab countries give the Palestinian Arabs a place to live, or assimilate them into their own societies. But the Palestinians don’t want that. There are older Palestinians alive today who still have the deeds and the keys to the homes that the Israelis took from them in the 1940s. It’s kind of like when Achmadinijad suggested that the Jews be given part of Germany as a homeland, since it was the Germans who persecuted them. It sounds very sensible until you realize that nobody wants it.

  • Tom Hering

    I can’t wait any longer. Somebody’s got to say it.

    Luther hated the Jews.

    Oh, and snakes are evil.

  • Tom Hering

    I can’t wait any longer. Somebody’s got to say it.

    Luther hated the Jews.

    Oh, and snakes are evil.

  • Stephen

    The only real reason I can think to support Israel for the US is one: enormous guilt over the Holocaust. Other than that, unless they let us build a huge airbase and naval port there or something like that, or we are getting barrels and barrels of oil from them, there is no strategic need for us to support them. If we withdraw support, the surrounding countries will eventually swallow them it seems to me. They’ve got the sweet spot for farming.

    At one time I thought we ought to support them out of some sort of “Monroe Doctrine” idea, but they don’t behave like a democracy, more like an oligarcy of a tribe. Building walls and then treating the Palestinians like second class citizens under an aparteid system is not the kind of country we ought to support it seems to me. Those people live in squalor, people who had their homes taken away.

    Like I said, I don’t think the other Arab countries give a flip about the Palestinians. They could all be bought off. I’m hoping the shift that is happneing in the region will help this process along. Maybe the west can put pressure on the whole region somehow to get it together. It does seem that the new generation is tired of the way it’s been. If we could somehow pressure the Arab countries to make space for Palestinians in terms of real estate that might let some of the pressure off in Palestine proper. Then perhaps the UN could arbitrate a solution for Jerusalem and the US could back away.

    Call me a dreamer. I don’t like the idea of Israel being demolished, but neither do I like the idea of all that tension, of them always in high alert surrounded constantly by threats. To answer Kerner’s concern as to why we need to be there at all, I think it so ther isn’t some kind of wider war that breaks out. Israel has tendency to answer a stone witha missle. If we are not ther to temper that, it could get really messy and out of control.

    Gas prices. Did I say gas prices?

  • Stephen

    The only real reason I can think to support Israel for the US is one: enormous guilt over the Holocaust. Other than that, unless they let us build a huge airbase and naval port there or something like that, or we are getting barrels and barrels of oil from them, there is no strategic need for us to support them. If we withdraw support, the surrounding countries will eventually swallow them it seems to me. They’ve got the sweet spot for farming.

    At one time I thought we ought to support them out of some sort of “Monroe Doctrine” idea, but they don’t behave like a democracy, more like an oligarcy of a tribe. Building walls and then treating the Palestinians like second class citizens under an aparteid system is not the kind of country we ought to support it seems to me. Those people live in squalor, people who had their homes taken away.

    Like I said, I don’t think the other Arab countries give a flip about the Palestinians. They could all be bought off. I’m hoping the shift that is happneing in the region will help this process along. Maybe the west can put pressure on the whole region somehow to get it together. It does seem that the new generation is tired of the way it’s been. If we could somehow pressure the Arab countries to make space for Palestinians in terms of real estate that might let some of the pressure off in Palestine proper. Then perhaps the UN could arbitrate a solution for Jerusalem and the US could back away.

    Call me a dreamer. I don’t like the idea of Israel being demolished, but neither do I like the idea of all that tension, of them always in high alert surrounded constantly by threats. To answer Kerner’s concern as to why we need to be there at all, I think it so ther isn’t some kind of wider war that breaks out. Israel has tendency to answer a stone witha missle. If we are not ther to temper that, it could get really messy and out of control.

    Gas prices. Did I say gas prices?

  • steve

    kerner, #108: It was certainly strategic at some level. But it also followed the line, if we give them the land, and make room between us, they’ll stop hating us. Didn’t work.

  • steve

    kerner, #108: It was certainly strategic at some level. But it also followed the line, if we give them the land, and make room between us, they’ll stop hating us. Didn’t work.

  • http://goofballs.wordpress.com/ Preston Bilotti

    “President Obama’s peace plan for the Middle East calls for Israel to go back to its borders before the 1967 war.”

    That is a lie.

    Preston Bilotti

  • http://goofballs.wordpress.com/ Preston Bilotti

    “President Obama’s peace plan for the Middle East calls for Israel to go back to its borders before the 1967 war.”

    That is a lie.

    Preston Bilotti

  • Stephen

    So make that two reasons – guilt and gas.

  • Stephen

    So make that two reasons – guilt and gas.

  • Grace

    Is there no one here who understands why the Arab countries do not want the Palestinians?

  • Grace

    Is there no one here who understands why the Arab countries do not want the Palestinians?

  • steve

    kerner, #111: I don’t believe, given the chance to make a new life in a slice of the Sinai, for example, or continuing to live in a refugee camp, most Palestianians would refuse the offer. Sure, they can keep the deeds to their homes in Israel and hope to return some day, while they make a better living that they are now in a new country.

  • steve

    kerner, #111: I don’t believe, given the chance to make a new life in a slice of the Sinai, for example, or continuing to live in a refugee camp, most Palestianians would refuse the offer. Sure, they can keep the deeds to their homes in Israel and hope to return some day, while they make a better living that they are now in a new country.

  • Grace

    Stephen – 111

    “The only real reason I can think to support Israel for the US is one: enormous guilt over the Holocaust.”

    The U.S. defended the Jewish people, this country was shocked at the hatred of Germany? – their death camps.

    Israel has tendency to answer a stone witha missle. If we are not ther to temper that, it could get really messy and out of control.”

    Strapping human bombs and blowing up those in Israel isn’t a “stone” – however, your making such a statement doesn’t surprise me.

  • Grace

    Stephen – 111

    “The only real reason I can think to support Israel for the US is one: enormous guilt over the Holocaust.”

    The U.S. defended the Jewish people, this country was shocked at the hatred of Germany? – their death camps.

    Israel has tendency to answer a stone witha missle. If we are not ther to temper that, it could get really messy and out of control.”

    Strapping human bombs and blowing up those in Israel isn’t a “stone” – however, your making such a statement doesn’t surprise me.

  • kerner

    Well Grace, you might also take into account Acts 6:

    ” 48 “However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says:

    49 “‘Heaven is my throne,
    and the earth is my footstool.
    What kind of house will you build for me?
    says the Lord.
    Or where will my resting place be?
    50 Has not my hand made all these things?’[l]

    51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52 Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53 you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.”

    The Stoning of Stephen
    54 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

    57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.

    59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.”

    Or, you might consider the words of our Lord recorded in Matthew 23:

    ” 29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

    33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

    37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

    When the Israelis say “Blessed is he (Jesus) who comes in the name of the Lord, they can again legitimately be called “Israel”. Not before.

  • kerner

    Well Grace, you might also take into account Acts 6:

    ” 48 “However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says:

    49 “‘Heaven is my throne,
    and the earth is my footstool.
    What kind of house will you build for me?
    says the Lord.
    Or where will my resting place be?
    50 Has not my hand made all these things?’[l]

    51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52 Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53 you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.”

    The Stoning of Stephen
    54 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

    57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.

    59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.”

    Or, you might consider the words of our Lord recorded in Matthew 23:

    ” 29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

    33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

    37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

    When the Israelis say “Blessed is he (Jesus) who comes in the name of the Lord, they can again legitimately be called “Israel”. Not before.

  • Porcell

    Kerner., at 104: But it is not their [the Israelis] military strength that has preserved it, much less their largely socialist economy.

    Actually, it is mostly the Israeli’s intelligence and military strength that has preserved its nation, however much aided by the U.S.

    As to the Israeli socialist economy, Israel, mainly due to Netanyahu, who studied at the Sloan School at M.I.T, and its Russian immigrants who loathe socialism, Israel has in recent years transformed itself into a free economy. Following the U.S. and Germany, Israel is the most advanced technical and industrial nation in the world.

    Israel militarily, both in intelligence and special force operations, has taught the American military a lot. Even American technology, as in the case of Intel, has much benefited from Israeli developments. Savvy American investors in the fields of technology keep careful track of developments in Israel.

  • Porcell

    Kerner., at 104: But it is not their [the Israelis] military strength that has preserved it, much less their largely socialist economy.

    Actually, it is mostly the Israeli’s intelligence and military strength that has preserved its nation, however much aided by the U.S.

    As to the Israeli socialist economy, Israel, mainly due to Netanyahu, who studied at the Sloan School at M.I.T, and its Russian immigrants who loathe socialism, Israel has in recent years transformed itself into a free economy. Following the U.S. and Germany, Israel is the most advanced technical and industrial nation in the world.

    Israel militarily, both in intelligence and special force operations, has taught the American military a lot. Even American technology, as in the case of Intel, has much benefited from Israeli developments. Savvy American investors in the fields of technology keep careful track of developments in Israel.

  • kerner

    Steve @118:

    Unfortunately, the Palestinians know it will take more than “hope” to return to their homes. There homes are occupied by the Israelis, who will not leave unless the Palestinians (and whomever they can get to help them) drive them out again.

    Just as the Israelis are adamant about staying, many Palestinians are equally adamant about making them go. And so it goes…

    (There! Hah! A lawyer used “…”!) and I have no idea whether I used it correctly

  • kerner

    Steve @118:

    Unfortunately, the Palestinians know it will take more than “hope” to return to their homes. There homes are occupied by the Israelis, who will not leave unless the Palestinians (and whomever they can get to help them) drive them out again.

    Just as the Israelis are adamant about staying, many Palestinians are equally adamant about making them go. And so it goes…

    (There! Hah! A lawyer used “…”!) and I have no idea whether I used it correctly

  • Stephen

    Grace -

    “Strapping human bombs and blowing up those in Israel isn’t a “stone” – however, your making such a statement doesn’t surprise me.”

    Now you are making ethic slurs and innuendo here too, is that it? You do need to grow up. I already said how I feel about this behavior, and I think it is reprehensible, but the Israeli army shoots teenagers who throw rocks and drive over women and children with tanks. They respond with unmistakeable force to threats, and in some ways I don’t blame them. They are surrounded.

    You are being uncharitable, unkind and vulgar for suggesting I am antisemitic because I’m German. You come here and think you can point out the sins of others so easily. You need to look in the mirror. Besides that, you’re ignorant. It shows in the things you write, your lack of discretion and your inability to understand what others put forward. You cannot defend your arguments with reason so you stoop to personal insult as soon as possible. Did you learn that from Porcell or did you teach him?

    And as to your other statement about the death camps – we knew what was happening to the Jews in the 1930s. We didn’t fight the war to liberate them. They weren’t even on the radar screen at all. In fact, we truned away and entrie ship of them and shipped some of them back who were trying to flee the Nazis:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis

    Don’t get all high and mighty with me. You are nothing but wicked tempered shrew.

  • Stephen

    Grace -

    “Strapping human bombs and blowing up those in Israel isn’t a “stone” – however, your making such a statement doesn’t surprise me.”

    Now you are making ethic slurs and innuendo here too, is that it? You do need to grow up. I already said how I feel about this behavior, and I think it is reprehensible, but the Israeli army shoots teenagers who throw rocks and drive over women and children with tanks. They respond with unmistakeable force to threats, and in some ways I don’t blame them. They are surrounded.

    You are being uncharitable, unkind and vulgar for suggesting I am antisemitic because I’m German. You come here and think you can point out the sins of others so easily. You need to look in the mirror. Besides that, you’re ignorant. It shows in the things you write, your lack of discretion and your inability to understand what others put forward. You cannot defend your arguments with reason so you stoop to personal insult as soon as possible. Did you learn that from Porcell or did you teach him?

    And as to your other statement about the death camps – we knew what was happening to the Jews in the 1930s. We didn’t fight the war to liberate them. They weren’t even on the radar screen at all. In fact, we truned away and entrie ship of them and shipped some of them back who were trying to flee the Nazis:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis

    Don’t get all high and mighty with me. You are nothing but wicked tempered shrew.

  • Grace

    Kerner – 120

    God does not take back HIS promises, nor does He break Covenants. You cannot find a passage of Scripture that states God has broken Covenants, that includes Israel, His chosen people.

    Jealousy of the Jewish people has been going on for a long time, it doesn’t change the Covenants of God.

  • Grace

    Kerner – 120

    God does not take back HIS promises, nor does He break Covenants. You cannot find a passage of Scripture that states God has broken Covenants, that includes Israel, His chosen people.

    Jealousy of the Jewish people has been going on for a long time, it doesn’t change the Covenants of God.

  • Grace

    Stephen – 123

    “You are being uncharitable, unkind and vulgar for suggesting I am antisemitic because I’m German. You come here and think you can point out the sins of others so easily.”

    I don’t know what ethnic group you are from.

    Don’t get all high and mighty with me. You are nothing but wicked tempered shrew.

    I feel sorry for you Stephen …….

  • Grace

    Stephen – 123

    “You are being uncharitable, unkind and vulgar for suggesting I am antisemitic because I’m German. You come here and think you can point out the sins of others so easily.”

    I don’t know what ethnic group you are from.

    Don’t get all high and mighty with me. You are nothing but wicked tempered shrew.

    I feel sorry for you Stephen …….

  • kerner

    Grace:

    I would never claim that God breaks his covenants. But you mistaken those with whom the covenants have been made.

    Check out Romans 2:

    “28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.”

    And Romans 3:

    ‘ 21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.’”

    God’s covenant is with His people. Those who confess Jesus Christ as their savior from sin are,/b> God’s people. All others are lost and condemned. And being lost and condemned is certainly nothing to be jealous of.

    As the Bible says, the Israelis are not “Jews” simply because they are so outwardly. If their circumcision is not “of the heart”, i.e. faith in Jesus Christ, their outward Judaism means nothing and they have no covenant with God.

  • kerner

    Grace:

    I would never claim that God breaks his covenants. But you mistaken those with whom the covenants have been made.

    Check out Romans 2:

    “28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.”

    And Romans 3:

    ‘ 21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.’”

    God’s covenant is with His people. Those who confess Jesus Christ as their savior from sin are,/b> God’s people. All others are lost and condemned. And being lost and condemned is certainly nothing to be jealous of.

    As the Bible says, the Israelis are not “Jews” simply because they are so outwardly. If their circumcision is not “of the heart”, i.e. faith in Jesus Christ, their outward Judaism means nothing and they have no covenant with God.

  • Louis

    What is racism? It is attributing a negative attribute to a group of people merely because of their race. By that definition, the most racist person here is Grace. Also, she slurs Lutherans continuously, even when those insults are shown to be mere slurs, not based on facts. She continuously displays typical trollish behaviours: Not addressing the point, using any topic to return to slurring, not participating in a debate (by not answering reasonable and civil questions), disrupting threads by her rants, answering acquisations by infantilisms (poor, poor ….) etc.

    Yet, at he same time, by her heretical theology, she purports to be the sole and only interpreter of God’s Word.

    What is the policy on banning trolls from this site? I ask seriously. Because the problem is not vigorous debate, but people who almost every single time descend into the depths of hypocracy, racism and utter banality. A sane environment does not need the certifiable trolls….

  • Louis

    What is racism? It is attributing a negative attribute to a group of people merely because of their race. By that definition, the most racist person here is Grace. Also, she slurs Lutherans continuously, even when those insults are shown to be mere slurs, not based on facts. She continuously displays typical trollish behaviours: Not addressing the point, using any topic to return to slurring, not participating in a debate (by not answering reasonable and civil questions), disrupting threads by her rants, answering acquisations by infantilisms (poor, poor ….) etc.

    Yet, at he same time, by her heretical theology, she purports to be the sole and only interpreter of God’s Word.

    What is the policy on banning trolls from this site? I ask seriously. Because the problem is not vigorous debate, but people who almost every single time descend into the depths of hypocracy, racism and utter banality. A sane environment does not need the certifiable trolls….

  • Grace

    Kerner – 126

    You disregard post 110,…… Ezekiel 37? Is that to be forgotten? – is that Covenant errased? who did that, your church, it certainly wasn’t God ALMIGHTY.

    For many, just like you – you ignore the Covenant God made with Israel, it was EVERLASTING.

  • Grace

    Kerner – 126

    You disregard post 110,…… Ezekiel 37? Is that to be forgotten? – is that Covenant errased? who did that, your church, it certainly wasn’t God ALMIGHTY.

    For many, just like you – you ignore the Covenant God made with Israel, it was EVERLASTING.

  • Stephen

    Grace

    “I don’t know what ethnic group you are from.”

    Now you are just lying. Sure you do. We’ve been down this road plenty.

    Poor Grace. Now you have to stoop even lower. No need to feel sorry for me, which I’m sure is another lie.

  • Stephen

    Grace

    “I don’t know what ethnic group you are from.”

    Now you are just lying. Sure you do. We’ve been down this road plenty.

    Poor Grace. Now you have to stoop even lower. No need to feel sorry for me, which I’m sure is another lie.

  • Grace

    Stephen – I have no reason to lie to you, I did not know you were German, further more I have no idea why that should matter.

    Shame on you for accusing me unfairly.

  • Grace

    Stephen – I have no reason to lie to you, I did not know you were German, further more I have no idea why that should matter.

    Shame on you for accusing me unfairly.

  • Grace

    I think you mentioned at one time that your father was a Lutheran pastor, but that doesn’t mean you are a German.

  • Grace

    I think you mentioned at one time that your father was a Lutheran pastor, but that doesn’t mean you are a German.

  • kerner

    Grace @128:

    I am not disregarding Ezekial 37. I am pointing out that “Israel”, in the Bible (including Ezekial 37), does not refer merely to Ethnic Jews, but to all God’s people. See Romans 4:

    ” 1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[a]
    4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

    7 “Blessed are those
    whose transgressions are forgiven,
    whose sins are covered.
    8 Blessed is the one
    whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”[b]

    9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12 And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

    13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, 15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

    16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17 As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.”[c] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.

    18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”[d] 19 Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. 20 Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22 This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” 23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. ”

    The point here is that unbelievers are NOT Israel, not even ethnic Jewish unbelievers. It is faith that makes us Abraham’s children (Israel), not genetics.

    Ezekial 37 speaks of God’s people Israel having “one shepherd”. Jesus is that one “Good Shepherd”. No one who denies that Jesus is their one Good Shepherd has any part of the covenant established in Ezekiel 37.

  • kerner

    Grace @128:

    I am not disregarding Ezekial 37. I am pointing out that “Israel”, in the Bible (including Ezekial 37), does not refer merely to Ethnic Jews, but to all God’s people. See Romans 4:

    ” 1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[a]
    4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

    7 “Blessed are those
    whose transgressions are forgiven,
    whose sins are covered.
    8 Blessed is the one
    whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”[b]

    9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12 And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

    13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, 15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

    16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17 As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.”[c] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.

    18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”[d] 19 Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. 20 Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22 This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” 23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. ”

    The point here is that unbelievers are NOT Israel, not even ethnic Jewish unbelievers. It is faith that makes us Abraham’s children (Israel), not genetics.

    Ezekial 37 speaks of God’s people Israel having “one shepherd”. Jesus is that one “Good Shepherd”. No one who denies that Jesus is their one Good Shepherd has any part of the covenant established in Ezekiel 37.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Stephen had said (@113) that “Israel has tendency to answer a stone with a missile.” This, of course, upset Grace (@119), who will hear no ill spoken of the modern nation of Israel.

    Hey, I know, let’s ask an actual Israeli about this! How about Moshe Dayan, whom Wikipedia describes as:

    An Israeli military leader and politician. The fourth Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces (1953–1958), he became a fighting symbol to the world of the new State of Israel. He went on to become Defense Minister and later Foreign Minister of Israel.

    Sounds like a real upstanding Israeli. Wonder what he had to say about cross-border clashes between Israel and Syria in the years leading up to the Six Day War:

    I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let’s talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plough someplace where it wasn’t possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that’s how it was.

    Dear, unprovocative, upstanding Israel!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Stephen had said (@113) that “Israel has tendency to answer a stone with a missile.” This, of course, upset Grace (@119), who will hear no ill spoken of the modern nation of Israel.

    Hey, I know, let’s ask an actual Israeli about this! How about Moshe Dayan, whom Wikipedia describes as:

    An Israeli military leader and politician. The fourth Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces (1953–1958), he became a fighting symbol to the world of the new State of Israel. He went on to become Defense Minister and later Foreign Minister of Israel.

    Sounds like a real upstanding Israeli. Wonder what he had to say about cross-border clashes between Israel and Syria in the years leading up to the Six Day War:

    I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let’s talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plough someplace where it wasn’t possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that’s how it was.

    Dear, unprovocative, upstanding Israel!

  • Grace

    Kerner – 132

    25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

    (Jacob Hebrew – Ya`aqob – yah-ak-obe’

    Jaakob, the Israelitish patriarch:–Jacob)

    26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.

    (Covenant Hebrew – briyth -ber-eeth’

    a compact (because made by passing between pieces of flesh): confederacy, (con-)feder(-ate), covenant, league.)

    (everlasting Hebrew – `owlam – o-lawm’

    (practically) eternity; frequentatively, adverbial (especially with prepositional prefix) always:–alway(-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, (n-))ever(-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end).

    27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

    28 And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore. Ezekiel 37

    (Israel Hebrew – Yisra’el – yis-raw-ale’

    Jisrael, a symbolical name of Jacob; also (typically) of his posterity: –Israel.

    Definition of posterity

    1. future or succeeding generations
    2. all of one’s descendants

    This would then mean, or define Jacob/Israel’s descendants who are Israelites/Jews

    26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.

    27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

    28 And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.
    Ezekiel 37

  • Grace

    Kerner – 132

    25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

    (Jacob Hebrew – Ya`aqob – yah-ak-obe’

    Jaakob, the Israelitish patriarch:–Jacob)

    26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.

    (Covenant Hebrew – briyth -ber-eeth’

    a compact (because made by passing between pieces of flesh): confederacy, (con-)feder(-ate), covenant, league.)

    (everlasting Hebrew – `owlam – o-lawm’

    (practically) eternity; frequentatively, adverbial (especially with prepositional prefix) always:–alway(-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, (n-))ever(-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end).

    27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

    28 And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore. Ezekiel 37

    (Israel Hebrew – Yisra’el – yis-raw-ale’

    Jisrael, a symbolical name of Jacob; also (typically) of his posterity: –Israel.

    Definition of posterity

    1. future or succeeding generations
    2. all of one’s descendants

    This would then mean, or define Jacob/Israel’s descendants who are Israelites/Jews

    26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.

    27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

    28 And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.
    Ezekiel 37

  • Grace

    Kerner – 132

    YOU WROTE: “I am not disregarding Ezekial 37. I am pointing out that “Israel”, in the Bible (including Ezekial 37), does not refer merely to Ethnic Jews, but to all God’s people. See Romans 4:”

    Yes you are disregarding Ezekial 37. Read the Hebrew, they are the descendents of Jacob, who are Jews – they are not Gentiles.

  • Grace

    Kerner – 132

    YOU WROTE: “I am not disregarding Ezekial 37. I am pointing out that “Israel”, in the Bible (including Ezekial 37), does not refer merely to Ethnic Jews, but to all God’s people. See Romans 4:”

    Yes you are disregarding Ezekial 37. Read the Hebrew, they are the descendents of Jacob, who are Jews – they are not Gentiles.

  • Grace

    Moshe Dayan died October 1981 – that was nearly 30 years ago. That’s a long time ago tODD. Perhaps you need to catch up. A great deal has transpired since Moshe Dayan died. His thoughts, answers were given during a time he then lived, not the days of NOW, which are so different.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Dayan

  • Grace

    Moshe Dayan died October 1981 – that was nearly 30 years ago. That’s a long time ago tODD. Perhaps you need to catch up. A great deal has transpired since Moshe Dayan died. His thoughts, answers were given during a time he then lived, not the days of NOW, which are so different.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Dayan

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@134), that was a perfect example of your typical gibberish post where you substitute cutting and pasting from your various Bible-study tools for actual understanding. It was also near-incomprehensible as an argument. (Yes, yes, I know, poor me — I’ll save you the trouble of typing out that non-response.)

    You study the Bible, but like not a few Evangelicals, you show no understanding of what Paul says about Israel in Romans, to which Kerner has already pointed you. Heck, you appear to miss the entire point of Scripture, which is not about genealogical descent or political boundaries, but about those who, by faith, believe in God’s promises. Even though God tells us Christians that he chose us, you still refer only to those of Jewish genealogial descent as God’s “chosen people”. And while you talk of God’s promises, you seem not to understand that, as Paul said, “no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ.”

    As such, you seem to miss any prophetic reference in the Old Testament to the Church (of the New Testament, that is — which includes those of both Jewish and Gentile descent). Including in Ezekiel. But if God was so concerned with the political nation of Israel, then what do you make of Paul’s rather clear words in Romans? And if we are to be concerned about genealogical descent now that Christ has come, why did Christ himself say what he did to the Pharisees and Sadducees in Matthew 3?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@134), that was a perfect example of your typical gibberish post where you substitute cutting and pasting from your various Bible-study tools for actual understanding. It was also near-incomprehensible as an argument. (Yes, yes, I know, poor me — I’ll save you the trouble of typing out that non-response.)

    You study the Bible, but like not a few Evangelicals, you show no understanding of what Paul says about Israel in Romans, to which Kerner has already pointed you. Heck, you appear to miss the entire point of Scripture, which is not about genealogical descent or political boundaries, but about those who, by faith, believe in God’s promises. Even though God tells us Christians that he chose us, you still refer only to those of Jewish genealogial descent as God’s “chosen people”. And while you talk of God’s promises, you seem not to understand that, as Paul said, “no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ.”

    As such, you seem to miss any prophetic reference in the Old Testament to the Church (of the New Testament, that is — which includes those of both Jewish and Gentile descent). Including in Ezekiel. But if God was so concerned with the political nation of Israel, then what do you make of Paul’s rather clear words in Romans? And if we are to be concerned about genealogical descent now that Christ has come, why did Christ himself say what he did to the Pharisees and Sadducees in Matthew 3?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    But no, Grace. You take chunks of Ezekiel — which has not a little metaphor in his visions and prophecies — and interpret them about nothing so banal as political boundaries. It’s about much more than that.

    Let’s start in Ezekiel 36:

    I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. Then you will live in the land I gave your ancestors; you will be my people, and I will be your God. I will save you from all your uncleanness.

    I’d put pretty good money on the fact that when you read those verses, you only see (and understand) the part about “the land”, and completely miss the part about sprinkling with water, cleansing from sin, new hearts, and the gift of the Spirit. But then, any Baptist, and most Evangelicals, would miss that language, because they deny what it refers to.

    Then Ezekiel interjects what would appear — to a geo-political reading, at least — to be a completely irrelevant vision of dry bones. Of course, it’s completely of a piece with the former passage from chapter 36 and what comes after in chapter 37 … if you listen to God’s interpretation of the vision:

    My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. Then you, my people, will know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land.

    Did the establishment of the modern state of Israel involve any dead people coming up out of their graves? Did Moshe Dayan lead a zombie unit in 1948? Or is this referring, once more, to spiritual regeneration? Say, those who were dead in their transgressions and sins, being made alive with Christ? Could it be?

    But if you argue that Ezekiel 37 is only meant to be taken literally (in spite of the metaphorical interpretation that God himself voices of the dry bones), then answer me this: who is “king” over the modern state of Israel? God himself says, “My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd.” Is that true in modern Israel? All that talk about David, shepherds, and kings, makes me think about Jesus, but you would have me believe it’s about the modern nation-state that largely denies Jesus?

    Could this passage from Ezekiel 37 apply to anybody who denies Christ as the Messiah?

    They will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them. They will be my people, and I will be their God.

    God also says, “I will put my sanctuary among them forever.” One might note that there is currently no temple in Israel, if one is taking the literal approach to these verses. Not that any physical temple would last forever, anyhow. It kind of reminds one of Revelation 21. But not if you’re only seeking geo-political guidelines.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    But no, Grace. You take chunks of Ezekiel — which has not a little metaphor in his visions and prophecies — and interpret them about nothing so banal as political boundaries. It’s about much more than that.

    Let’s start in Ezekiel 36:

    I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. Then you will live in the land I gave your ancestors; you will be my people, and I will be your God. I will save you from all your uncleanness.

    I’d put pretty good money on the fact that when you read those verses, you only see (and understand) the part about “the land”, and completely miss the part about sprinkling with water, cleansing from sin, new hearts, and the gift of the Spirit. But then, any Baptist, and most Evangelicals, would miss that language, because they deny what it refers to.

    Then Ezekiel interjects what would appear — to a geo-political reading, at least — to be a completely irrelevant vision of dry bones. Of course, it’s completely of a piece with the former passage from chapter 36 and what comes after in chapter 37 … if you listen to God’s interpretation of the vision:

    My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. Then you, my people, will know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land.

    Did the establishment of the modern state of Israel involve any dead people coming up out of their graves? Did Moshe Dayan lead a zombie unit in 1948? Or is this referring, once more, to spiritual regeneration? Say, those who were dead in their transgressions and sins, being made alive with Christ? Could it be?

    But if you argue that Ezekiel 37 is only meant to be taken literally (in spite of the metaphorical interpretation that God himself voices of the dry bones), then answer me this: who is “king” over the modern state of Israel? God himself says, “My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd.” Is that true in modern Israel? All that talk about David, shepherds, and kings, makes me think about Jesus, but you would have me believe it’s about the modern nation-state that largely denies Jesus?

    Could this passage from Ezekiel 37 apply to anybody who denies Christ as the Messiah?

    They will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them. They will be my people, and I will be their God.

    God also says, “I will put my sanctuary among them forever.” One might note that there is currently no temple in Israel, if one is taking the literal approach to these verses. Not that any physical temple would last forever, anyhow. It kind of reminds one of Revelation 21. But not if you’re only seeking geo-political guidelines.

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, can a Jew be saved without faith in Jesus Christ? And if a Jew never has faith in Jesus Christ, can that Jew be one of the Elect? And if that Jew isn’t one of the Elect, what then is he – by virtue of his Jewishness alone – chosen for, exactly? In other words, can Jewishness save a man, and if not, what good does it do him to be one of the “chosen”?

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, can a Jew be saved without faith in Jesus Christ? And if a Jew never has faith in Jesus Christ, can that Jew be one of the Elect? And if that Jew isn’t one of the Elect, what then is he – by virtue of his Jewishness alone – chosen for, exactly? In other words, can Jewishness save a man, and if not, what good does it do him to be one of the “chosen”?

  • Carl Vehse

    Last night in his monologue Jay Leno commented: “President Obama met with Queen Elizabeth today in London and she suggested returning to pre-1776 borders.”

  • Carl Vehse

    Last night in his monologue Jay Leno commented: “President Obama met with Queen Elizabeth today in London and she suggested returning to pre-1776 borders.”

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Joint statement by PM Netanyahu and US Sec Clinton

    11 Nov 2010
    ‪‪The discussions between the Prime Minister and the Secretary focused on creating the conditions for the resumption of direct negotiations aimed at producing a two-state solution.

    Photo: GPO

    Check this out:

    http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Joint_statement_PM_Netanyahu_US_Sec_Clinton_11-Nov-2010.htm

    The israeli ministry of foreign affairs Nov 2010. So what gives with this??!!

    Prime Minister Netanyahu and Secretary Clinton had a good discussion today, with a friendly and productive exchange of views on both sides. Secretary Clinton reiterated the United States’ unshakable commitment to Israel’s security and to peace in the region.

    ‪‪The Prime Minister and the Secretary agreed on the importance of continuing direct negotiations to achieve our goals. The Secretary reiterated that “the United States believes that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.” Those requirements will be fully taken into account in any future peace agreement.

    ‪‪The discussions between the Prime Minister and the Secretary focused on creating the conditions for the resumption of direct negotiations aimed at producing a two-state solution. Their teams will work closely together in the coming days toward that end.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Joint statement by PM Netanyahu and US Sec Clinton

    11 Nov 2010
    ‪‪The discussions between the Prime Minister and the Secretary focused on creating the conditions for the resumption of direct negotiations aimed at producing a two-state solution.

    Photo: GPO

    Check this out:

    http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Joint_statement_PM_Netanyahu_US_Sec_Clinton_11-Nov-2010.htm

    The israeli ministry of foreign affairs Nov 2010. So what gives with this??!!

    Prime Minister Netanyahu and Secretary Clinton had a good discussion today, with a friendly and productive exchange of views on both sides. Secretary Clinton reiterated the United States’ unshakable commitment to Israel’s security and to peace in the region.

    ‪‪The Prime Minister and the Secretary agreed on the importance of continuing direct negotiations to achieve our goals. The Secretary reiterated that “the United States believes that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.” Those requirements will be fully taken into account in any future peace agreement.

    ‪‪The discussions between the Prime Minister and the Secretary focused on creating the conditions for the resumption of direct negotiations aimed at producing a two-state solution. Their teams will work closely together in the coming days toward that end.

  • Louis

    Another interesting result: Most Israeli’s would support Obama’s plan/comments/policy, but with some reservations:

    http://www.news24.com/World/News/PM-must-back-Obama-most-Israelis-say-20110525

    It seems that some here are more “pro-Israeli/anti-Palestinian” than the Israeli’s themselves…

  • Louis

    Another interesting result: Most Israeli’s would support Obama’s plan/comments/policy, but with some reservations:

    http://www.news24.com/World/News/PM-must-back-Obama-most-Israelis-say-20110525

    It seems that some here are more “pro-Israeli/anti-Palestinian” than the Israeli’s themselves…

  • Stephen

    Poor Grace . . .

    This statement: “however, your making such a statement doesn’t surprise me.” is just the ice cube’s tip of a huge iceberg of denial floating in a sea of bitterness under an empty sky of self-righteousness that inhabits your every presence on this blog. Why would you not be surprised I wonder?

    Because, as I said, we have covered this ground before in detail and you know very well what you are refrring to. We’ve offered our apologies to each other, and yet you start it all up again as you have been known to do – Luther, Lutherans, the B of C, “cradle Lutherans”, Germans, Jew-hating accusations, both veiled and overt charges of antisemitism against anyone who disagrees with you even though you show little or no capacity for understanding what is being discussed. This is your pet theme.

    In this case, you are making an ethnic slur just like Porcell and you know it, against both Todd and me.

    Poor Grace, poor all of us for that matter. Poor miserable sinners that we are. In your case, it means resorting to this tactic when backed into a corner. That happens often, and instead of sound arguments, you choose to slander and spew bile, deny the clear words of scripture, picking what suits your narrow mind. And now this. You deserve to be mocked in your dishonesty.

    I hope someday you choke on all that junk you carry around and barf it up at the cross of Christ. Until then, I will work on being merciful to you, but I confess it is very difficult. Forgive me for not loving you as I ought.

  • Stephen

    Poor Grace . . .

    This statement: “however, your making such a statement doesn’t surprise me.” is just the ice cube’s tip of a huge iceberg of denial floating in a sea of bitterness under an empty sky of self-righteousness that inhabits your every presence on this blog. Why would you not be surprised I wonder?

    Because, as I said, we have covered this ground before in detail and you know very well what you are refrring to. We’ve offered our apologies to each other, and yet you start it all up again as you have been known to do – Luther, Lutherans, the B of C, “cradle Lutherans”, Germans, Jew-hating accusations, both veiled and overt charges of antisemitism against anyone who disagrees with you even though you show little or no capacity for understanding what is being discussed. This is your pet theme.

    In this case, you are making an ethnic slur just like Porcell and you know it, against both Todd and me.

    Poor Grace, poor all of us for that matter. Poor miserable sinners that we are. In your case, it means resorting to this tactic when backed into a corner. That happens often, and instead of sound arguments, you choose to slander and spew bile, deny the clear words of scripture, picking what suits your narrow mind. And now this. You deserve to be mocked in your dishonesty.

    I hope someday you choke on all that junk you carry around and barf it up at the cross of Christ. Until then, I will work on being merciful to you, but I confess it is very difficult. Forgive me for not loving you as I ought.

  • Porcell

    Stephen, I have never made an ethnic slur against you. I do criticize Todd for what I view as a rather Teutonic, detailed, and overly intense obsession with my personal life through his internet searches.

    Though it’s true that sometimes paranoids have real enemies, in this case you have no solid basis for it. I should say too that after fifty years of extensive travel in Europe, I regard Germany among a small list of favorite countries. Also, I regard Dietrich Bonhoeffer to be among the top tier of twentieth-century theologians.

  • Porcell

    Stephen, I have never made an ethnic slur against you. I do criticize Todd for what I view as a rather Teutonic, detailed, and overly intense obsession with my personal life through his internet searches.

    Though it’s true that sometimes paranoids have real enemies, in this case you have no solid basis for it. I should say too that after fifty years of extensive travel in Europe, I regard Germany among a small list of favorite countries. Also, I regard Dietrich Bonhoeffer to be among the top tier of twentieth-century theologians.

  • Stephen

    Porcell,

    You began this thread with a slur against the president of the United States suggesting his policies are a reflection of the ethnicity of his middle name. You continue to make a similar slur against Todd for being thorough in citing your continued hypocrisy and ninny-ish behavior here as the local prig. In what sense does his “Teutonic-ness” have anything whatsoever to do with the way he pulverizes your ridiculous cut and pastes of the same tired responses about “good and honest” so and so, blah, blah, blah.

    You make me laugh. Even in your defense you do it all over again and are completely blind to it. I wasn’t speaking to you directly in my comment to Grace, only that she has adopted your same tactic and seems to agree that it’s just fine to bash people for their ethnicity.

    I dare say there are plenty of French and English philosophers who footnote their work extensively. How many shall I name for you? It used to be called “rigor” but you call it “being Teutonic.” All I have seen Todd reference is your insane repetition of hypocrisies on this blog. And as for the Teutonic nature of things, I guess I ought to be flattered in some way, but really, what does that have to do with anything at all? Nothing, except prove that by your bringing it up you have run out of ideas, as if you ever had a single one. This is your fall back position as it is with Grace – make personal attacks and then act incensed, as if you are above it all when others point it out, won’t take it from you, and hand it right back.

  • Stephen

    Porcell,

    You began this thread with a slur against the president of the United States suggesting his policies are a reflection of the ethnicity of his middle name. You continue to make a similar slur against Todd for being thorough in citing your continued hypocrisy and ninny-ish behavior here as the local prig. In what sense does his “Teutonic-ness” have anything whatsoever to do with the way he pulverizes your ridiculous cut and pastes of the same tired responses about “good and honest” so and so, blah, blah, blah.

    You make me laugh. Even in your defense you do it all over again and are completely blind to it. I wasn’t speaking to you directly in my comment to Grace, only that she has adopted your same tactic and seems to agree that it’s just fine to bash people for their ethnicity.

    I dare say there are plenty of French and English philosophers who footnote their work extensively. How many shall I name for you? It used to be called “rigor” but you call it “being Teutonic.” All I have seen Todd reference is your insane repetition of hypocrisies on this blog. And as for the Teutonic nature of things, I guess I ought to be flattered in some way, but really, what does that have to do with anything at all? Nothing, except prove that by your bringing it up you have run out of ideas, as if you ever had a single one. This is your fall back position as it is with Grace – make personal attacks and then act incensed, as if you are above it all when others point it out, won’t take it from you, and hand it right back.

  • Grace

    Post 134 and 135 were written to Kerner.

    The Scripture I cited, from Ezekiel 37:26-37. “Covenant” – “Jacob” – “Everlasting” and “Israel” (all from that passage) were taken from Hebrew, .. therefore giving accurate meanings to each, in English from Hebrew. The word “posterity” was used in the Hebrew translation, I gave the definition from the dictionary, to clarify a very important part, that being verse 28:

    1. future or succeeding generations
    2. all of one’s descendants

    This would then mean, or define Jacob/Israel’s descendants who are Israelites/Jews

    Later in post 134, verses 26, 27 and 28 REPRINTED, for whatever reason – I then added the rest to post 135. I did not see the the REPRINTED passage in post 134 until this morning, I left my office last night, right after posting, about 11:30 PM.

    Copy pasting Scripture is a given, and done all the time.

    I often times write as plain and clear as possible, It serves a purpose, there is no reason to confuse anyone. I often explain a passage several ways, for clarification. I have no one to impress on this blog or anywhere else.

    All your accusations mean nothing to me, it’s a tirade of spoiled children, having a temper tantrum. I watched one such episode not to long ago in an upscale store, the friend of the child’s mother looked on in horror, and then said, “he is a very spoiled child” … I doubt she ever shopped with that particular woman again.

    As for all the outbursts, and whining over the mistreatment of BO in the Oval Office, he’s an embarrassment to this country.

  • Grace

    Post 134 and 135 were written to Kerner.

    The Scripture I cited, from Ezekiel 37:26-37. “Covenant” – “Jacob” – “Everlasting” and “Israel” (all from that passage) were taken from Hebrew, .. therefore giving accurate meanings to each, in English from Hebrew. The word “posterity” was used in the Hebrew translation, I gave the definition from the dictionary, to clarify a very important part, that being verse 28:

    1. future or succeeding generations
    2. all of one’s descendants

    This would then mean, or define Jacob/Israel’s descendants who are Israelites/Jews

    Later in post 134, verses 26, 27 and 28 REPRINTED, for whatever reason – I then added the rest to post 135. I did not see the the REPRINTED passage in post 134 until this morning, I left my office last night, right after posting, about 11:30 PM.

    Copy pasting Scripture is a given, and done all the time.

    I often times write as plain and clear as possible, It serves a purpose, there is no reason to confuse anyone. I often explain a passage several ways, for clarification. I have no one to impress on this blog or anywhere else.

    All your accusations mean nothing to me, it’s a tirade of spoiled children, having a temper tantrum. I watched one such episode not to long ago in an upscale store, the friend of the child’s mother looked on in horror, and then said, “he is a very spoiled child” … I doubt she ever shopped with that particular woman again.

    As for all the outbursts, and whining over the mistreatment of BO in the Oval Office, he’s an embarrassment to this country.

  • Porcell

    Stephen, The shrill tone of your remarks at 147 resembles that earlier scatological one. Your pretense of being a well read, indeed philosophical, blogger has become thin.

  • Porcell

    Stephen, The shrill tone of your remarks at 147 resembles that earlier scatological one. Your pretense of being a well read, indeed philosophical, blogger has become thin.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@144), I will give you this much: you are very entertaining. If only you could be so on purpose, then we’d all be having fun.

    But no, you once more bring back your race-obsessed ideas in which “one can hardly escape one’s background” and the validity of a man’s argument can be evaluated solely by determining his ethnicity or citizenship.

    So it is that you cannot help but to slap the label “Teutonic” on whatever it is that you’re complaining about me at the time. Because, frankly, you’re a racist. But you’re also a big baby, so you whine whenever people point out what you yourself make perfectly clear through your less-than-well-thought-out pejorative spasms.

    Which is why you eventually engage in that most pathetic of your defense mechanisms: playing the victim. Like you did earlier (@94), stopping from sobbing into your puffy pillow just long enough to whine about “the elite of this blog”.

    It makes me laugh that you would even put the words “elite” and “blog” in the same sentence, but I’ll let you in on a secret. The “elite” on this blog, if there are any, are those who are actually able to defend their ideas, and don’t just make crap up or consistently defer to shoddy authorities. I also hear tell that, at least in America, people tend to give more credence to arguments that don’t rely on racist underpinnings. So that might help you out in the future, as well. You know, FYI.

    Anyhow, shouldn’t you be busy backing up your theological bedmate Harold Camping, joining him in telling everyone here that they cannot have assurance of their salvation, all the while maintaining that there’s practically no difference at all between what you believe and what we do?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@144), I will give you this much: you are very entertaining. If only you could be so on purpose, then we’d all be having fun.

    But no, you once more bring back your race-obsessed ideas in which “one can hardly escape one’s background” and the validity of a man’s argument can be evaluated solely by determining his ethnicity or citizenship.

    So it is that you cannot help but to slap the label “Teutonic” on whatever it is that you’re complaining about me at the time. Because, frankly, you’re a racist. But you’re also a big baby, so you whine whenever people point out what you yourself make perfectly clear through your less-than-well-thought-out pejorative spasms.

    Which is why you eventually engage in that most pathetic of your defense mechanisms: playing the victim. Like you did earlier (@94), stopping from sobbing into your puffy pillow just long enough to whine about “the elite of this blog”.

    It makes me laugh that you would even put the words “elite” and “blog” in the same sentence, but I’ll let you in on a secret. The “elite” on this blog, if there are any, are those who are actually able to defend their ideas, and don’t just make crap up or consistently defer to shoddy authorities. I also hear tell that, at least in America, people tend to give more credence to arguments that don’t rely on racist underpinnings. So that might help you out in the future, as well. You know, FYI.

    Anyhow, shouldn’t you be busy backing up your theological bedmate Harold Camping, joining him in telling everyone here that they cannot have assurance of their salvation, all the while maintaining that there’s practically no difference at all between what you believe and what we do?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Another thing I have learned about you, Porcell (@147): your own whines on this blog almost always reveal your own flaws. Which, of course, points to the larger problem of hypocrisy.

    But really, you, of all people, are now going to complain about “shrill tones”? Guess what that signals to the rest of us? That you’ve got no actual response, no argument with which to parry.

    “Your pretense of being a well read, indeed philosophical, blogger has become thin.” Hmm. Heh. Heh heh. … Mmmm. Oh, Porcell, that’s just too rich! I really do wish you could be in on the joke here.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Another thing I have learned about you, Porcell (@147): your own whines on this blog almost always reveal your own flaws. Which, of course, points to the larger problem of hypocrisy.

    But really, you, of all people, are now going to complain about “shrill tones”? Guess what that signals to the rest of us? That you’ve got no actual response, no argument with which to parry.

    “Your pretense of being a well read, indeed philosophical, blogger has become thin.” Hmm. Heh. Heh heh. … Mmmm. Oh, Porcell, that’s just too rich! I really do wish you could be in on the joke here.

  • Grace

    “Hmm. Heh. Heh heh. … Mmmm. Oh, Porcell, that’s just too rich! I really do wish you could be in on the joke here.”

    You are the joke! You have a calamity nearly every day, complaining about anything. Reading your latest thrashing about on the blog, is the joke.

    It appears you haven’t found your plastic badge, the one you probably sat on.

  • Grace

    “Hmm. Heh. Heh heh. … Mmmm. Oh, Porcell, that’s just too rich! I really do wish you could be in on the joke here.”

    You are the joke! You have a calamity nearly every day, complaining about anything. Reading your latest thrashing about on the blog, is the joke.

    It appears you haven’t found your plastic badge, the one you probably sat on.

  • Stephen

    Well, it’s really no use is it?

    Hey, you wanna see a video clip of George W. Bush at Ranger game picking his nose? It’s out there somewhere. Very presidential. I loved the look on his face when he heard about the second tower. Did he get something stuck in his teeth?

    So what does any of that mean, huh? It’s amazing how these Obama gaffes in England is being “prioritized” as so insightful into his character. Books were filled with George Bush’s goofiness, all stuff that glanced right off conservatives.

    Oh, but then that is off-topic. I watched Charlie Rose last night and the commentators there all said basically what Todd said – this Israel/Palestinian thing is going to take like FOREVER probably. I tend to agree. They are not on our timetable. And I think Israelis could care less about a bunch of nut job, heterodox Christians who want to usher in the apocolypse and claim to be on Israel’s side. But that’s just me.

  • Stephen

    Well, it’s really no use is it?

    Hey, you wanna see a video clip of George W. Bush at Ranger game picking his nose? It’s out there somewhere. Very presidential. I loved the look on his face when he heard about the second tower. Did he get something stuck in his teeth?

    So what does any of that mean, huh? It’s amazing how these Obama gaffes in England is being “prioritized” as so insightful into his character. Books were filled with George Bush’s goofiness, all stuff that glanced right off conservatives.

    Oh, but then that is off-topic. I watched Charlie Rose last night and the commentators there all said basically what Todd said – this Israel/Palestinian thing is going to take like FOREVER probably. I tend to agree. They are not on our timetable. And I think Israelis could care less about a bunch of nut job, heterodox Christians who want to usher in the apocolypse and claim to be on Israel’s side. But that’s just me.

  • Tom Hering

    At best, the Israelis (wisely) tolerate Christian Zionists. It keeps the arms, foreign aid and tourist dollars coming.

  • Tom Hering

    At best, the Israelis (wisely) tolerate Christian Zionists. It keeps the arms, foreign aid and tourist dollars coming.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh, and one more thing, Peter. In keeping with my Teutonic background — and, furthermore, in keeping with the explicit request of your “Swedish-born wife” that I “do a bit more obsessive Teutonic sleuthing” — I’ve come to be suspicious of some of the details of your life you’ve told us about here.

    You already admitted where you live. You told us it was only “one of [your] summer places”, but I find that odd, given that you repeatedly ran for town moderator from that address. Strange behavior for a summer home, don’t you think?

    Anyhow, your local paper certainly seems to agree with me that your wife’s name is Barbara. They also say you’re a retired teacher. Oddly, they say you went to Union College, not Harvard as you frequently claim here. Were you really in the French Club there?

    Heck, I could even tell you what church you go to. Or what church Barbara goes to. They don’t appear to be the same. At least your involvement in your church’s ministry teams does bear up some of your claims about your business knowledge.

    That said, I couldn’t find any evidence that you actually ran the Boston Marathon like you said you did. And I’m fairly suspicious of all the other homes you claim to own and/or visit in the Bahamas and South Africa.

    Do you want me to give you a phone call, and we can discuss this further?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh, and one more thing, Peter. In keeping with my Teutonic background — and, furthermore, in keeping with the explicit request of your “Swedish-born wife” that I “do a bit more obsessive Teutonic sleuthing” — I’ve come to be suspicious of some of the details of your life you’ve told us about here.

    You already admitted where you live. You told us it was only “one of [your] summer places”, but I find that odd, given that you repeatedly ran for town moderator from that address. Strange behavior for a summer home, don’t you think?

    Anyhow, your local paper certainly seems to agree with me that your wife’s name is Barbara. They also say you’re a retired teacher. Oddly, they say you went to Union College, not Harvard as you frequently claim here. Were you really in the French Club there?

    Heck, I could even tell you what church you go to. Or what church Barbara goes to. They don’t appear to be the same. At least your involvement in your church’s ministry teams does bear up some of your claims about your business knowledge.

    That said, I couldn’t find any evidence that you actually ran the Boston Marathon like you said you did. And I’m fairly suspicious of all the other homes you claim to own and/or visit in the Bahamas and South Africa.

    Do you want me to give you a phone call, and we can discuss this further?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “So here’s a question for those here that fume against Obama’s speech: What would be an acceptable solution for the Peace Process in the Middle East. Give us some suggestions?”

    First for those who fume:

    Next, I just don’t feel we are obligated to figure out a Peace process for them. I wish them well, but it is up to them. They could have peace and prosperity tomorrow if they wanted to.

    Then, I don’t like the overt lobbying by a foreign country.

    AIPAC’s Big, Bigger, Biggest Moment
    By Dana Milbank
    Tuesday, May 24, 2005
    “How much clout does AIPAC have?
    Well, consider that during the pro-Israel lobby’s annual conference yesterday, a fleet of police cars, sirens wailing, blocked intersections and formed a motorcade to escort buses carrying its conventioneers — to lunch.
    The annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has long produced a massive show of bipartisan pandering, as lawmakers praise the well-financed and well-connected group. But this has been a rough year for AIPAC — it has dismissed its policy director and another employee while the FBI examines whether they passed classified U.S. information to Israel — and the organization is eager to show how big it is.”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/23/AR2005052301565.html

    But by far the worst is our politicians’ response to that lobbying.

    Confirmed Speakers Include:
    The Honorable Barack Obama
    President of the United States
    The Honorable Benjamin Netanyahu
    Prime Minister, State of Israel
    The Honorable John Boehner (R-OH)
    Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives
    The Honorable Harry Reid (D-NV)
    Majority Leader, U.S. Senate
    The Honorable Robert Casey (D-PA)
    U.S. Senate
    The Honorable John Thune (R-SD)
    U.S. Senate
    The Honorable Eric Cantor (R-VA)
    Majority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives
    The Honorable Steny Hoyer (D-MD)
    Democratic Whip, U.S. House of Representatives
    Mr. Jim Woolsey
    Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency
    The Honorable Martin Indyk
    Vice President for Foreign Policy, Brookings Institution; Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel
    Mr. Dan Senor
    Adjunct Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies, Council on Foreign Relations
    Mr. Paul Begala
    Democratic Political Analyst and CNN Contributor
    Mr. Ralph Reed
    President, Century Strategies
    http://www.aipac.org/PC/schedule.asp

    It is amazing how much our politicians love Israel. I wish we, the people, could get as much bipartisan cooperation, good will and attention to our problems.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “So here’s a question for those here that fume against Obama’s speech: What would be an acceptable solution for the Peace Process in the Middle East. Give us some suggestions?”

    First for those who fume:

    Next, I just don’t feel we are obligated to figure out a Peace process for them. I wish them well, but it is up to them. They could have peace and prosperity tomorrow if they wanted to.

    Then, I don’t like the overt lobbying by a foreign country.

    AIPAC’s Big, Bigger, Biggest Moment
    By Dana Milbank
    Tuesday, May 24, 2005
    “How much clout does AIPAC have?
    Well, consider that during the pro-Israel lobby’s annual conference yesterday, a fleet of police cars, sirens wailing, blocked intersections and formed a motorcade to escort buses carrying its conventioneers — to lunch.
    The annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has long produced a massive show of bipartisan pandering, as lawmakers praise the well-financed and well-connected group. But this has been a rough year for AIPAC — it has dismissed its policy director and another employee while the FBI examines whether they passed classified U.S. information to Israel — and the organization is eager to show how big it is.”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/23/AR2005052301565.html

    But by far the worst is our politicians’ response to that lobbying.

    Confirmed Speakers Include:
    The Honorable Barack Obama
    President of the United States
    The Honorable Benjamin Netanyahu
    Prime Minister, State of Israel
    The Honorable John Boehner (R-OH)
    Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives
    The Honorable Harry Reid (D-NV)
    Majority Leader, U.S. Senate
    The Honorable Robert Casey (D-PA)
    U.S. Senate
    The Honorable John Thune (R-SD)
    U.S. Senate
    The Honorable Eric Cantor (R-VA)
    Majority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives
    The Honorable Steny Hoyer (D-MD)
    Democratic Whip, U.S. House of Representatives
    Mr. Jim Woolsey
    Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency
    The Honorable Martin Indyk
    Vice President for Foreign Policy, Brookings Institution; Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel
    Mr. Dan Senor
    Adjunct Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies, Council on Foreign Relations
    Mr. Paul Begala
    Democratic Political Analyst and CNN Contributor
    Mr. Ralph Reed
    President, Century Strategies
    http://www.aipac.org/PC/schedule.asp

    It is amazing how much our politicians love Israel. I wish we, the people, could get as much bipartisan cooperation, good will and attention to our problems.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Oops, I left out

    First, for those who fume:

    http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/05/24/full-text-of-netanyahu-speech-to-congress/

    Meanwhile, are we basically just trying to assassinate Khadaffi?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Oops, I left out

    First, for those who fume:

    http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/05/24/full-text-of-netanyahu-speech-to-congress/

    Meanwhile, are we basically just trying to assassinate Khadaffi?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “the most racist person here is Grace”

    Oh come on, what about me? :-D

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “the most racist person here is Grace”

    Oh come on, what about me? :-D

  • Porcell

    Todd, at 153, There are not a few Peter Leavitts in the New England area. Your problem is that in my determined effort to hide my real identity, I deliberately misled WebMonk about that 33 Jackson Rd. address. As to the two Boston Marathons, I ran them unofficially in 1980 and 1985 among what is known as “bandit” runners.

    This demonically obsessive effort of yours to pry into my personal life , while somewhat amusing, fits with your tendency to be obsessed with personal attacks as opposed to substantial issues. On this thread you have managed to attack both Grace and me in a way that has diverted from the main issue. In the future my intention is to ignore reading any of your posts in order to pay attention to those addressing the substantial issues. As to talking with you on the phone, that would be the las thing that I would do. I don’t waste time with obsessive fools.

  • Porcell

    Todd, at 153, There are not a few Peter Leavitts in the New England area. Your problem is that in my determined effort to hide my real identity, I deliberately misled WebMonk about that 33 Jackson Rd. address. As to the two Boston Marathons, I ran them unofficially in 1980 and 1985 among what is known as “bandit” runners.

    This demonically obsessive effort of yours to pry into my personal life , while somewhat amusing, fits with your tendency to be obsessed with personal attacks as opposed to substantial issues. On this thread you have managed to attack both Grace and me in a way that has diverted from the main issue. In the future my intention is to ignore reading any of your posts in order to pay attention to those addressing the substantial issues. As to talking with you on the phone, that would be the las thing that I would do. I don’t waste time with obsessive fools.

  • trotk

    Don’t worry sg, I will always reserve that title for you.

    I am excited about waking up tomorrow and seeing Peter’s response to #153. tODD, you are Teutonic!

  • trotk

    Don’t worry sg, I will always reserve that title for you.

    I am excited about waking up tomorrow and seeing Peter’s response to #153. tODD, you are Teutonic!

  • Stephen

    Wow! Welcome to the asylum. It’s great to be an American!

    To answer your question @ 155 sg, we are the world cops and have been since the end of WWII. We have our hands in everything now. Our economy depends upon it, and so we need to also have law enforcement to go with it. Let’s face it. Something like 70 % of our oil comes from the Middle East. We HAVE to be in the middle of this junk for the long haul. And we will continue to pay through the nose. Well, unless we all start riding bicycles, advocating for more commuter rail, wind, solar, ya know, stuff that people have been talking about for decades but which has gone ignored.

    I misspoke earlier. I said I didn’t see why we have to play this game but actually I do, and it is endless, or at least until what seems more and more like a house of cards collapses. Vast amounts of capital in the hands of a few multinational corporations and banks which bring governments to their knees paying for their losses when things turn sour. These same governments help them accumulate and concentrate that wealth by legally protecting their interests above all else.

    The rest of us get a lot of sunshine blown up our collective rear ends every two to four years thinking we actually matter. We have no real negotiating power, no significant ownership in the face of these concentrations of wealth and political/legal power. So we will let the marketeers hammer away at us night and day with distractions, and politicians fumble with problems that remain intractable while promising results.

    Meanwhile, the public library is closing, you can’t get a job or a loan, and when you’re sick, you go broke. Maybe none of it is working, but we just don’t know what else to do.

    People think Obama is bad? If we elect that self-righteous bimbo nut job Sarah Palin for president I just might move my family elsewhere.

  • Stephen

    Wow! Welcome to the asylum. It’s great to be an American!

    To answer your question @ 155 sg, we are the world cops and have been since the end of WWII. We have our hands in everything now. Our economy depends upon it, and so we need to also have law enforcement to go with it. Let’s face it. Something like 70 % of our oil comes from the Middle East. We HAVE to be in the middle of this junk for the long haul. And we will continue to pay through the nose. Well, unless we all start riding bicycles, advocating for more commuter rail, wind, solar, ya know, stuff that people have been talking about for decades but which has gone ignored.

    I misspoke earlier. I said I didn’t see why we have to play this game but actually I do, and it is endless, or at least until what seems more and more like a house of cards collapses. Vast amounts of capital in the hands of a few multinational corporations and banks which bring governments to their knees paying for their losses when things turn sour. These same governments help them accumulate and concentrate that wealth by legally protecting their interests above all else.

    The rest of us get a lot of sunshine blown up our collective rear ends every two to four years thinking we actually matter. We have no real negotiating power, no significant ownership in the face of these concentrations of wealth and political/legal power. So we will let the marketeers hammer away at us night and day with distractions, and politicians fumble with problems that remain intractable while promising results.

    Meanwhile, the public library is closing, you can’t get a job or a loan, and when you’re sick, you go broke. Maybe none of it is working, but we just don’t know what else to do.

    People think Obama is bad? If we elect that self-righteous bimbo nut job Sarah Palin for president I just might move my family elsewhere.

  • Grace

    Many of you might not be aware of the term LLC. An LLC allows one to have many different properties, be they homes, buildings, etc., which are not listed under their name/names, but instead are listed under a code name. This allows the owner/owners to have some privacy as to their holdings, real estate, and where they actually live, and any other homes they may have at their disposal. It’s done for just a time as this, when an individual has chosen to seek them out, find out what they own, where they live and any other information that might be available, however sketchy, and it usually is.

    Participating on a blog (commenting) is not an open field to use as a detective, for whatever purposes that motivate them.

  • Grace

    Many of you might not be aware of the term LLC. An LLC allows one to have many different properties, be they homes, buildings, etc., which are not listed under their name/names, but instead are listed under a code name. This allows the owner/owners to have some privacy as to their holdings, real estate, and where they actually live, and any other homes they may have at their disposal. It’s done for just a time as this, when an individual has chosen to seek them out, find out what they own, where they live and any other information that might be available, however sketchy, and it usually is.

    Participating on a blog (commenting) is not an open field to use as a detective, for whatever purposes that motivate them.

  • Grace

    I wonder how many people have copied the offensive post.

    Why would anyone be so interested in another’s buisness, real estate, and personal life? Answer those questions, and you will most likely find the answer.

  • Grace

    I wonder how many people have copied the offensive post.

    Why would anyone be so interested in another’s buisness, real estate, and personal life? Answer those questions, and you will most likely find the answer.

  • trotk

    “Answer those questions, and you will most likely find the answer.”

    Indeed.

    Grace, are you suggesting that Peter has an LLC to hide his multiple homes?

    Intriguing.

  • trotk

    “Answer those questions, and you will most likely find the answer.”

    Indeed.

    Grace, are you suggesting that Peter has an LLC to hide his multiple homes?

    Intriguing.

  • Grace

    trotk – 162

    <blockquote“Grace, are you suggesting that Peter has an LLC to hide his multiple homes?

    Intriguing.

    I suggest it’s none of your buisness nor anyone elses. Find it ‘intriguing? – I find it to be intrusive, and further more wonder why you have the time or interest – that’s much more interesting !

  • Grace

    trotk – 162

    <blockquote“Grace, are you suggesting that Peter has an LLC to hide his multiple homes?

    Intriguing.

    I suggest it’s none of your buisness nor anyone elses. Find it ‘intriguing? – I find it to be intrusive, and further more wonder why you have the time or interest – that’s much more interesting !

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “we are the world cops and have been since the end of WWII. We have our hands in everything now. Our economy depends upon it,”

    More like the demise of our economy depends on it.

    “Something like 70 % of our oil comes from the Middle East.”

    Where does this popular myth come from?

    We produce a lot ourselves, and our biggest supplier by far is Canada.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “we are the world cops and have been since the end of WWII. We have our hands in everything now. Our economy depends upon it,”

    More like the demise of our economy depends on it.

    “Something like 70 % of our oil comes from the Middle East.”

    Where does this popular myth come from?

    We produce a lot ourselves, and our biggest supplier by far is Canada.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@157), this is only getting sadder on your part.

    You can rail all you want about “this demonically obsessive effort of [mine] to pry into [your] personal life,” but do please recall, as I have already told you once, that it was you, speaking on behalf of your wife, who explicitly invited me to “do a bit more obsessive Teutonic sleuthing in order to discover her real name”[1]. Of course, having done that, you now complain when I take you up on your invitation. How very Porcell of you.

    And here’s something else. Admitting to us that you’re a liar only makes things worse for you. If you claim to have “deliberately misled WebMonk”, then you admit that your statements are not trustworthy. Myself, I have very good reasons to believe that you are actually lying about having tried to mislead WebMonk. That is, the only “deliberate misleading” I’m certain of was in your comment above, trying to dissuade us from believing your address is what you already admitted it was[2]. Either way, you admit that you are a liar.

    And, by the way, do think these lies through, will you? If someone (like, oh, say, WebMonk), takes a lucky guess at what your home address is, why in the world would you “deliberately mislead” him by admitting that’s a place you live? Why not deliberately mislead him by, oh, denying he got it right in the first place? But, having made that mistake several months ago, in public, forever, on the Internet, you’re now trying to cover your tracks. Too late!

    But hey, let’s think this through. “There are not a few Peter Leavitts in the New England area,” you say. Trust me, I know! Of course, you have made it abundantly clear in comments here that you live in Massachusetts, not the “New England area”. And a search on WhitePages.com for Peter Leavitts living in Massachusetts turns up only 21 results — only a handful of which are in your (again, openly admitted) age range. This is how WebMonk arrived at his lucky guess before, I believe. WhitePages.com is helpful enough to provide us with your middle initial (D) to separate you out from other search results. It tells us you live in Scituate, and it gives us your phone number. Again, this is all a matter of public record.

    But you want me to believe that you are not the Peter Leavitt living at 33 Jackson Rd., is that right? Sorry, not buying it. After all, it was only a few months ago that you told us[3]:

    Personally, I had the privilege for nineteen years in my Massachusetts town of presiding as an elected town meeting Moderator.

    And, wouldn’t you know it, your local paper, the (Quincy) Patriot Ledger, has a series of articles from 2003 about the election for moderator in Scituate. Guess who the candidates were? Norman Paley and … Peter Leavitt! The Patriot Ledger doesn’t seem to keep its archives online, but one can access them through various archival sites, some of which offer free trials.

    Anyhow, one article from 2002 had this line:

    Peter Leavitt, 65, of 33 Jackson Road has decided to seek a 15th year as town moderator. In the fall, he said he considered not seeking re-election so that he could make a run for the charter review commission proposed in a March 30 ballot question. “I thought seriously about running for the charter commission, but on balance, I know a lot of good people who plan to run for the charter commission, and that rested my mind,” Leavitt said. “And I do enjoy being town moderator.”

    So let’s see. A guy with your name, in your age range, living at an address you once admitted to living at, running for a position you once admitted to holding, with a tenure in that position matching the one you admitted to, and who even talks like you (“seriously”, “on balance”) … is the wrong guy? Man, what a crazy series of coincidences … you’re asking me to believe in!

    Oh, but the crazy coincidences continue! Remember that comment you left back in April [4]:

    In the very early days in New England tavern keepers well knew that they were regarded rather lowly; consequently on the matter of signs they were restrained. We have one of these signs at the local historical society.

    A fairly benign comment, you might say. Obviously this Porcell fellow is interested in history and knows smoething about his local historical society. But guess what? So does the Peter Leavitt who lives at 33 Jackson Rd.! Here’s a quote from the minutes of the Scituate board of selectmen[5]:

    Peter Leavitt, 33 Jackson Road, is a member of the Historical Society and has a fundamental interest in the historic preservation of the Town. He had “serious reservations” about the formation of a Historic Commission … He further stated that “serious preservation and protecting basic property rights is a difficult balance”.

    Hey, look, that guy keeps using the word “serious” … just like you, Porcell!

    And no, I’m not done! Remember that WhitePages.com entry? It had a phone number attached to it. And your name and that phone number are both found in a document[6] put out by the First Trinitarian Congregational Church of Scituate, UCC. Hey, remember how much time you’ve spent talking about how you, Porcell, are a member of a Congregational church? And that … ahem, other … Peter Leavitt was on the financial ministry team and the investment ministry team. Hey, don’t you often talk about investing and finance on this blog, Porcell? Oh, and one more thing. If you go to the FTCCScituate.org history page, you’ll find out that[6]:

    The Scituate Congregational Church was gathered and the Rev. John Lothrop installed as minister in December 1634, becoming the fourth church in Plymouth Colony. The First Meeting House was built in 1636, the year the town was incorporated.

    A fairly dull fact, that, by itself. Unless you happen to recall someone else on this blog talking about a church founded in 1636. Any guesses as to who might have done that? … Time’s up, it was you! You said [8]:

    I attend a “Trinitarian” Congregational church in a New England town that my paternal family has been a part of since its founding in 1636.

    If you search further on that phone number, you can discover that Barbara was a secretary at the local Unitarian Universalist church.

    So here’s a question for you: since WhitePages.com and the Patriot Ledger both say your wife’s name is Barbara, why in the world would you not only lie about that, but mock her name (which I think is a fine name) in the process, calling it an “ordinary American name” and “rather an insult”?

    And it was the Patriot Ledger, running a sidebar about you in advance of that 2003 election, that tipped me off to the fact that you didn’t go to Harvard like you once claimed (” ’60, Eliot House”, you once said, and you also claimed your current handle was a reference to your association with Harvard’s Porcellian Club[9]). But, again, when running for electoral office, you told the newspaper that you had a bachelor’s from Union College. And I’m sure that’s a fine college. But you appear to be ashamed of it, or want us to respect you more, so you give us tales about Harvard to beef up your reputation.

    [1]geneveith.com/2011/05/19/right-wing-atheism/#comment-116819
    [2]geneveith.com/2010/09/30/the-states-right-to-assassinate-its-citizens/#comment-93125
    [3]geneveith.com/2011/01/28/arab-revolutions/#comment-105746
    [4]geneveith.com/2011/04/05/the-erosion-of-limited-government-individual-sovereignty/#comment-112564
    [5]town.scituate.ma.us/cgi-local/viewnews.cgi?category=4&id=1190160919
    [6]ftccscituate.org/development/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Ministry-Team-Festival-27-March-11.pdf
    [7]ftccscituate.org/who-we-are/history
    [8]geneveith.com/2008/12/24/put-the-mass-back-in-christmas/#comment-41782
    [9]geneveith.com/2011/01/27/something-close-to-a-creationist-and-potentially-evangelical/#comment-105558

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@157), this is only getting sadder on your part.

    You can rail all you want about “this demonically obsessive effort of [mine] to pry into [your] personal life,” but do please recall, as I have already told you once, that it was you, speaking on behalf of your wife, who explicitly invited me to “do a bit more obsessive Teutonic sleuthing in order to discover her real name”[1]. Of course, having done that, you now complain when I take you up on your invitation. How very Porcell of you.

    And here’s something else. Admitting to us that you’re a liar only makes things worse for you. If you claim to have “deliberately misled WebMonk”, then you admit that your statements are not trustworthy. Myself, I have very good reasons to believe that you are actually lying about having tried to mislead WebMonk. That is, the only “deliberate misleading” I’m certain of was in your comment above, trying to dissuade us from believing your address is what you already admitted it was[2]. Either way, you admit that you are a liar.

    And, by the way, do think these lies through, will you? If someone (like, oh, say, WebMonk), takes a lucky guess at what your home address is, why in the world would you “deliberately mislead” him by admitting that’s a place you live? Why not deliberately mislead him by, oh, denying he got it right in the first place? But, having made that mistake several months ago, in public, forever, on the Internet, you’re now trying to cover your tracks. Too late!

    But hey, let’s think this through. “There are not a few Peter Leavitts in the New England area,” you say. Trust me, I know! Of course, you have made it abundantly clear in comments here that you live in Massachusetts, not the “New England area”. And a search on WhitePages.com for Peter Leavitts living in Massachusetts turns up only 21 results — only a handful of which are in your (again, openly admitted) age range. This is how WebMonk arrived at his lucky guess before, I believe. WhitePages.com is helpful enough to provide us with your middle initial (D) to separate you out from other search results. It tells us you live in Scituate, and it gives us your phone number. Again, this is all a matter of public record.

    But you want me to believe that you are not the Peter Leavitt living at 33 Jackson Rd., is that right? Sorry, not buying it. After all, it was only a few months ago that you told us[3]:

    Personally, I had the privilege for nineteen years in my Massachusetts town of presiding as an elected town meeting Moderator.

    And, wouldn’t you know it, your local paper, the (Quincy) Patriot Ledger, has a series of articles from 2003 about the election for moderator in Scituate. Guess who the candidates were? Norman Paley and … Peter Leavitt! The Patriot Ledger doesn’t seem to keep its archives online, but one can access them through various archival sites, some of which offer free trials.

    Anyhow, one article from 2002 had this line:

    Peter Leavitt, 65, of 33 Jackson Road has decided to seek a 15th year as town moderator. In the fall, he said he considered not seeking re-election so that he could make a run for the charter review commission proposed in a March 30 ballot question. “I thought seriously about running for the charter commission, but on balance, I know a lot of good people who plan to run for the charter commission, and that rested my mind,” Leavitt said. “And I do enjoy being town moderator.”

    So let’s see. A guy with your name, in your age range, living at an address you once admitted to living at, running for a position you once admitted to holding, with a tenure in that position matching the one you admitted to, and who even talks like you (“seriously”, “on balance”) … is the wrong guy? Man, what a crazy series of coincidences … you’re asking me to believe in!

    Oh, but the crazy coincidences continue! Remember that comment you left back in April [4]:

    In the very early days in New England tavern keepers well knew that they were regarded rather lowly; consequently on the matter of signs they were restrained. We have one of these signs at the local historical society.

    A fairly benign comment, you might say. Obviously this Porcell fellow is interested in history and knows smoething about his local historical society. But guess what? So does the Peter Leavitt who lives at 33 Jackson Rd.! Here’s a quote from the minutes of the Scituate board of selectmen[5]:

    Peter Leavitt, 33 Jackson Road, is a member of the Historical Society and has a fundamental interest in the historic preservation of the Town. He had “serious reservations” about the formation of a Historic Commission … He further stated that “serious preservation and protecting basic property rights is a difficult balance”.

    Hey, look, that guy keeps using the word “serious” … just like you, Porcell!

    And no, I’m not done! Remember that WhitePages.com entry? It had a phone number attached to it. And your name and that phone number are both found in a document[6] put out by the First Trinitarian Congregational Church of Scituate, UCC. Hey, remember how much time you’ve spent talking about how you, Porcell, are a member of a Congregational church? And that … ahem, other … Peter Leavitt was on the financial ministry team and the investment ministry team. Hey, don’t you often talk about investing and finance on this blog, Porcell? Oh, and one more thing. If you go to the FTCCScituate.org history page, you’ll find out that[6]:

    The Scituate Congregational Church was gathered and the Rev. John Lothrop installed as minister in December 1634, becoming the fourth church in Plymouth Colony. The First Meeting House was built in 1636, the year the town was incorporated.

    A fairly dull fact, that, by itself. Unless you happen to recall someone else on this blog talking about a church founded in 1636. Any guesses as to who might have done that? … Time’s up, it was you! You said [8]:

    I attend a “Trinitarian” Congregational church in a New England town that my paternal family has been a part of since its founding in 1636.

    If you search further on that phone number, you can discover that Barbara was a secretary at the local Unitarian Universalist church.

    So here’s a question for you: since WhitePages.com and the Patriot Ledger both say your wife’s name is Barbara, why in the world would you not only lie about that, but mock her name (which I think is a fine name) in the process, calling it an “ordinary American name” and “rather an insult”?

    And it was the Patriot Ledger, running a sidebar about you in advance of that 2003 election, that tipped me off to the fact that you didn’t go to Harvard like you once claimed (” ’60, Eliot House”, you once said, and you also claimed your current handle was a reference to your association with Harvard’s Porcellian Club[9]). But, again, when running for electoral office, you told the newspaper that you had a bachelor’s from Union College. And I’m sure that’s a fine college. But you appear to be ashamed of it, or want us to respect you more, so you give us tales about Harvard to beef up your reputation.

    [1]geneveith.com/2011/05/19/right-wing-atheism/#comment-116819
    [2]geneveith.com/2010/09/30/the-states-right-to-assassinate-its-citizens/#comment-93125
    [3]geneveith.com/2011/01/28/arab-revolutions/#comment-105746
    [4]geneveith.com/2011/04/05/the-erosion-of-limited-government-individual-sovereignty/#comment-112564
    [5]town.scituate.ma.us/cgi-local/viewnews.cgi?category=4&id=1190160919
    [6]ftccscituate.org/development/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Ministry-Team-Festival-27-March-11.pdf
    [7]ftccscituate.org/who-we-are/history
    [8]geneveith.com/2008/12/24/put-the-mass-back-in-christmas/#comment-41782
    [9]geneveith.com/2011/01/27/something-close-to-a-creationist-and-potentially-evangelical/#comment-105558

  • trotk

    Wow. Teutonic. tODD, you are definitely in the wrong profession.

    Peter, my ancestry is Welsh. Could you tell me what characteristics I am supposed to have so that I can display them as ably as tODD has?

  • trotk

    Wow. Teutonic. tODD, you are definitely in the wrong profession.

    Peter, my ancestry is Welsh. Could you tell me what characteristics I am supposed to have so that I can display them as ably as tODD has?

  • Stephen

    sg -

    Well, you’ve got me there. Perhaps the “70%” figure I was thinking of refers to the total amount of imported oil from the whole. I suppose you could track that down to see if it is correct. I think the rest of what I said still makes sense – oil, global politics, etc. I’m not sure I get the Libya thing for any other reason. We didn’t go firing missiles into any other countries that were experiencing similar civil strife.

    Anyway, I’m cynical that it is anything else. This business with China goes on because we buy their stuff, including lots of electronics which we run our American corporations on. Round and round it goes. Our economy is a capitalist one, THE capitalist one. Remember how the world came to a standstill because some bankers got greedy in this country? This reality of capitalism necessarily means that we will have corporations that seek to concentrate and grow wealth in immense sums. I don’t think it is the fact that we have the US Navy patrolling every sea on the earth that is doing us in. It is that we have accepted this system as the only way to go and even worship it as some kind of great success. It’s ascendancy is assured over everything else because the Soviet Union collapsed, or so goes the current mythology. Well, is it working? Will it continue to work?

    Having said that, does that mean socialism and state control of everything is the only other option? I hope not. I think ownership matters greatly, and frankly, I don’t feel like I have much of that myself in comparison to the powers that be which I just described. It seems like people are finding work around solutions, and when they do and a politician supports them, I don’t care what stripe he is, I like to hear that. But it is a steep incline.

    So while all the pundits are saying Obama is a dreamer for what he said about the borders, I’m thinking “Hey, wait a second.” The experts all seem to have no solutions. They babble on about this stuff they know so much about, describing all the intricacies, and sometimes I think they are like IT guys who like that Microsoft products suck so they can keep their jobs. “Please don’t mess with our ever-complicated scenario. We won’t have anything to write about if it actually were to get fixed!”

    Oh well, now I’m babbling. Funny Grace should mention LLCs. now there’s a way to pile up money without liability.

  • Stephen

    sg -

    Well, you’ve got me there. Perhaps the “70%” figure I was thinking of refers to the total amount of imported oil from the whole. I suppose you could track that down to see if it is correct. I think the rest of what I said still makes sense – oil, global politics, etc. I’m not sure I get the Libya thing for any other reason. We didn’t go firing missiles into any other countries that were experiencing similar civil strife.

    Anyway, I’m cynical that it is anything else. This business with China goes on because we buy their stuff, including lots of electronics which we run our American corporations on. Round and round it goes. Our economy is a capitalist one, THE capitalist one. Remember how the world came to a standstill because some bankers got greedy in this country? This reality of capitalism necessarily means that we will have corporations that seek to concentrate and grow wealth in immense sums. I don’t think it is the fact that we have the US Navy patrolling every sea on the earth that is doing us in. It is that we have accepted this system as the only way to go and even worship it as some kind of great success. It’s ascendancy is assured over everything else because the Soviet Union collapsed, or so goes the current mythology. Well, is it working? Will it continue to work?

    Having said that, does that mean socialism and state control of everything is the only other option? I hope not. I think ownership matters greatly, and frankly, I don’t feel like I have much of that myself in comparison to the powers that be which I just described. It seems like people are finding work around solutions, and when they do and a politician supports them, I don’t care what stripe he is, I like to hear that. But it is a steep incline.

    So while all the pundits are saying Obama is a dreamer for what he said about the borders, I’m thinking “Hey, wait a second.” The experts all seem to have no solutions. They babble on about this stuff they know so much about, describing all the intricacies, and sometimes I think they are like IT guys who like that Microsoft products suck so they can keep their jobs. “Please don’t mess with our ever-complicated scenario. We won’t have anything to write about if it actually were to get fixed!”

    Oh well, now I’m babbling. Funny Grace should mention LLCs. now there’s a way to pile up money without liability.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Sorry, not quite done. What’s that phrase? Something about weaving tangled webs? You said (@157):

    As to the two Boston Marathons, I ran them unofficially in 1980 and 1985 among what is known as “bandit” runners.

    See, when you tell lies, you have to keep your stories straight. You clearly have forgotten what lies you told about the Boston Marathon, however. Allow my Teutonic skills to refresh your memory.

    See, over on a World Magazine comment page, a guy named Peter Leavitt said:

    This year at age 71 I finished the Boston Marathon once again and intend to run it again next year. Care to join me? I it might clear your head of that musty ideological naturalism and romantic liberalism.

    Let’s see, same name as you, same age as you, doesn’t like “romantic liberalism”, and in every other way talks like you (just read the rest of Leavitt’s comments there).

    But that Peter Leavitt claimed to have “finished the Boston Marathon once again” in 2008! Not, as you would now have us believe, in “1980 and 1985″.

    Whoops!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Sorry, not quite done. What’s that phrase? Something about weaving tangled webs? You said (@157):

    As to the two Boston Marathons, I ran them unofficially in 1980 and 1985 among what is known as “bandit” runners.

    See, when you tell lies, you have to keep your stories straight. You clearly have forgotten what lies you told about the Boston Marathon, however. Allow my Teutonic skills to refresh your memory.

    See, over on a World Magazine comment page, a guy named Peter Leavitt said:

    This year at age 71 I finished the Boston Marathon once again and intend to run it again next year. Care to join me? I it might clear your head of that musty ideological naturalism and romantic liberalism.

    Let’s see, same name as you, same age as you, doesn’t like “romantic liberalism”, and in every other way talks like you (just read the rest of Leavitt’s comments there).

    But that Peter Leavitt claimed to have “finished the Boston Marathon once again” in 2008! Not, as you would now have us believe, in “1980 and 1985″.

    Whoops!

  • Grace

    How envious can one become?

    A sound heart is the life of the flesh: but envy the rottenness of the bones. Proverbs 14:30

  • Grace

    How envious can one become?

    A sound heart is the life of the flesh: but envy the rottenness of the bones. Proverbs 14:30

  • Grace

    Stephen – 167

    “Funny Grace should mention LLCs. now there’s a way to pile up money without liability.”

    It’s not limiting liability, it’s a way to keep people from your private business. Perhaps those who can’t help but nose around in others affairs, worked as hard at being a success wouldn’t be so frustrated at the success of their neighbors, and just might put their time to a better use.

  • Grace

    Stephen – 167

    “Funny Grace should mention LLCs. now there’s a way to pile up money without liability.”

    It’s not limiting liability, it’s a way to keep people from your private business. Perhaps those who can’t help but nose around in others affairs, worked as hard at being a success wouldn’t be so frustrated at the success of their neighbors, and just might put their time to a better use.

  • Grace

    ENVY on this blog seems to be a disease that has spread like chicken pox, …. who would have ever known?

  • Grace

    ENVY on this blog seems to be a disease that has spread like chicken pox, …. who would have ever known?

  • trotk

    Grace, you do know that LLC stands for Limited Liability Company, don’t you? They are all about limiting liability.

  • trotk

    Grace, you do know that LLC stands for Limited Liability Company, don’t you? They are all about limiting liability.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    So what’s my point in all this, Peter?

    Please stop lying. Stop lying to try to impress us.

    Because it should have been painfully obvious to you that it wasn’t working, anyhow. And now you’ve merely shown yourself to be a liar, to boot. Wouldn’t it be much better to simply be ignored than to be ignored and also thought a liar?

    At least the ignored person can earn credit by engaging in the conversation and making skillful observations or adding helpful information. But a liar will likely never earn credit even if he does these things. Because his reputation is tarnished.

    If you can make a credible argument, no one really cares what university you went to. Or whether you were in the Marines or not (a claim of yours I decided not to look into). Or what particular congregation you attend. And they certainly don’t care whether you ran the Boston Marathon or not, as far as your arguments go.

    But you have a bad tendency to explicitly appeal to authority in your claims, as if the fact that someone famous said something makes it true. And now it seems quite clear to me that you attempted to give your own voice more authority by telling us lies.

    I don’t actually want you to stop commenting here. Sometimes you have insightful things to say, though I quite obviously disagree with you on a number of fronts.

    But, really, please stop lying to make yourself look better.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    So what’s my point in all this, Peter?

    Please stop lying. Stop lying to try to impress us.

    Because it should have been painfully obvious to you that it wasn’t working, anyhow. And now you’ve merely shown yourself to be a liar, to boot. Wouldn’t it be much better to simply be ignored than to be ignored and also thought a liar?

    At least the ignored person can earn credit by engaging in the conversation and making skillful observations or adding helpful information. But a liar will likely never earn credit even if he does these things. Because his reputation is tarnished.

    If you can make a credible argument, no one really cares what university you went to. Or whether you were in the Marines or not (a claim of yours I decided not to look into). Or what particular congregation you attend. And they certainly don’t care whether you ran the Boston Marathon or not, as far as your arguments go.

    But you have a bad tendency to explicitly appeal to authority in your claims, as if the fact that someone famous said something makes it true. And now it seems quite clear to me that you attempted to give your own voice more authority by telling us lies.

    I don’t actually want you to stop commenting here. Sometimes you have insightful things to say, though I quite obviously disagree with you on a number of fronts.

    But, really, please stop lying to make yourself look better.

  • Stephen

    I seem to remember “Porcell” using the Grace defense on me one time not so long ago telling me he didn’t have time to respond to my argument because he was leaving on a trip to Croatia. A little while later (like maybe 30 minutes or an hour) that same day he showed up on another thread.

    Something is fishy in Mass-ka-chew-skits (he said like Popeye)

    Now I know you never read Pannenberg Herr Porcell, or probably very many of those other authors you’ve listed.

    Oh, I like that – Herr Porcell.

  • Stephen

    I seem to remember “Porcell” using the Grace defense on me one time not so long ago telling me he didn’t have time to respond to my argument because he was leaving on a trip to Croatia. A little while later (like maybe 30 minutes or an hour) that same day he showed up on another thread.

    Something is fishy in Mass-ka-chew-skits (he said like Popeye)

    Now I know you never read Pannenberg Herr Porcell, or probably very many of those other authors you’ve listed.

    Oh, I like that – Herr Porcell.

  • Grace

    tODD,

    If ever I would have thought of darkening the door of a Lutheran Church, I would never, I mean NEVER walk through one now. To think anyone can say the things you’ve written in these posts is the worst I have ever read.

    God have mercy on you.

  • Grace

    tODD,

    If ever I would have thought of darkening the door of a Lutheran Church, I would never, I mean NEVER walk through one now. To think anyone can say the things you’ve written in these posts is the worst I have ever read.

    God have mercy on you.

  • Stephen

    Grace,

    I’m sorry, but you don’t know what you are talking about. I’ve been involved with LLCs as a filmmaker and have some knowledge of how they work and how they are useful for protecting capital. One of those uses is to limit liabilities. In fact, that’s the main reason they are often used in what I do, It’s also easy to do. And I suppose some use it to obscure the funds. How about that? I’d say you made my point. The law (politics) helps corporations accumulate and, most importantly, concentrate wealth. It has to or there would be no shell game called Wall Street.

    I’m glad you have money, but I’m sorry you feel that everyone envies you. Perhaps the envy you are sensing are the very moths and dust accumulating on your worldly treasures and eating away at it, eating away at you. Just a guess. I can tell it really bothers you. Believe me though, I don’t envy you or Peter. I go from sadness to some anger to exasperation to tedium to boredom and back to sadness and pity. Sometimes, I admit, I find your humorlessness and his quite humorous and good for a laugh.

    But envy, not hardly. Not at all. None. I think you are both missing out.

  • Stephen

    Grace,

    I’m sorry, but you don’t know what you are talking about. I’ve been involved with LLCs as a filmmaker and have some knowledge of how they work and how they are useful for protecting capital. One of those uses is to limit liabilities. In fact, that’s the main reason they are often used in what I do, It’s also easy to do. And I suppose some use it to obscure the funds. How about that? I’d say you made my point. The law (politics) helps corporations accumulate and, most importantly, concentrate wealth. It has to or there would be no shell game called Wall Street.

    I’m glad you have money, but I’m sorry you feel that everyone envies you. Perhaps the envy you are sensing are the very moths and dust accumulating on your worldly treasures and eating away at it, eating away at you. Just a guess. I can tell it really bothers you. Believe me though, I don’t envy you or Peter. I go from sadness to some anger to exasperation to tedium to boredom and back to sadness and pity. Sometimes, I admit, I find your humorlessness and his quite humorous and good for a laugh.

    But envy, not hardly. Not at all. None. I think you are both missing out.

  • Grace

    Stephen – 176

    All your trumped up definitions mean very little – talk to a banker, the president of your bank.

    Don’t concern yourself with my so called “dust” again you use your crystal ball, just like others of your ilk on this blog, to determine who they are, what they do, and how they live their lives.

    As far as the rest of your complaint, I won’t waste my time.

  • Grace

    Stephen – 176

    All your trumped up definitions mean very little – talk to a banker, the president of your bank.

    Don’t concern yourself with my so called “dust” again you use your crystal ball, just like others of your ilk on this blog, to determine who they are, what they do, and how they live their lives.

    As far as the rest of your complaint, I won’t waste my time.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Stephen (@174), I know, right? This is the problem with having a reputation as a liar — all the more so when you’ve admitted to it (to cover up other lies, no less)!

    Peter’s lie also makes no sense in the context of this discussion over here, where WebMonk said mockingly of Porcell:

    Come! Join me in wailing before his door and perhaps he will show us mercy and once again enlighten us with the great wisdom he has gained from reading a book by a person with whom he communicated at some point decades ago!

    And what was Porcell’s response?

    WebMonk, actually, just now, I’m at my winter place in the Bahamas and will later be in South Africa for a couple of months. You shall have to save that penitentiary journey to Massachusetts for a while.

    Do you get the impression that Porcell was afraid that WebMonk, having correctly guessed his home address in an earlier conversation, might actually follow through on his snarkery and visit Porcell’s house? So maybe Porcell attempts to deflect this journey by telling WebMonk that, whoops, he’s out of the country for several months, as it happens?

    Except that now Porcell wants us to believe that the address WebMonk knew of was one that Porcell “deliberately misled” WebMonk about. So … why did Porcell care, in the conversation above, whether he was in town or not? According to Porcell today, WebMonk never had the correct address!

    I mean, if Porcell somehow figured out that my address was 123 Fake St., Springfield, and told me he’d be coming to pay me a visit, I’d say something like, “Be my guest! The key’s under the mat! Come on in!” Because I know that’s not my actual address (as many of you know, it’s actually 123 Fake St., Bogusville).

    Also, what kind of (retired) teacher makes enough money to afford multiple “summer places”, in addition to a “main address that is kept private along with another summer Maine address and winter ones in the Bahamas and South Africa”? Because I want to work in that school district!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Stephen (@174), I know, right? This is the problem with having a reputation as a liar — all the more so when you’ve admitted to it (to cover up other lies, no less)!

    Peter’s lie also makes no sense in the context of this discussion over here, where WebMonk said mockingly of Porcell:

    Come! Join me in wailing before his door and perhaps he will show us mercy and once again enlighten us with the great wisdom he has gained from reading a book by a person with whom he communicated at some point decades ago!

    And what was Porcell’s response?

    WebMonk, actually, just now, I’m at my winter place in the Bahamas and will later be in South Africa for a couple of months. You shall have to save that penitentiary journey to Massachusetts for a while.

    Do you get the impression that Porcell was afraid that WebMonk, having correctly guessed his home address in an earlier conversation, might actually follow through on his snarkery and visit Porcell’s house? So maybe Porcell attempts to deflect this journey by telling WebMonk that, whoops, he’s out of the country for several months, as it happens?

    Except that now Porcell wants us to believe that the address WebMonk knew of was one that Porcell “deliberately misled” WebMonk about. So … why did Porcell care, in the conversation above, whether he was in town or not? According to Porcell today, WebMonk never had the correct address!

    I mean, if Porcell somehow figured out that my address was 123 Fake St., Springfield, and told me he’d be coming to pay me a visit, I’d say something like, “Be my guest! The key’s under the mat! Come on in!” Because I know that’s not my actual address (as many of you know, it’s actually 123 Fake St., Bogusville).

    Also, what kind of (retired) teacher makes enough money to afford multiple “summer places”, in addition to a “main address that is kept private along with another summer Maine address and winter ones in the Bahamas and South Africa”? Because I want to work in that school district!

  • Stephen

    Grace,

    You need to stop and go to bed. You want to stop people from telling the truth, and you just used the Lord’s name in vain to try and do it. It’s obvious. Feigning shock is transparent and only making it worse. Stop Grace. It’s really awful.

    Proverbs 30:8 “Keep falsehood and lies far from me; give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread.”

  • Stephen

    Grace,

    You need to stop and go to bed. You want to stop people from telling the truth, and you just used the Lord’s name in vain to try and do it. It’s obvious. Feigning shock is transparent and only making it worse. Stop Grace. It’s really awful.

    Proverbs 30:8 “Keep falsehood and lies far from me; give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread.”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@175), please. Would you really have us believe, after you turn nearly every discussion on Lutheranism that you enter into a screaming fest about “Luther and the Jews! Luther and the Jews! Luther and the Jews!” — and mere hours ago calling Martin Luther a false prophet once again — that you were considering attending a Lutheran church?

    Why, even your pity party here makes clear your issues with Lutherans. Because nothing I have written has anything to do with Lutheranism — whether the fact that I am Lutheran, that Porcell is not, or from any Lutheran doctrine you could name. And yet, so very like you, you manage to take my fact-finding jaunt as yet another reason to blame the Lutherans for … something? Dedication to truth? Knowing how to use Google?

    And where is your concern for the truth? I mean, your dedication to your blog-friend is somewhat charming, if seemingly little more than stubbornness combined with the camaraderie that comes from being on the losing end of most discussions here.

    But you never once chastised Porcell, that I can tell, for explicitly denying the assurance of salvation that God gives us in his Word. And yet, when I point you to public Google results, then you get all apoplectic about my post being “the worst [you] have ever read”?! Man, that says leagues more about you and your judgment than you likely intended!

    Seriously, I kind of thought truth was important to you. Guess not.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@175), please. Would you really have us believe, after you turn nearly every discussion on Lutheranism that you enter into a screaming fest about “Luther and the Jews! Luther and the Jews! Luther and the Jews!” — and mere hours ago calling Martin Luther a false prophet once again — that you were considering attending a Lutheran church?

    Why, even your pity party here makes clear your issues with Lutherans. Because nothing I have written has anything to do with Lutheranism — whether the fact that I am Lutheran, that Porcell is not, or from any Lutheran doctrine you could name. And yet, so very like you, you manage to take my fact-finding jaunt as yet another reason to blame the Lutherans for … something? Dedication to truth? Knowing how to use Google?

    And where is your concern for the truth? I mean, your dedication to your blog-friend is somewhat charming, if seemingly little more than stubbornness combined with the camaraderie that comes from being on the losing end of most discussions here.

    But you never once chastised Porcell, that I can tell, for explicitly denying the assurance of salvation that God gives us in his Word. And yet, when I point you to public Google results, then you get all apoplectic about my post being “the worst [you] have ever read”?! Man, that says leagues more about you and your judgment than you likely intended!

    Seriously, I kind of thought truth was important to you. Guess not.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh, and speaking of hypocrisy, Grace, regarding your concern above about “private business” (@170), do you remember when you said to me:

    tODD, ….

    We now know your “vocation” – therefore duly enlightened!

    Or how about the time someone else learned what my Web site was and you said:

    Dust #573……. is giving out a blog site that matches YOURS tODD…… LOL, LOL, LOL, …… hoot and toot!

    Didn’t seem terribly bothered by “those who can’t help but nose around in others’ affairs” back then, did you, Grace?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh, and speaking of hypocrisy, Grace, regarding your concern above about “private business” (@170), do you remember when you said to me:

    tODD, ….

    We now know your “vocation” – therefore duly enlightened!

    Or how about the time someone else learned what my Web site was and you said:

    Dust #573……. is giving out a blog site that matches YOURS tODD…… LOL, LOL, LOL, …… hoot and toot!

    Didn’t seem terribly bothered by “those who can’t help but nose around in others’ affairs” back then, did you, Grace?

  • Louis

    Isn’t it some sort of felony if you claim that you were in the Marines, and you were not? If that is the case, I really hope Porcell was not lying in that instance.

    Grace, Todd was pointing out the obvious. Just as I was doing to you before – I have really found your behaviour and tactics very bad, here on this blog. However, there is no need to turn against Lutheranism. I do implore you, visit one with an open mind and heart one day. But if you hate us too much to do so, why do you come here at all? Many times, in spite of our “vigorous” debate here, people have been very kind to you. But you continually spurn them. This is not a good testimony at all, especially for one who believes in such a moralistic theology as you. We Lutherans do not pretend that we aren’t sinners. But you have to pretend that you are a saint – in the common use of that term. And, I’m sorry to say, it shows. Haughtiness, pride and arrogance, but with excessive ignorance and simplemindedness, is how you come across.

    You might be a very lovely person in real life. If so, please change your online persona. Otherwise, what on earth are you doing on a blog like this??

  • Louis

    Isn’t it some sort of felony if you claim that you were in the Marines, and you were not? If that is the case, I really hope Porcell was not lying in that instance.

    Grace, Todd was pointing out the obvious. Just as I was doing to you before – I have really found your behaviour and tactics very bad, here on this blog. However, there is no need to turn against Lutheranism. I do implore you, visit one with an open mind and heart one day. But if you hate us too much to do so, why do you come here at all? Many times, in spite of our “vigorous” debate here, people have been very kind to you. But you continually spurn them. This is not a good testimony at all, especially for one who believes in such a moralistic theology as you. We Lutherans do not pretend that we aren’t sinners. But you have to pretend that you are a saint – in the common use of that term. And, I’m sorry to say, it shows. Haughtiness, pride and arrogance, but with excessive ignorance and simplemindedness, is how you come across.

    You might be a very lovely person in real life. If so, please change your online persona. Otherwise, what on earth are you doing on a blog like this??

  • Stephen

    Todd @ 178

    This has been about as goofy as it gets, like some kind of post-modern onion peeling show.

    Maybe the next move is to tell Herr Porcell he has nothing to worry about.

  • Stephen

    Todd @ 178

    This has been about as goofy as it gets, like some kind of post-modern onion peeling show.

    Maybe the next move is to tell Herr Porcell he has nothing to worry about.

  • Stephen

    I wonder if Peter is worried? That is dicey messing with the Marines. Wow. And I even showed him respect and deference for that when I first came here.

  • Stephen

    I wonder if Peter is worried? That is dicey messing with the Marines. Wow. And I even showed him respect and deference for that when I first came here.

  • Stephen

    I hadn’t realized it went this deep – South Africa and the Bahamas? Really? That would have been a tip off. I was always suspicious, but I have this thing about wanting to think the best about people (believe it or not). It is maybe a naive thing. It may also be why I get so worked up when otherwise good people turn out to believe dumb stuff that it doesn’t seem they have thought about or wrestled with, or when people I have given the benefit of the doubt take it and stomp on it. And no one likes to be lied to, slandered or otherwise categorized negatively for superficial reasons.

    But then again, I doubt I live by my own ideals.

  • Stephen

    I hadn’t realized it went this deep – South Africa and the Bahamas? Really? That would have been a tip off. I was always suspicious, but I have this thing about wanting to think the best about people (believe it or not). It is maybe a naive thing. It may also be why I get so worked up when otherwise good people turn out to believe dumb stuff that it doesn’t seem they have thought about or wrestled with, or when people I have given the benefit of the doubt take it and stomp on it. And no one likes to be lied to, slandered or otherwise categorized negatively for superficial reasons.

    But then again, I doubt I live by my own ideals.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh, and Porcell (@157), a word about empty promises…

    In the future my intention is to ignore reading any of your posts in order to pay attention to those addressing the substantial issues.

    Oh, promises, promises:

    Todd … My intention in the future is to refrain from engaging you, lex talionis, at the personal level, while not hesitating to call attention to any of your argumentum ad hominem remarks.

    And yet more promises:

    Todd … In the future I shall not respond to your scurrilous form of argument.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh, and Porcell (@157), a word about empty promises…

    In the future my intention is to ignore reading any of your posts in order to pay attention to those addressing the substantial issues.

    Oh, promises, promises:

    Todd … My intention in the future is to refrain from engaging you, lex talionis, at the personal level, while not hesitating to call attention to any of your argumentum ad hominem remarks.

    And yet more promises:

    Todd … In the future I shall not respond to your scurrilous form of argument.

  • WebMonk

    tODD, you’ve ably demonstrated that “cyber security” is something of a misnomer. For example, I’ve just gone online and tracked down Peter’s financial records as they touch on his mortgages and refinancing activities – they’re all publicly available with a simple Google search.

    I tend to keep my identity vaguely obscured just by using my WebMonk moniker, though I know that there is plenty in this blog’s comments to pretty easily identify my name, location, and profession. With that, anyone can use Google to figure out my wife’s name, kids’ names, address, tax records, mortgage/refinance history, church, etc. It’s not something that particularly bothers me – y’all are welcome to stop on by any time you’re in the area. We can get together with Dr. Veith, maybe!

    The summary is that if you’re on the Internet, then you are publicly announced to the world. If you want to make up stuff about yourself, then your only hope of getting away with it is to hope no one actually checks.

    In this case, tODD checked, and the one known here as Porcell got caught. (and tODD, I called his number at 33 Jackson several months ago and an older male answered to the name of Peter)

  • WebMonk

    tODD, you’ve ably demonstrated that “cyber security” is something of a misnomer. For example, I’ve just gone online and tracked down Peter’s financial records as they touch on his mortgages and refinancing activities – they’re all publicly available with a simple Google search.

    I tend to keep my identity vaguely obscured just by using my WebMonk moniker, though I know that there is plenty in this blog’s comments to pretty easily identify my name, location, and profession. With that, anyone can use Google to figure out my wife’s name, kids’ names, address, tax records, mortgage/refinance history, church, etc. It’s not something that particularly bothers me – y’all are welcome to stop on by any time you’re in the area. We can get together with Dr. Veith, maybe!

    The summary is that if you’re on the Internet, then you are publicly announced to the world. If you want to make up stuff about yourself, then your only hope of getting away with it is to hope no one actually checks.

    In this case, tODD checked, and the one known here as Porcell got caught. (and tODD, I called his number at 33 Jackson several months ago and an older male answered to the name of Peter)

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Perhaps the “70%” figure I was thinking of refers to the total amount of imported oil from the whole. I suppose you could track that down to see if it is correct.”

    Anyone could.

    The point is to be skeptical. Don’t believe. Check.

    “This business with China goes on because we buy their stuff, including lots of electronics which we run our American corporations on.”

    Yeah, but they make it with our technology. They are just the producer of choice because they so efficiently exploit their oppressed population. We could make what we need ourselves, tax our own people and have just as much.

    “Our economy is a capitalist one, THE capitalist one.”

    The America is supreme and controls everything meme. Sure the US is influential, this is true, but we could do things differently and the world would still have the problems it had before there was a USA and will have if we are ever gone.

    “Remember how the world came to a standstill because some bankers got greedy in this country?”

    No.

    I remember the government incentivizing bankers to originate loans (they were heretofore unwilling) to unqualified buyers and then repackage them as securities. The SEC allowed it to happen. Sure, the bankers were greedy, but the government regulators had the knowledge and ability to hold them back. Instead the government promoted home ownership among those who could not afford it and created the bubble.

    San Francisco Federal Reserve Auditors explain it:

    http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/wpapers/2008/wp08-05.pdf

    See page 14.

    Also, David Merkel explains the concept but in a different context:

    http://alephblog.com/2010/02/27/you-cant-cheat-an-honest-man/

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Perhaps the “70%” figure I was thinking of refers to the total amount of imported oil from the whole. I suppose you could track that down to see if it is correct.”

    Anyone could.

    The point is to be skeptical. Don’t believe. Check.

    “This business with China goes on because we buy their stuff, including lots of electronics which we run our American corporations on.”

    Yeah, but they make it with our technology. They are just the producer of choice because they so efficiently exploit their oppressed population. We could make what we need ourselves, tax our own people and have just as much.

    “Our economy is a capitalist one, THE capitalist one.”

    The America is supreme and controls everything meme. Sure the US is influential, this is true, but we could do things differently and the world would still have the problems it had before there was a USA and will have if we are ever gone.

    “Remember how the world came to a standstill because some bankers got greedy in this country?”

    No.

    I remember the government incentivizing bankers to originate loans (they were heretofore unwilling) to unqualified buyers and then repackage them as securities. The SEC allowed it to happen. Sure, the bankers were greedy, but the government regulators had the knowledge and ability to hold them back. Instead the government promoted home ownership among those who could not afford it and created the bubble.

    San Francisco Federal Reserve Auditors explain it:

    http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/wpapers/2008/wp08-05.pdf

    See page 14.

    Also, David Merkel explains the concept but in a different context:

    http://alephblog.com/2010/02/27/you-cant-cheat-an-honest-man/

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Don’t worry sg, I will always reserve that title for you.”

    He, he, he. I rather like the overuse of the invective “racist” because over time it just deadens people to it. It becomes more of a milestone in a discussion that the folks have turned from real discussion to ad hominem. It signals reasonable people to move on. It is kind of like “Nazi”. Using “racist” is often just a display of antipathy.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Don’t worry sg, I will always reserve that title for you.”

    He, he, he. I rather like the overuse of the invective “racist” because over time it just deadens people to it. It becomes more of a milestone in a discussion that the folks have turned from real discussion to ad hominem. It signals reasonable people to move on. It is kind of like “Nazi”. Using “racist” is often just a display of antipathy.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    This blog has jumped the shark where comments are concerned. Get a life, people.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    This blog has jumped the shark where comments are concerned. Get a life, people.

  • WebMonk

    Rev CL, maybe so, but it’s so funny!!! How can you stop once you’re sucked in?!? :-)

    I’m really looking forward to see how Leavitt will respond, in this thread or another. He’s called out challenges for things like this to happen, and someone finally took him up on it – how will he respond?! It’s sort of like looking forward to see how Camping responded on the 23rd.

    Schadenfreude, maybe? Not quite exactly, but flavors of it.

  • WebMonk

    Rev CL, maybe so, but it’s so funny!!! How can you stop once you’re sucked in?!? :-)

    I’m really looking forward to see how Leavitt will respond, in this thread or another. He’s called out challenges for things like this to happen, and someone finally took him up on it – how will he respond?! It’s sort of like looking forward to see how Camping responded on the 23rd.

    Schadenfreude, maybe? Not quite exactly, but flavors of it.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ Rev. Charles Lehmann,

    Since we have ‘jumped the shark’ (I had to look that up), I looked at your blog and found the runza recipe. I had never heard of those. I love cabbage. I will have to make some. Thanks for sharing.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ Rev. Charles Lehmann,

    Since we have ‘jumped the shark’ (I had to look that up), I looked at your blog and found the runza recipe. I had never heard of those. I love cabbage. I will have to make some. Thanks for sharing.

  • trotk

    WebMonk, he won’t respond. He is in the Bahamas. I talked to him on the phone earlier and he said that he will be busy until October 22, 2011.

  • trotk

    WebMonk, he won’t respond. He is in the Bahamas. I talked to him on the phone earlier and he said that he will be busy until October 22, 2011.

  • WebMonk

    ROTFLOL!

    Ever since I mentioned Leavitt and Camping in the same phrase, I have a very strong mental image of what Leavitt looks like. Some synapse sparked, and inextricably tied them together in my mind.

    And you just reinforced it! Ever time I see Leavitt post around here, I’m going to have a picture of Camping and the sound of his voice flash to my mind!

    Aaaaahhhhhh!!!!!

  • WebMonk

    ROTFLOL!

    Ever since I mentioned Leavitt and Camping in the same phrase, I have a very strong mental image of what Leavitt looks like. Some synapse sparked, and inextricably tied them together in my mind.

    And you just reinforced it! Ever time I see Leavitt post around here, I’m going to have a picture of Camping and the sound of his voice flash to my mind!

    Aaaaahhhhhh!!!!!

  • Louis

    This is the perfect example of a ‘www’ smackdown…… :)

  • Louis

    This is the perfect example of a ‘www’ smackdown…… :)

  • WebMonk

    Oh great! Thanks Louis – now I have the image of Camping in wrestler tights jumping in for a body slam!

    Time to bleach the ol’ brain again.

  • WebMonk

    Oh great! Thanks Louis – now I have the image of Camping in wrestler tights jumping in for a body slam!

    Time to bleach the ol’ brain again.

  • Stephen

    sg -

    Once again, you have me dead to rights on “data” but then we just end up arguing about interpretations. What I see actually happening still is governments bailing out banks (which supply this corporate wealth) to this day all over the world. Whether they should or must is an interpretation. They are. Your mentioning the SEC reinforces my point. Your telling me to “look it up” simply means that you suggest you are somehow a better authority to judge what is actually happening and that statistics give you a better read on these events. That too is an interpretation. Facts are not values.

    Anyway, we are all beholding to this “thing” and from what I see, anyone who takes some possible third position is derided. If one is a “conservative” they must accept all the notions of corporate power and if one is a “liberal” they must, necessarily, accept a host of other things. Both are really value neutral, laced with interpretations that one is powerless to actually challenge on some fundamental level. All we get is nostalgia, like the Tea Party. Personally, I think those labels are kind of ridiculous as having anything concrete in meaning, thus my nod to our postmodern epoch.

    So it goes. Any “property” one has is at risk- privacy can be eradicated, pensions can be raided, contracted benefits removed, everyone beholding to crooked banking schemes supported by the government that enrich a select few, and all of it for the sake of . . . freedom?

    But then that is my interpretation. I have to go to work now.

  • Stephen

    sg -

    Once again, you have me dead to rights on “data” but then we just end up arguing about interpretations. What I see actually happening still is governments bailing out banks (which supply this corporate wealth) to this day all over the world. Whether they should or must is an interpretation. They are. Your mentioning the SEC reinforces my point. Your telling me to “look it up” simply means that you suggest you are somehow a better authority to judge what is actually happening and that statistics give you a better read on these events. That too is an interpretation. Facts are not values.

    Anyway, we are all beholding to this “thing” and from what I see, anyone who takes some possible third position is derided. If one is a “conservative” they must accept all the notions of corporate power and if one is a “liberal” they must, necessarily, accept a host of other things. Both are really value neutral, laced with interpretations that one is powerless to actually challenge on some fundamental level. All we get is nostalgia, like the Tea Party. Personally, I think those labels are kind of ridiculous as having anything concrete in meaning, thus my nod to our postmodern epoch.

    So it goes. Any “property” one has is at risk- privacy can be eradicated, pensions can be raided, contracted benefits removed, everyone beholding to crooked banking schemes supported by the government that enrich a select few, and all of it for the sake of . . . freedom?

    But then that is my interpretation. I have to go to work now.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Stephen, I reject the idea that stuff is unknowable. Asymmetry of information is very important. It is a competitive advantage. It is how people transfer value to themselves, aka make money from other people’s work. The mortgage meltdown is a grand scale example.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Stephen, I reject the idea that stuff is unknowable. Asymmetry of information is very important. It is a competitive advantage. It is how people transfer value to themselves, aka make money from other people’s work. The mortgage meltdown is a grand scale example.

  • Stephen

    “I reject the idea that stuff is unknowable.”

    That is an interpretation of what I wrote and it is inacurrate. It seems to me that you base your interprations on data you find on the Internet and authoritative interpretations of that data that apeal to you. This represents a kind of terra firma for you. I apealed to events and things as I saw them unfolding. Perhaps you did not agree then with some of my characterizations (interpretations) such as when I said “standstill” to describe the worldwide recession that has come about largely due to our housing bubble bursting. And you are correct. The world did not stop. It kept going because governments dumped loads of money into their economies. They are still doing it.

    So, you like numbers and I like to observe things. Both things can help clarify what is true and “transfer value” as you put it. I am not arguing against the way you like to do things. We both make interpretations though, and we disagree on those terms (a lot :)).

  • Stephen

    “I reject the idea that stuff is unknowable.”

    That is an interpretation of what I wrote and it is inacurrate. It seems to me that you base your interprations on data you find on the Internet and authoritative interpretations of that data that apeal to you. This represents a kind of terra firma for you. I apealed to events and things as I saw them unfolding. Perhaps you did not agree then with some of my characterizations (interpretations) such as when I said “standstill” to describe the worldwide recession that has come about largely due to our housing bubble bursting. And you are correct. The world did not stop. It kept going because governments dumped loads of money into their economies. They are still doing it.

    So, you like numbers and I like to observe things. Both things can help clarify what is true and “transfer value” as you put it. I am not arguing against the way you like to do things. We both make interpretations though, and we disagree on those terms (a lot :)).

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Stephen, I’ll try to say this as nicely as I can. The analysis of how commenters process what they read/think is boring. It is profoundly uninteresting and an irrelevant distraction. The concepts of due diligence, asymmetry of information, and appropriate vs. inappropriate government interventions are salient and relevant. The reason I say it is not about me (or you) is that I am trying to get back to the topic and off the sidetrack of analyzing commenters. I assume folks have insights or data that may be interesting, and I like to engage and see what I can learn about the topic, not the people discussing it. No offense. When someone presents an idea and supports it with an incorrect data point, I am still interested in he has to say but it will have to include the correct info. No one can know everything, and there is no shame in reconsidering/reformulating based on correct info. There really is a downside to fact free thinking.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Stephen, I’ll try to say this as nicely as I can. The analysis of how commenters process what they read/think is boring. It is profoundly uninteresting and an irrelevant distraction. The concepts of due diligence, asymmetry of information, and appropriate vs. inappropriate government interventions are salient and relevant. The reason I say it is not about me (or you) is that I am trying to get back to the topic and off the sidetrack of analyzing commenters. I assume folks have insights or data that may be interesting, and I like to engage and see what I can learn about the topic, not the people discussing it. No offense. When someone presents an idea and supports it with an incorrect data point, I am still interested in he has to say but it will have to include the correct info. No one can know everything, and there is no shame in reconsidering/reformulating based on correct info. There really is a downside to fact free thinking.

  • Stephen

    sg -

    “Asymmetry of information is very important. It is a competitive advantage.”

    This sounds like Sisyphus. If this is the criteria for knowledge, then so many conversations are simply over. Global warming comes to mind. But I think Einstein said something about it taking only one person to actually prove him wrong.

    And again, does quantity of information actually lead to wisdom? It make help us shape things more accurately, smooth off some rough edges in places, but one piece of truth can upset a mountain of other apparent facts. It has to do with how we assimilate (transfer) that information toward our goals. I think what we have been talking about on this thread is a more just and peaceful world. The breakdown seems to be, from my observation, is 1) what that actually would look like and 2) what it takes to get there. It seems to me if we were more clear on #1 we could agree better on ways to get to two. But #1 usually resides in the metaphorical, except when things go sour and then we realize what actually matters – families, homes, worthwhile work, a measure of comfort, safety and peace with our neighbors. Not exactly the the distractions and excesses of capitalism per se, but they do have to do with personal property and liberty.

  • Stephen

    sg -

    “Asymmetry of information is very important. It is a competitive advantage.”

    This sounds like Sisyphus. If this is the criteria for knowledge, then so many conversations are simply over. Global warming comes to mind. But I think Einstein said something about it taking only one person to actually prove him wrong.

    And again, does quantity of information actually lead to wisdom? It make help us shape things more accurately, smooth off some rough edges in places, but one piece of truth can upset a mountain of other apparent facts. It has to do with how we assimilate (transfer) that information toward our goals. I think what we have been talking about on this thread is a more just and peaceful world. The breakdown seems to be, from my observation, is 1) what that actually would look like and 2) what it takes to get there. It seems to me if we were more clear on #1 we could agree better on ways to get to two. But #1 usually resides in the metaphorical, except when things go sour and then we realize what actually matters – families, homes, worthwhile work, a measure of comfort, safety and peace with our neighbors. Not exactly the the distractions and excesses of capitalism per se, but they do have to do with personal property and liberty.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Perhaps you did not agree then with some of my characterizations (interpretations) such as when I said “standstill” ”

    I disagree as to the cause, not the effect.

    Not greedy bankers, they can’t make money on defaults.

    Utopian social engineers (ie. GWB et al) rigging the mortgage market to give loans to folks that will default.

    “It seems to me that you base your interprations on data you find on the Internet and authoritative interpretations of that data that apeal to you.”

    Examples? Do you mean the DOE data table? Is there a problem with unbiased facts?
    Authoritative interpretations? Do you mean the report by the accountants at the San Francisco Federal Reserve? Do you think they are wrong? If so, how? I mean, maybe they are, and maybe you have an idea why. So, are you going to explain? or what?

    I have said before that arguments of the form, “I think, therefore it is true” are not very persuasive.

    Anyway, I am not cherry picking data or interpretations that appeal to me. I am looking at the good, the bad and the ugly and trying to honestly assess them. Isn’t that what you are doing? or are you just going with what appeals to you?

    I am asking you what you think. I am not telling you what you think.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Perhaps you did not agree then with some of my characterizations (interpretations) such as when I said “standstill” ”

    I disagree as to the cause, not the effect.

    Not greedy bankers, they can’t make money on defaults.

    Utopian social engineers (ie. GWB et al) rigging the mortgage market to give loans to folks that will default.

    “It seems to me that you base your interprations on data you find on the Internet and authoritative interpretations of that data that apeal to you.”

    Examples? Do you mean the DOE data table? Is there a problem with unbiased facts?
    Authoritative interpretations? Do you mean the report by the accountants at the San Francisco Federal Reserve? Do you think they are wrong? If so, how? I mean, maybe they are, and maybe you have an idea why. So, are you going to explain? or what?

    I have said before that arguments of the form, “I think, therefore it is true” are not very persuasive.

    Anyway, I am not cherry picking data or interpretations that appeal to me. I am looking at the good, the bad and the ugly and trying to honestly assess them. Isn’t that what you are doing? or are you just going with what appeals to you?

    I am asking you what you think. I am not telling you what you think.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    When I say asymmetry of information, I mean like knowing the criteria by which a loan is rated AAA vs. not knowing the criteria. If the buyer thinks that AAA means a 2% default rate, but the seller knows that the SEC is allowing securities to be rated AAA despite only meeting criteria that in actual experience would predict a default rate of 20%. This is about knowledge, not wisdom.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    When I say asymmetry of information, I mean like knowing the criteria by which a loan is rated AAA vs. not knowing the criteria. If the buyer thinks that AAA means a 2% default rate, but the seller knows that the SEC is allowing securities to be rated AAA despite only meeting criteria that in actual experience would predict a default rate of 20%. This is about knowledge, not wisdom.

  • Stephen

    sg @ 200

    I’ll say this. I corrected myself. Frankly, I’m not interested in raw data and find it boring. That’s why I don’t often cite it. That little piece you are concerned about was something I retained a while back and misquoted. Big deal (actually not). I’m interested in people and what they think and their experience of the world, not something filtered through numbers. You, on the other hand, like anonymous metrics and numbers and think they give your bald reality. I don’t see the world that way and I am trying to explain that difference as I see it, getting inside your perspective as best I can. I don’t see how the way you think and like to receive and use information/knowledge and the way I do the same has to mean more or less in this conversation. Does that really mean my perspective is so “fact free” as you call it? When did you reach such ascendency of knowledge?

    It is my experience that unless you attempt to try and see tings from the perspective of others and yes, think a little bit like they do, you will learn nothing of any substance. All you will have is your solipsistic interpretations of what you think are facts. I mean you no disrespect, bu perhaps you could read some philosophy. Just a suggestion.

    I admitted to my error. Let it go.

  • Stephen

    sg @ 200

    I’ll say this. I corrected myself. Frankly, I’m not interested in raw data and find it boring. That’s why I don’t often cite it. That little piece you are concerned about was something I retained a while back and misquoted. Big deal (actually not). I’m interested in people and what they think and their experience of the world, not something filtered through numbers. You, on the other hand, like anonymous metrics and numbers and think they give your bald reality. I don’t see the world that way and I am trying to explain that difference as I see it, getting inside your perspective as best I can. I don’t see how the way you think and like to receive and use information/knowledge and the way I do the same has to mean more or less in this conversation. Does that really mean my perspective is so “fact free” as you call it? When did you reach such ascendency of knowledge?

    It is my experience that unless you attempt to try and see tings from the perspective of others and yes, think a little bit like they do, you will learn nothing of any substance. All you will have is your solipsistic interpretations of what you think are facts. I mean you no disrespect, bu perhaps you could read some philosophy. Just a suggestion.

    I admitted to my error. Let it go.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “All you will have is your solipsistic interpretations of what you think are facts.”

    Can’t agree with you there. There is good reason to check facts and make decisions based on how things really are. For example, I like to make sure I have money in my account before I write a check. That is not solipsism. It is rational, even wise and it shows respect for others.

    Accounting and finance are valid fields of work and study and are data based. Sure, not everyone wants to make their living there, but they are necessary.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “All you will have is your solipsistic interpretations of what you think are facts.”

    Can’t agree with you there. There is good reason to check facts and make decisions based on how things really are. For example, I like to make sure I have money in my account before I write a check. That is not solipsism. It is rational, even wise and it shows respect for others.

    Accounting and finance are valid fields of work and study and are data based. Sure, not everyone wants to make their living there, but they are necessary.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Does that really mean my perspective is so “fact free” as you call it?”

    The thing is, I can only know what facts your points are based on if you state them. Maybe your observations are correct, but how can someone else know if the answer it right if they haven’t seen the whole calculation?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Does that really mean my perspective is so “fact free” as you call it?”

    The thing is, I can only know what facts your points are based on if you state them. Maybe your observations are correct, but how can someone else know if the answer it right if they haven’t seen the whole calculation?

  • Stephen

    sg @ 206

    The assumption there is that everything is basically a calculation on the terms you describe – like bank accounts. I don’t make my way in the world that way. Even bank accounts and banking rely on trust, something which, by my observation, seems to have utterly failed the people it was meant to serve. I don’t disagree with your example as being all the things you say it is within the scope of the example itself, but outside of it is much more than that. You are arguing from a point of necessity it seems to me, and not accounting for other possibilities of knowing.

    But what we are talking about now is an epistemological difference. I don’t think there is one way to know things, or one type of knowledge. Our own confusion over that term itself seems to bear this out. I respect your concern for accuracy in crunching numbers and looking at things through that particular lens. However, I think you are still interpreting them, employing your own subjectivity, and allowing the interpretations of others to hold sway. I am observing events in both similar and different ways, such as effects for one thing, and coming up with what I think are also plausible explanations based on information, experience and even what I believe about people. I’ll admit to my subjectivity in this particular undertaking, but you do not seem to see that about your own conclusions.

    Also, why are conversations, to your mind, about competition? That seems to be what you have stated above, or perhaps I have that wrong. If you are not interested or bored by people who do not approach things the way you do, then why do you bother? In one sense, I hear you saying you are not trying to tell others what to think, and yet you are making up some rules for others that they ought to approach conversations and try to convince you of things on your terms pretty much exclusively. Perhaps that is an unfair assessment, but it sounds that way, and I find that confusing.

    I don’t write like you or talk like you or think like you. I don’t almost exclusively scan posts and pick the things I disagree with and then dismantle them. I do that sometimes, but often I write long posts that try to think through ideas. Ideas are what i am interested in, and often I don’t know exactly what I am going to say before I say it. It is not rational. I am not a rationalist. It is subjective and personal. You have said you like ideas, well, that’s what I try to offer. They are likely deeply flawed. That, for me, makes them human and why I put them out there and discuss them and defend them and try to shape them so they are coherent for humans. I’m not interested in telling people how to invest their money or even how to vote. I’m interested in deep thinking about things that matter to all of us, and I think, believe, such things cannot be charted or graphed or calculated.

    “Life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced.” – Soren Kierkegaard

  • Stephen

    sg @ 206

    The assumption there is that everything is basically a calculation on the terms you describe – like bank accounts. I don’t make my way in the world that way. Even bank accounts and banking rely on trust, something which, by my observation, seems to have utterly failed the people it was meant to serve. I don’t disagree with your example as being all the things you say it is within the scope of the example itself, but outside of it is much more than that. You are arguing from a point of necessity it seems to me, and not accounting for other possibilities of knowing.

    But what we are talking about now is an epistemological difference. I don’t think there is one way to know things, or one type of knowledge. Our own confusion over that term itself seems to bear this out. I respect your concern for accuracy in crunching numbers and looking at things through that particular lens. However, I think you are still interpreting them, employing your own subjectivity, and allowing the interpretations of others to hold sway. I am observing events in both similar and different ways, such as effects for one thing, and coming up with what I think are also plausible explanations based on information, experience and even what I believe about people. I’ll admit to my subjectivity in this particular undertaking, but you do not seem to see that about your own conclusions.

    Also, why are conversations, to your mind, about competition? That seems to be what you have stated above, or perhaps I have that wrong. If you are not interested or bored by people who do not approach things the way you do, then why do you bother? In one sense, I hear you saying you are not trying to tell others what to think, and yet you are making up some rules for others that they ought to approach conversations and try to convince you of things on your terms pretty much exclusively. Perhaps that is an unfair assessment, but it sounds that way, and I find that confusing.

    I don’t write like you or talk like you or think like you. I don’t almost exclusively scan posts and pick the things I disagree with and then dismantle them. I do that sometimes, but often I write long posts that try to think through ideas. Ideas are what i am interested in, and often I don’t know exactly what I am going to say before I say it. It is not rational. I am not a rationalist. It is subjective and personal. You have said you like ideas, well, that’s what I try to offer. They are likely deeply flawed. That, for me, makes them human and why I put them out there and discuss them and defend them and try to shape them so they are coherent for humans. I’m not interested in telling people how to invest their money or even how to vote. I’m interested in deep thinking about things that matter to all of us, and I think, believe, such things cannot be charted or graphed or calculated.

    “Life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced.” – Soren Kierkegaard

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I don’t disagree with your example as being all the things you say it is within the scope of the example itself, but outside of it is much more than that.”

    Okay, such as?

    “You are arguing from a point of necessity it seems to me, and not accounting for other possibilities of knowing.”

    Okay, but I am not asserting another possibility. The one who says there is some other possibility is the one who needs to describe and explain it. I explain my points. I ask others to explain theirs.

    “I respect your concern for accuracy in crunching numbers and looking at things through that particular lens. However, I think you are still interpreting them, employing your own subjectivity, and allowing the interpretations of others to hold sway.”

    Who is holding sway? Example? Explanation?

    Just saying someone is being subjective is not convincing.

    “Also, why are conversations, to your mind, about competition?”

    They aren’t. They are about trying to learn from other people, both facts and analysis.

    “If you are not interested or bored by people who do not approach things the way you do, then why do you bother?”

    I explained that. I am interested in the topic and I am interested in what people know and their opinions. I am trying to learn. I am not interested in the people themselves.

    “Ideas are what i am interested in, and often I don’t know exactly what I am going to say before I say it. It is not rational. I am not a rationalist. It is subjective and personal.”

    Wow. Okay, well, I will just take you at your word. There is nothing I can say to respond to a statement like that. I will just assume you really mean that.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I don’t disagree with your example as being all the things you say it is within the scope of the example itself, but outside of it is much more than that.”

    Okay, such as?

    “You are arguing from a point of necessity it seems to me, and not accounting for other possibilities of knowing.”

    Okay, but I am not asserting another possibility. The one who says there is some other possibility is the one who needs to describe and explain it. I explain my points. I ask others to explain theirs.

    “I respect your concern for accuracy in crunching numbers and looking at things through that particular lens. However, I think you are still interpreting them, employing your own subjectivity, and allowing the interpretations of others to hold sway.”

    Who is holding sway? Example? Explanation?

    Just saying someone is being subjective is not convincing.

    “Also, why are conversations, to your mind, about competition?”

    They aren’t. They are about trying to learn from other people, both facts and analysis.

    “If you are not interested or bored by people who do not approach things the way you do, then why do you bother?”

    I explained that. I am interested in the topic and I am interested in what people know and their opinions. I am trying to learn. I am not interested in the people themselves.

    “Ideas are what i am interested in, and often I don’t know exactly what I am going to say before I say it. It is not rational. I am not a rationalist. It is subjective and personal.”

    Wow. Okay, well, I will just take you at your word. There is nothing I can say to respond to a statement like that. I will just assume you really mean that.

  • Stephen

    sg -

    I can’t play your way. You leave out a great deal of my attempts to clarify myself which I think are helpful, but obviously not. I thought I was describing and explaining things, but it seems you just didn’t like it or don’t appreciate it or it doesn’t make sense. Perhaps we are just talking past each other and I regret that.

    Citing data and experts who analyze this data to tell one what something, like and event, means can be authoritative and helpful. So can the stories that people tell about its effects. Think of the tsunami in Japan. Is effect on global markets what “matters” or is the impact on the lives of people. Isn’t it kind of both? We must assimilate all of that into our own existence and decide what value it has. And this has to do with our own subjective experience of the world. If I were to carry this project through that you seem to need and place as paramount, there would be no end to chasing down details and data. All of that has to be taken at some point and humanized and made useful. But not just useful ina utilitarian sense, we want to live full lives. We can disagree about what point that decision comes, but it must come.

    “I explained that. I am interested in the topic and I am interested in what people know and their opinions. I am trying to learn. I am not interested in the people themselves.”

    This is another fundamental problem for me. It disconnects things in a way that I think are not detached the way you think they are. It assumes a lot about the nature of ideas and even facts, what they are, how they are formed, how they are shared, what they consist of, etc. Have you ever read someone like David Hume? Earlier you called something I said a “meme” in a rather pejoritive way, while it seemed your own interpretation was, I assume, to be accepted by me as more authoritative because it had links to some data and and analysis of data. Asymetry yours. Fine.

    But then what is a meme? It is an idea cooked up by none other than Richard Dawkins – some sort of viral idea that gets spread, like “jumping the shark” that the good pastor who told us to “get a life” brought up. Ironic he should tell us to get a life when he himself is trolling the Internet, eh?

    So are memes real? Are they true? Shall we take that bit of epistemology for representing the world as it actually is? For me, I think it is one step closer to thinking of scientists as shaman. I think it is largely BS, a kind of magical thinking. It is the scientism that Neitzsche foresaw coming in our time. He saw that with the onslaught of technology, our thinking would become hyper-rational, depresonalized, and we were already in his time losing the truly human – a place of deep, primal sensation that he saw best expressed in music. And example of this would be Ayn Rand, where there is no place for real people. Have you ever noticed that there are no children in her books? Why is that?

    I don’t knwo how this blog thing is supposed to work. If the rules are that I am supposed to spend my time purusing the Internet for sources and links to substantiate every statement I make, then I am not interested. Too much work for this venue. I see it as a conversation. I have explained what some of my education is, so yes, in some sense, I do expect you to “take my word for it.” But not just because of that, but because I have also put in a good faith effort here in conversations, if only in the rigor of quantity and time and not in the number or depth of Internet research I have offered up. Again, I think you are making up some rules.

    A note: the terms “necessity” and “possibility” as was using them had perhaps a bit more dense meaning for me than you understood. Speaking of checkbooks and bank balances is one thing. That is fairly cut and dried. Speaking about global forces that shape our world are quite another. They involve variables we cannot pin down completely. I dare say if we had a truly comprehensive view of it all we STILL could not fix it becasue we are broken and sinful. But only a Christian can say that. A pure rationalist would think the opposite. They would take a somewhat Gnostic view of it and see our technological “knowledge” as salvific. If could finally know it all, we could fix it all. We can’t. A piece of that is our temporality which is an aspect of our human subjectivity, a subjectivity that adheres to our language, our geographic place on the planet, our gender, our ethnicity, our economic and political situation, etc. These are things, some of which are in flux, but as a whole, comprise a subjectivity we cannot escape any more than we can escape death.

  • Stephen

    sg -

    I can’t play your way. You leave out a great deal of my attempts to clarify myself which I think are helpful, but obviously not. I thought I was describing and explaining things, but it seems you just didn’t like it or don’t appreciate it or it doesn’t make sense. Perhaps we are just talking past each other and I regret that.

    Citing data and experts who analyze this data to tell one what something, like and event, means can be authoritative and helpful. So can the stories that people tell about its effects. Think of the tsunami in Japan. Is effect on global markets what “matters” or is the impact on the lives of people. Isn’t it kind of both? We must assimilate all of that into our own existence and decide what value it has. And this has to do with our own subjective experience of the world. If I were to carry this project through that you seem to need and place as paramount, there would be no end to chasing down details and data. All of that has to be taken at some point and humanized and made useful. But not just useful ina utilitarian sense, we want to live full lives. We can disagree about what point that decision comes, but it must come.

    “I explained that. I am interested in the topic and I am interested in what people know and their opinions. I am trying to learn. I am not interested in the people themselves.”

    This is another fundamental problem for me. It disconnects things in a way that I think are not detached the way you think they are. It assumes a lot about the nature of ideas and even facts, what they are, how they are formed, how they are shared, what they consist of, etc. Have you ever read someone like David Hume? Earlier you called something I said a “meme” in a rather pejoritive way, while it seemed your own interpretation was, I assume, to be accepted by me as more authoritative because it had links to some data and and analysis of data. Asymetry yours. Fine.

    But then what is a meme? It is an idea cooked up by none other than Richard Dawkins – some sort of viral idea that gets spread, like “jumping the shark” that the good pastor who told us to “get a life” brought up. Ironic he should tell us to get a life when he himself is trolling the Internet, eh?

    So are memes real? Are they true? Shall we take that bit of epistemology for representing the world as it actually is? For me, I think it is one step closer to thinking of scientists as shaman. I think it is largely BS, a kind of magical thinking. It is the scientism that Neitzsche foresaw coming in our time. He saw that with the onslaught of technology, our thinking would become hyper-rational, depresonalized, and we were already in his time losing the truly human – a place of deep, primal sensation that he saw best expressed in music. And example of this would be Ayn Rand, where there is no place for real people. Have you ever noticed that there are no children in her books? Why is that?

    I don’t knwo how this blog thing is supposed to work. If the rules are that I am supposed to spend my time purusing the Internet for sources and links to substantiate every statement I make, then I am not interested. Too much work for this venue. I see it as a conversation. I have explained what some of my education is, so yes, in some sense, I do expect you to “take my word for it.” But not just because of that, but because I have also put in a good faith effort here in conversations, if only in the rigor of quantity and time and not in the number or depth of Internet research I have offered up. Again, I think you are making up some rules.

    A note: the terms “necessity” and “possibility” as was using them had perhaps a bit more dense meaning for me than you understood. Speaking of checkbooks and bank balances is one thing. That is fairly cut and dried. Speaking about global forces that shape our world are quite another. They involve variables we cannot pin down completely. I dare say if we had a truly comprehensive view of it all we STILL could not fix it becasue we are broken and sinful. But only a Christian can say that. A pure rationalist would think the opposite. They would take a somewhat Gnostic view of it and see our technological “knowledge” as salvific. If could finally know it all, we could fix it all. We can’t. A piece of that is our temporality which is an aspect of our human subjectivity, a subjectivity that adheres to our language, our geographic place on the planet, our gender, our ethnicity, our economic and political situation, etc. These are things, some of which are in flux, but as a whole, comprise a subjectivity we cannot escape any more than we can escape death.

  • Stephen

    Sorry for the typos.

  • Stephen

    Sorry for the typos.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Perhaps we are just talking past each other”

    Yes.

    “Have you ever read someone like David Hume?”

    Funny you should bring him up. When I was a teen, I used to tell my mom that should and is are not related because she was always saying how things should be. I thought I was really clever, but no, I later discovered Hume came up with that notion centuries earlier.

    “I have explained what some of my education is, so yes, in some sense, I do expect you to “take my word for it.” But not just because of that, but because I have also put in a good faith effort here in conversations, if only in the rigor of quantity and time and not in the number or depth of Internet research I have offered up. Again, I think you are making up some rules.”

    I disagree. When you make a general statement, then someone asks you to explain what you mean with some kind of illustrative example and you complain you don’t want to look things up, I mean, that is discourteous. It is asking too much for folks to just defer to you. Asking for an explanation or an example is not making up rules.

    When I was in college, we sometimes had to work in a group. I am pretty encouraging, so I would ask folks for ideas. Bad idea. They would get emotionally attached to their ideas once they had stated them. I would try to persuade them with facts, etc. No deal. Anyway, the way it worked out was whoever had the strongest personality ended up deciding what we would do. In those situations, I would have had the best grade in the class without the group. I dealt in good faith, but they weren’t rational. Before you think I am bragging, there were other times when I was the ignoramus in the group and kept my trap shut and thanked God the other folks knew what they were doing.

    The point is good faith is not good enough when you are trying to understand something. I can believe you are sincere and mean well, but that doesn’t make your point clear.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Perhaps we are just talking past each other”

    Yes.

    “Have you ever read someone like David Hume?”

    Funny you should bring him up. When I was a teen, I used to tell my mom that should and is are not related because she was always saying how things should be. I thought I was really clever, but no, I later discovered Hume came up with that notion centuries earlier.

    “I have explained what some of my education is, so yes, in some sense, I do expect you to “take my word for it.” But not just because of that, but because I have also put in a good faith effort here in conversations, if only in the rigor of quantity and time and not in the number or depth of Internet research I have offered up. Again, I think you are making up some rules.”

    I disagree. When you make a general statement, then someone asks you to explain what you mean with some kind of illustrative example and you complain you don’t want to look things up, I mean, that is discourteous. It is asking too much for folks to just defer to you. Asking for an explanation or an example is not making up rules.

    When I was in college, we sometimes had to work in a group. I am pretty encouraging, so I would ask folks for ideas. Bad idea. They would get emotionally attached to their ideas once they had stated them. I would try to persuade them with facts, etc. No deal. Anyway, the way it worked out was whoever had the strongest personality ended up deciding what we would do. In those situations, I would have had the best grade in the class without the group. I dealt in good faith, but they weren’t rational. Before you think I am bragging, there were other times when I was the ignoramus in the group and kept my trap shut and thanked God the other folks knew what they were doing.

    The point is good faith is not good enough when you are trying to understand something. I can believe you are sincere and mean well, but that doesn’t make your point clear.

  • Stephen

    I really don’t understand where I went off the rails with you or what illustration or set of illustrations you are looking for in particular. I’d like to clear the air but think that maybe we have dug a hole. Perhaps I made some assumptions along the way based on some things that I felt were already discussed between us. Other than that, I’m having trouble pinpointing your issue with my thinking (or lack thereof). I think we are talking about different things. Perhaps the terms and the way they are being used are interfering with where things have gone. I kind of feel like I am talking to a Mormon :) about what grace is (totally different concept for them, and I add it here ONLY for levity).

    So, though I am passionate about things, it isn’t just about “emotions” for me. It is about mutual respect to a degree. And I do want to think clearly while admitting that what we are trying to think about is obviously complex and at times obscured to our reason. While I get the is/ought distinction, I am not likely to separate ideas from the people who have them in the way you seem to want to do. You may read all kinds of things into that, but try not to for the moment if you can.

    There is probably a lot we could do to clarify things better. I suppose we will have to work at this if we feel it is worth the effort. The “fact” we are dealing with is our inability to communicate very well (objectivity). The “value” may be whether or not we desire to continue or have some kind of sense that doing so is worthwhile (subjectivity). There is a third thing too – where we end up and how we each incorporate what we end up with. That too is some kind of inter-subjectivity perhaps. Sounds almost Hegelian.

    Anyway, David Hume is a good beginning. Who else have you read? Maybe we could start there.

    Peace sister. Hope the kids are well.

  • Stephen

    I really don’t understand where I went off the rails with you or what illustration or set of illustrations you are looking for in particular. I’d like to clear the air but think that maybe we have dug a hole. Perhaps I made some assumptions along the way based on some things that I felt were already discussed between us. Other than that, I’m having trouble pinpointing your issue with my thinking (or lack thereof). I think we are talking about different things. Perhaps the terms and the way they are being used are interfering with where things have gone. I kind of feel like I am talking to a Mormon :) about what grace is (totally different concept for them, and I add it here ONLY for levity).

    So, though I am passionate about things, it isn’t just about “emotions” for me. It is about mutual respect to a degree. And I do want to think clearly while admitting that what we are trying to think about is obviously complex and at times obscured to our reason. While I get the is/ought distinction, I am not likely to separate ideas from the people who have them in the way you seem to want to do. You may read all kinds of things into that, but try not to for the moment if you can.

    There is probably a lot we could do to clarify things better. I suppose we will have to work at this if we feel it is worth the effort. The “fact” we are dealing with is our inability to communicate very well (objectivity). The “value” may be whether or not we desire to continue or have some kind of sense that doing so is worthwhile (subjectivity). There is a third thing too – where we end up and how we each incorporate what we end up with. That too is some kind of inter-subjectivity perhaps. Sounds almost Hegelian.

    Anyway, David Hume is a good beginning. Who else have you read? Maybe we could start there.

    Peace sister. Hope the kids are well.

  • Pingback: Israel Wiki » Politics of Israel

  • Pingback: Israel Wiki » Politics of Israel


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X