OT: "Israel's Gift to America" - Ted Pike
Howard Duck
ISRAEL'S GIFT TO AMERICA
By Rev. Ted Pike
19 Dec 07
In this season of giving, know that since 1949 we Americans have
annually given Israel massive financial aid, now totaling $108
billion. Interest of $60 billion is also borne by American citizens on
money we borrowed to give Israel.
In 1967, the government of Israel took an unforeseen opportunity to
repay the American people for our generosity. Their novel actions are
recounted by Phil Tourney, a seaman on the U.S.S. Liberty.
[On June 8], 1967 I was a 20 year old 3rd class petty officer in
damage control at the time of this sneak attack from our so-called
ally, Israel. We were identified as American and friendly many hours
before the slaughter began at 2:00 P.M.
The Israeli jet aircraft were ruthless and stubborn in their
attempt to sink and murder all hands aboard. They hit every antennae
on our ship, no accident for sure. The Israeli reconnaissance aircraft
took pictures of our ship in the morning hours, nothing was missed.
The attacking aircraft dropped napalm on the bridge of our ship to
burn us alive.
Soon after the jets were done with us we see 3 motor torpedo boats
approaching our ship at a high rate of speed. We then learned who our
attackers were.
We saw 3 flags marked with the Star of David. We were in shock
because the Israelis were supposed to be our allies! We had had no
idea who was attacking us until then. The attacking jet aircraft were
unmarked. The torpedo boats maneuvered themselves into a torpedo
launch attitude, now come the 5 to 6 torpedoes. The captain was doing
his best to maneuver the ship to avoid sudden death. The torpedoes
whizzed by our ship, forward and aft with 1 hitting its mark, almost
dead mid-ships, blowing to bits 25 American heroes who stood their
ground below the water line and accepted their fate, doing their duty
for the United States Government.
The torpedo gunboats were not even close to being done with us.
The torpedo gunmen shot at our fire fighters and stretcher bearers,
anything that moved. They were shooting at our water line to blow up
the boilers inside and finish the job of sinking us.
The captain had given the order to abandon ship, as it appeared we
were about to roll over. There were 3 life rafts left that were
floatable. We put them over the side so we could put our most severely
wounded in them to try to save their lives. The torpedo gunmen would
have none of that and blew 2 of them out of the water. They took the
3rd raft aboard their boat, seeing it as an obvious trophy for all
their hard work. The torpedo gunmen continued their assault until I
guess they ran out of ammunition. They circled the ship and left.
Old Glory was still on her mast, 7' x 13' holiday colors. We
thought the attack was over. Two Israeli helicopters approached our
ship with armed gunmen at the ready to finish us off. They were there
a short time and left in the same direction they came. We had no idea
why they didn't shoot at us. We wondered if they were finally done
with their murderous carnage on a virtually unarmed ship which only
had four 50-caliber machine guns that had been taken out by the jets
on the first pass when the attack began.
Little did the crew know that Terry Halbardier, an ET, got off an
SOS from an antennae that was not hit by the Israeli heat seeking
missiles because it was taken off line due to a malfunction before the
attack. The SOS he sent stated we were under attack by unknown jet
aircraft. This message was sent out within 15 minutes of the attack
and was picked up by the USS SARATOGA and the USS AMERICA. Captain
Tully of the USS SARATOGA sent ready aircraft to our aid only to have
them recalled. The USS AMERICA also sent rescue aircraft to come to
our aid. These life saving planes were recalled not once but twice.
These orders came straight from the White House, first from Secretary
of Defense Robert McNamara and then from President Johnson himself.
Johnson said he was not about to attack our "ally", Israel. How did he
know who was attacking our ship when we didn't even know? Help did not
arrive until 18 hours later when the American rescue aircraft could
have been there in 15 to 20 minutes driving off the torpedo boats and
saving precious American lives.
What remained was a ship with a 40 x 40 foot torpedo hole in her
side, 821+ canon and rocket holes, thousands of rounds of fifty
caliber armor piercing bullets and napalm that had been burning up our
ship. Thirty four American souls were murdered, 173 were wounded,
which constituted attempted murder, out of a crew of 294. Two thirds
of the crew had been murdered or wounded.
Israel and our government, in this 2 hour attack, had come up with
a plan to sink our ship, blame it on Egypt and bring the U.S. into the
Six Day War. If this so called accident was so cut and dry, why were
all records sealed tighter than Fort Knox? Israel got by with
cold-blooded murder and other war crimes and it's only a matter of
time until they do it again, perhaps on a ship off the coast of Iran.
Israel controls America's fate and our elected officials bow to their
every whim.
I love my country and will not stand by and let this continue.
While there is time, we must do what we can to save our sinking ship
of state. In many ways, America today is the USS Liberty after that 2
hour attack taking place 40 years ago. We are badly hit and stand the
chance of sinking into the abyss with everyone being lost forever
unless something is done immediately. Write your president and
congressmen and let them know you know what is going on and you will
not fight anymore for Israel. Israel has 300 nukes, so let them take
care of themselves. There is nothing, neither in the Middle East nor
elsewhere, that is worth one more drop of precious American blood. 1
Tourney's account causes us to ask: What more evidence do we need that
the government of Israel has never shared our values and is not really
grateful to us? Israel was founded primarily by Marxists and
terrorists who valued America only because of what they could get out
of us monetarily or militarily - nothing else.
Israel has repeatedly inveigled America into mid-East conflict to her
benefit. Sometimes she was unsuccessful, as in the U.S.S. Liberty
attack, and sometimes spectacularly successful, as in Afghanistan and
Iraq. With our navy anchored in the Persian Gulf, anticipating
another war for Israel, it is well to remember that, while Christian
America has unflagging support for Israel, our "ally in the war on
terror" has no genuine love for us. If they had, they would not have
rained terror on 294 American seamen on June 8, 1967.
As she bristles with over 200 nuclear warheads, let's hope Israel does
not go ballistic next time she decides to "repay" America for a
century of kindness.
~~~~
Endnotes
1. Tourney, Phillip. "Treason on the High Seas."
http://ussliberty.wordpress.com/2007/12/09/%E2%80%9Ctreason-on-the-high-seas%E2%80%9D/
The U.S.S. Liberty Veterans Association is offering $10,000 to anyone
who can disprove the accounts by Tourney and many other survivors of
the attack. No pro-Zionists have accepted the challenge.
Rev. Ted Pike is director of the National Prayer Network, a
Christian/conservative watchdog organization.
Let the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith teach you how they have
saddled 45 states with hate laws capable of persecuting Christians:
http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp.
Learn how ADL took away free speech in Canada and wants to steal it
now in the U.S. Congress. Watch Rev. Ted Pike's Hate Laws: Making
Criminals of Christians at www.video.google.com. Purchase this
gripping documentary to show at church. Order online at
www.truthtellers.org for $24.90, DVD or VHS, by calling 503-853-3688,
or at the address below.
TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this topic. Call (503)
631-3808.
National Prayer Network, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas, OR 97015
Francis A. Miniter
> ISRAEL'S GIFT TO AMERICA
>
> By Rev. Ted Pike
> 19 Dec 07
>
> In this season of giving, know that since 1949 we Americans have
> annually given Israel massive financial aid, now totaling $108
> billion. Interest of $60 billion is also borne by American citizens on
> money we borrowed to give Israel.
>
> In 1967, the government of Israel took an unforeseen opportunity to
> repay the American people for our generosity. Their novel actions are
> recounted by Phil Tourney, a seaman on the U.S.S. Liberty.
>
This is not news. Notice that the event took place 40 years ago. James Bamford
devoted a chapter of his book "Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret
National Security Agency" (Doubleday, 2001) to it. It remains an open issue,
and to many sailors on the Liberty, an open wound. Many believe that the
Israelis knew they were attacking a US ship. A summary of the various positions
can be found on Wikipedia under USS Liberty.
B_U_T!
Where Pike takes this is completely wrong and bigoted. He uses this incident to
smear Israeli founders as marxists and terrorists. He appeals to those like
Howard who want, just really want, to believe that Israel and the Jews are evil,
evil entities.
Francis A. Miniter
Howard Duck
<min...@attglobalZZ.net> wrote:
> Howard who want, just really want, to believe that Israel and the Jews are evil,
> evil entities.
Some are, and Jesus believed so too. So did Paul.
--
Howard
Willow Arune
Is there a point, Howard? Some Romans were good, some bad, some in-between.
Jesus and Paul (assuming both existed, not a given) presumably had some
common sense, knowing that good and bad are to be found in every society and
indeed, in every person.
Willow
"Howard Duck" <hbd...@geusnet.com> wrote in message
news:s6imm39ert6p18uu5...@4ax.com...
Howard Duck
wrote:
> So are some Methodists, Mormons, Muslims and more...
>
> Is there a point, Howard? Some Romans were good, some bad, some in-between.
> Jesus and Paul (assuming both existed, not a given) presumably had some
> common sense, knowing that good and bad are to be found in every society and
> indeed, in every person.
>
> Willow
There is a difference, but I don't know if I can make it clear. Jesus
didn't make a point of telling his listeners that the Romans (even the
Caesars) were evil, but of course some of them really were. He didn't
even bother telling everyone that Herod or Pilate were wicked. The
Jews knew what they were. But the Pharisees, the scribes, and the
Sadducees were something else. They were pretenders to being God's
chosen. They could do no wrong in the sight of many Jewish people.
But read what Jesus says in Matthew 23 and in the Gospel of John
concerning these people. They have an unusual kind of intelligence
and peculiar mindset that is pictured somewhat in The Merchant of
Venice and in the Jew of Malta. In fact, Marlowe had an insight into
the nature of one who gives himself over to ultimate evil for some
twisted purpose. Throughout Old Testament history there were many of
the Jewish people, including their kings, who gave themselves to pagan
worship - even to the extent of offering their children in sacrifice
to alien gods - they did this in order to gain some temporal benefit
or advantage over others. God sent prophet after prophet to warn
them, but many wouldn't listen. Even in Babylon they gave themselves
to occultic magic. Such practices, generation upon generation, have
the effect of creating a cultural crassness in the human nature that
is almost inhuman, and yet with a shrewdness and cleverness that is
devilish.
However, let me not fail to say that these hardening effects do not
attach to all Jews. Some of the most humane and caring of people are
also among the Jewish people. Many become Christians as well, and
that changes everything when it is not a mere pretension for
advantage. Most godless gentiles are just so much rabble, and even if
they manage to exalt themselves for a generation or two, they
eventually give way to a decadent downfall.
--
Howard
Willow Arune
Firstly, you assume that Jesus was an historical figure. There is little if
anything to support that concept. I suggest you try "The Pagan Christ" by
theologian Tom Harpur. An amalgam of various sun deities of the times owing
almost all to other gods and goddesses who came before and all of which were
"man made". What mythology is built upon what this mythical being said
about real or imaginary people is of limited evidence.
Every tribe, social group, society, or even a clutch of people marooned on
an island have claimed to be "chosen". All have been "pretenders", as you
put it, all stating they know "god's will". And after enough persuasion,
cajoling, threatening and more, "they could do not wrong" in the sight of
those they had convinced by one means or another. "Pagan worship" and
"alien gods" are alien concepts to me, I might add, as are "prophets to warn
them".
>Such practices, generation upon generation, have
> the effect of creating a cultural crassness in the human nature that
> is almost inhuman, and yet with a shrewdness and cleverness that is
> devilish.
Are you speaking of the British? The perfidious Albion? Germans?
Japanese? Any recent enemy?
> However, let me not fail to say that these hardening effects do not
> attach to all Jews. Some of the most humane and caring of people are
> also among the Jewish people. Many become Christians as well, and
> that changes everything when it is not a mere pretension for
> advantage. Most godless gentiles are just so much rabble, and even if
> they manage to exalt themselves for a generation or two, they
> eventually give way to a decadent downfall.
Well, that's nice to know, Howard. I would hate to think you were prejudice
against all Jews. Tell me, have you worked out the percentage of "Jewish
blood" necessary to have a "cultural crassness"? "Changes everything",
normally for the worse I hasten to add. As to "rabble", the most evident
sign of rabble are the massive "mega-churches" that are dotting your
landscape, assuming by rabble you mean those who simpl.y follow commands
issued from on high by those who presume to know what god happens to be
thinking at any moment on any subject.
Willow
Francis A. Miniter
> Willow Arune wrote:
>
>> Ah dear, Howard...
>>
>> Firstly, you assume that Jesus was an historical figure. There is
>> little if
>> anything to support that concept. I suggest you try "The Pagan
>> Christ" by
>> theologian Tom Harpur. An amalgam of various sun deities of the times
>> owing
>> almost all to other gods and goddesses who came before and all of
>> which were
>> "man made". What mythology is built upon what this mythical being said
>> about real or imaginary people is of limited evidence.
>
>
> I don't think Tom Harpur has proven that Jesus *didn't* exist and I
> rather suspect that he believes that a mythical Jesus is more real than
> a historical one.
>
> I suspect I don't understand Harpur's thinking fully, and I don't agree
> with much of what I do understand. In spite of that, I'm pretty sure
> you're missing even more when you imply that he claims that there's
> nothing more to Jesus than an amalgam of various sun deities.
>
> Cheryl
The problem is that there is precious little evidence of the historical Yeshua
or Joshua. There is, outside of the gospels, only Josephus, and the Vatican
text has an obvious gloss in it. (I understand that in Russia there is a text
without the gloss but with the bare reference, but I am going back 30 odd years
on that one.) The synoptic gospels have one origin, and that is Luke, with
Matthew and Mark being derivative. Then there is the much later John. And it
is pretty certain that none of the authors of NT texts actually saw or met the
historical Joshua. He is not mentioned in a variety of historical texts the way
many minor as well as major historical figures are. In fact, he seems to have
been mostly peripheral to his own time. Jim Jones made a bigger impression.
I would take it as probable that there was a radical rabbi who got the hackles
of the establishment up, and they did away with him. The myth-making started
after he died. As with Elvis, there were sightings. And as with Caesar
Augustus, there were retroactive recordings of celestial phenomena accompanying
his birth. Miracles were the currency of the day. So there had to be miracles.
Association with a deity was required; after all, Augustus claimed to be
descended from Venus, so if one was to be opposed to the Julians, equal or
greater divinity was required.
The imponderable in all this was why this particular rabbi? I don't have an
answer for that. But cults had a way of springing up in those times. Look at
the emergence of the Cult of Dionysus a few hundred years earlier. Or how the
definitely human Buddha was deified. Then, there was Augustus. Perhaps, this
ties in with my other post on the bicameral mind. It may be that the Hellenic
period was marked, as our current time is, by a rebellion against the progress
of the logical mind and the lessening of the perceived role of the divine voice.
Jaynes suggests that Jesus was radical in that he proclaimed an internalized
relationship to the divine. The need for an authoritative divinity, however,
led his followers to externalize the relationship once again.
Suggested reading: Harold Bloom, Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Divine.
Francis A. Miniter
Francis A. Miniter
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>
>> Suggested reading: Harold Bloom, Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Divine.
>
>
> Not needed, thanks. I know the basics of the historicity stuff, although
> I'm not much interested since proving it either way to scientific
> standards of proof seems highly unlikely, and some theologians would
> consider it irrelevant.
>
Bloom is not trying to prove historicity or not. He is very interested in
philosophical, religious and sociological connections. He engages in textual
analysis and in a discussion of the differences of Judaism and Christianity that
makes speaking of a Judaeo-Christian tradition less than meaningful.
Francis A. Miniter
Willow Arune
news:476c1192$1...@news.bnb-lp.com...
> That makes him a peculiar choice to support an argument that
> Christianity isn't true because the historical Jesus hasn't been proven
> to exist, since he's one of those theologians I mentioned above who
> thinks that historicity is irrelevant to the truth of Christianity.
Sorry - my point was a bit clouded...
I did not say - or at least, did not intend to say - that Christianity was
not true as the historical Jesus could not be proven. I raised the issue
only as Howard had advanced certain claims.
Christianity, in my opinion, is the same as any other religion that claims
to have a god and "holy book". To those who believe, the "facts" are simply
not an issue for their belief is independent from provable facts (or
perhaps, should be so). Harpur is one such and I used him, and
Christianity, only as Howard did.
"Truth" when it comes to religion, is truth as seen through the eyes of
faith. It may defy logic, reason, science and any provable fact. The logic
of any faith is internal, based only on the acceptance of what the religion
holds to be "true".
Willow
A R Pickett
> Matthew and Mark being derivative.
I always thought that Mark was the origin, and Matthew and Luke were
derivitative, each of the following ones written for a different audience,
Matthew for those who understood and grew up with Jewish background, and
Luke for a Gentile readership.
--
A R Pickett aka Woodstock
"Sometimes the facts threaten the truth"
Amos Oz, prize winning Israeli author
Read my book reviews at:
http://www.booksnbytes.com/reviews/_idx_ws_all_byauth.html
Now blogging!
http://www.journalscape.com/woodstock/
Remove lower case "e" to respond
Willow Arune
storm" - a series of events, not necessarily linked in time or place, that
leads to the development of something much larger.
> The problem is that there is precious little evidence of the historical
Yeshua
> or Joshua....<snip> Jim Jones made a bigger impression."
Indeed so.
> I would take it as probable that there was a radical rabbi who got the
hackles
> of the establishment up, and they did away with him. The myth-making
started
> after he died..."
And by slowly taking on attributes of the other candidates (somewhat like
the primaries now), gaining a bit here and there, and then the major step of
being anointed the state religion. Greek gods and goddesses became
Christian saints - Hyacinth being the one that comes to mind. The elaborate
robes of Mythras became the robes of the early Christian church, replacing
the simple white robes. I have always been reminded of the sales types
involved with pyramid schemes, like the long departed "Dare to be Great". I
suspect Paul would have fit right in with such an organization. Religion
was on the minds of many then as money making schemes seem to be now. The
early church also use tactics later used by Lenin - small cells of
believers. Then, when the moment is right, attack fast against those
closest to you in belief. Christianity had to deal with Mythras as
Bolsheviks did with Menchviks...
Still, one has to wonder why one set of myths and not the others won the
day. Zeus and his family are rather appealing in comparison to the Hebrew
chap. Robin Fox's "Pagans and Christians" which deals with that issue is on
my "To Be Re-Read" pile at the moment.
Willow
"Francis A. Miniter" <min...@attglobalZZ.net> wrote in message
news:476c0711$1@kcnews01...
Cheryl P.
I thought we were discussing historicity. I certainly don't recall
making any comment on whether or not a Judeo-Christian tradition was
meaningful.
Cheryl
Cheryl P.
> "Truth" when it comes to religion, is truth as seen through the eyes of
> faith. It may defy logic, reason, science and any provable fact. The logic
> of any faith is internal, based only on the acceptance of what the religion
> holds to be "true".
Well, first of all, not all religions take that approach to faith and
reason. Not even all Christian religions.
Secondly, *is* there another kind of truth other than that as seen
through the eyes of those who hold it to be true? Some would argue that
there is no such thing as truth, just different explanatory stories.
I do appear to have misunderstood your point about Harpur.
Cheryl
Francis A. Miniter
> Francis wrote in part - The synoptic gospels have one origin, and that is
> Luke, with
>
>>Matthew and Mark being derivative.
>
>
> I always thought that Mark was the origin, and Matthew and Luke were
> derivitative, each of the following ones written for a different audience,
> Matthew for those who understood and grew up with Jewish background, and
> Luke for a Gentile readership.
>
>
Hmmm. The order turns out to be far more contentious than I thought it would be.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels
Francis A. Miniter
Howard Duck
<min...@attglobalZZ.net> wrote:
> The problem is that there is precious little evidence of the historical Yeshua
> or Joshua. There is, outside of the gospels, only Josephus, and the Vatican
> text has an obvious gloss in it.
A Google search on "references to Jesus outside the Bible" brings up a
reference from Tacitus and an indirect reference from Pliny as well as
the reference in Josephus.
http://delveintojesus.com/articles/27/Evidence-for-Jesus-Outside-the-Bible.aspx
--
Howard
David Johnston
wrote:
Jesus believed he was evil? Interesting.
Francis A. Miniter
Tacitus was barely a child when Nero died. Tacitus is talking about the problem
of the Christians during the reign of Nero and writing about it from the
perspective of 50 years later. In passing, he relates what has been said about
the origins of the cult, about which he could have no direct knowledge.
My first comment addressed the lack of primary sources.
Francis A. Miniter
Howard Duck
<min...@attglobalZZ.net> wrote:
There are plenty of people writing today about the lives and effects
upon the world of people who lived 50, 100, 200 years ago - J P
Morgan, Wilson, Lincoln, Washington, writers, philosophers,
theologians, etc. Why do you not accept the testimonies of ancient
historians? Why wouldn't Pliny's statements rate acceptability? I
don't understand how there can be people today questioning the very
existence of Jesus Christ. Absurd. Bah! what a stupid debate.
--
Howard
Francis A. Miniter
I do not doubt that Tacitus and Pliny can be used as primary sources for the
interaction of government and Christians in Rome in the late 1st Century ce.
But they cannot be used as primary sources that Jesus existed or lived the life
that the Christians of the late 1st century proclaimed he did. That is hearsay.
When someone writes today about Lincoln, I do not accept that person's word that
Lincoln existed. I rely on the primary sources which that historian has
referenced to judge whether Lincoln existed, or did X, Y or Z. Let me give an
example. Someone writes a book - let's take Robert Stinnett, Day of Deceit
(1999), arguing that Roosevelt knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl
Harbor and that he let it happen. Do I accept Stinnett's point of view
uncritically? No. I look to see what documents he has used to support his
position. I look to see what documents contradict it. Then I decide.
So, when you read Tacitus's paragraph about the Christians with the one
subordinate clause reference to "Christus", you have to ask your self, what were
Tacitus's sources and how much research did he put into this one subordinate
clause. It becomes obvious that this was not a big concern of his, that he took
something he heard about the origin of the cult and put it in there, and went on
to continue talking about his main subject, which was Nero and how he governed.
From that I can conclude there was a lot of friction between Nero and the
Christians in the 60s, but I cannot conclude anything about the origin of the
religous group. I can only conclude that in the 60s Christians already believed
that one Christus died in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius and the
procuratorship of Pilate. I still do not have a primary source for the belief.
Francis A. Miniter
Howard Duck
<min...@attglobalZZ.net> wrote:
> I do not doubt that Tacitus and Pliny can be used as primary sources for the
> interaction of government and Christians in Rome in the late 1st Century ce.
> But they cannot be used as primary sources that Jesus existed or lived the life
> that the Christians of the late 1st century proclaimed he did. That is hearsay.
>
> When someone writes today about Lincoln, I do not accept that person's word that
> Lincoln existed. I rely on the primary sources which that historian has
> referenced to judge whether Lincoln existed, or did X, Y or Z. Let me give an
> example. Someone writes a book - let's take Robert Stinnett, Day of Deceit
> (1999), arguing that Roosevelt knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl
> Harbor and that he let it happen. Do I accept Stinnett's point of view
> uncritically? No. I look to see what documents he has used to support his
> position. I look to see what documents contradict it. Then I decide.
I certainly believe Roosevelt knew and wanted America in the war.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/McCollum/
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408
Although Roosevelt and his closest advisers in the State, War, and
Navy departments knew that an attack was imminent, the revisionists
argue, they did not alert the military, believing that a surprise
attack would create an overwhelming consensus for involvement in both
the European and Pacific wars. As evidence of Roosevelt's duplicity,
they cite the fact that the administration failed to notify the
military of decoded Japanese messages indicating that an attack would
take place on December 6–7.
Among the first historians to argue in favour of the back-door-to-war
theory were Charles Beard, author of American Foreign Policy in the
Making, 1932–1940 (1946) and President Roosevelt and the Coming of the
War, 1941 (1948), and Charles C. Tansill, author of Back Door to War:
The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933–1941 (1952). Half a century later,
journalist and presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan gave
continuing life to the theory by insisting in his book A Republic, Not
an Empire (1999) that, contrary to accepted opinion, the United States
need not have fought in World War II. The country was forced into a
conflict with the Axis powers only by Roosevelt's determination to aid
Britain and Russia against Hitler. Without American involvement in the
fighting, Buchanan argued, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia would have
destroyed each other, thereby sparing the world the post-1945 Cold
War.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9344716/Pearl-Harbor-and-the-back-door-to-war-theory
Admiral Kimmel was the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
who bore the brunt of blame for the surprise Japanese sneak attack
December 7, 1941. Kimmel asked for a court martial to clear his name,
and even waived the statute of limitations, but this request was
denied. He was never officially charged with any wrongdoing.
http://www.macedonpublishing.com/books/admiral_kimmel.htm
Without affording Admiral Kimmel the opportunity to defend himself,
the Roberts Commission convicted him, without a trial, on secret
evidence withheld from him and the public and published its findings
to the world. Subsequently, Admiral William H. Standley, a member of
the Commission, publicly repudiated its procedures and findings and
disassociated himself from the work. He took the position that the
Commission was hastily ordered by the President to forestall a
Congressional investigation at that time.
http://users.erols.com/nbeach/kimmel.html
There has been so much investigation of this debacle that to deny
government conspiracy to draw Japan into this attack, and to deny
Roosevelt's foreknowledge of the attack, is to be willingly ignorant
of the facts - criminal blindness in my opinion. You choose to
believe and support lies in this, as is your custom in many things.
--
Howard
Howard Duck
When you see Jesus, you will hide your face in shame. You'll say like
Job: "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye
seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes"
(Job 42:5-6). The reason you don't see Him now is that you come in the
pride of your humanity and He will not respond to that.
--
Howard
Willow Arune
talents to be sceptical as he no doubt intended, how can we be held wrong?
On the other hand, those who blindly accepted the words of men without
question might well be simply sheep, accepting what they should question.
That would seem especially true when the words of men tell you to kill
without cause or for a purpose most certainly not that of a god. Is a
patriot who goes to war and kills others, oft-times civilians, women and
children, solely on the word of his commander-in-chief to be held to
account? Should he not have questioned the purpose and justness of the
actions he so blindly pursued? Did he not have the responciblity to say
"no"?
Should a just man accept what *you* say concerning god without putting you
to the test? And the god you support as well?
And if other gods can be questioned and dismissed - and their commandments
ignored - why would we not question yours, and dismiss him in the absence of
proof? To do otherwise would be to blindly follow without using out given
talents
Willow.
"Howard Duck" <hbd...@geusnet.com> wrote in message
news:8m1tm3p4t3sp7h3tq...@4ax.com...
Lynn Allen
> And if other gods can be questioned and dismissed - and their commandments
> ignored - why would we not question yours, and dismiss him in the absence of
> proof? To do otherwise would be to blindly follow without using our given
> talents
"When god hates all the same people you do, you know you've created god
in your own image."
--
--
Lymaree
Francis A. Miniter
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:53:20 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
> <min...@attglobalZZ.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I do not doubt that Tacitus and Pliny can be used as primary sources for the
>>interaction of government and Christians in Rome in the late 1st Century ce.
>>But they cannot be used as primary sources that Jesus existed or lived the life
>>that the Christians of the late 1st century proclaimed he did. That is hearsay.
>>
>>When someone writes today about Lincoln, I do not accept that person's word that
>>Lincoln existed. I rely on the primary sources which that historian has
>>referenced to judge whether Lincoln existed, or did X, Y or Z. Let me give an
>>example. Someone writes a book - let's take Robert Stinnett, Day of Deceit
>>(1999), arguing that Roosevelt knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl
>>Harbor and that he let it happen. Do I accept Stinnett's point of view
>>uncritically? No. I look to see what documents he has used to support his
>>position. I look to see what documents contradict it. Then I decide.
>
>
> I certainly believe Roosevelt knew and wanted America in the war.
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/McCollum/
> http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408
>
> --
> Howard
Hi Howard,
Merry Christmas. I knew after I hit the send button that I should not have used
the Pearl Harbor case as an example. I really wanted to focus attention on
the process of evaluation of historical sources, not on truth or falsity in a
specific situation.
So let me try another, hopefully more neutral example. The historical question
is this: Did Richard III cause the princes in the Tower of London to be killed,
or were they killed after Richard's death on Bosworth Field, perhaps by agents
of Henry Tudor. Until the 20th century, almost everyone accepted the
Shakespeare version that Richard had them killed. Then came some revisionist
theories, the most popular of which was that Henry Tudor found the princes
alive, realized that they had a stronger claim to the throne than he, and had
them killed, putting it out that Richard had had it done. See Josephine Tey,
The Daughter of Time.
The question is discussed in Appendix I to Paul Murray Kendall's book, "Richard
III" (W. W. Norton, 1956). Kendall asks (pp. 465-466):
---------------------
Upon what materials, then, must an investigation be based? - upon rumors and
hearsay, assertion from sources of demonstrable unreliability and inaccuracy,
facts of disputed relevance, and inferences insusceptible to test, drawn from
events and acts. This is all that we have in the way of "evidence," and it is a
knotty, baffling, often contradictory complex of uncertainties.
The chief reason for the bitter disagreements that have raged around the problem
of the Princes' murder is that the traditionalists have ignored one or more of
these disabilities inherent in the "evidence," whereas the revisionists have
tended to assume that these disabilities somehow give them the license to put
forward a melange of speculation and wishful thinking at least as dubious as the
traditional sources they scorn. On the one hand we have scholars clinging to
"evidence" which no jurist would dream of crediting - and no scholar either, in
any other context except the heated dispute over the fate of the Princes - while
in refutation we behold writers unleashing as final revelation a farrago of
conjecture. A plague o' both your houses! My purpose here is to present for
the reader's judgment the materials which are available to elucidate the death's
of King Edward's sons, along with a commentary upon their ascertainable
reliability and relevance.
-----------------------
That passage describes both how not to do history, and how to do history. The
latter involves the dispassionate gathering of materials, evaluation of their
respective relevance, and then further assessment of them for reliability, or,
as a court would say, credibility. Applying this to the Tacitus materials
(Annales Bk. 16, Ch. 44), they are indeed relevant, but his sources are at best
secondary, not primary, and not themselves neutral on the issue. So, his
statements, so far as they deal with the person Christus, have to be assessed as
unreliable. If you want to claim Tacitus as strong evidence of the historicity
of Jesus, then what do you do with the sentence preceding that one, which reads:
--------------
Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos
vulgus Christianos appellabat. Translated: "Nero fastened the guilt and
inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations,
called Christians by the populace." [Perseus Digital Library]
--------------
The abominations (flagitia) to which reference is made were claims that, among
other things, Christians ate the flesh of children. Does this statement get
rejected as false, while the statement about Christ get accepted as true? If
so, why? On what basis does one judge these consecutive sentences. The point,
Howard, is that evaluation of historical sources requires a critical approach.
Credulousness leads nowhere.
Francis A. Miniter
Howard Duck
The only thing I've read about the above is Shakespeare's Richard III,
so of course I can't even offer an opinion about it. But I follow
your reasoning.
> That passage describes both how not to do history, and how to do history. The
> latter involves the dispassionate gathering of materials, evaluation of their
> respective relevance, and then further assessment of them for reliability, or,
> as a court would say, credibility. Applying this to the Tacitus materials
> (Annales Bk. 16, Ch. 44), they are indeed relevant, but his sources are at best
> secondary, not primary, and not themselves neutral on the issue. So, his
> statements, so far as they deal with the person Christus, have to be assessed as
> unreliable. If you want to claim Tacitus as strong evidence of the historicity
> of Jesus, then what do you do with the sentence preceding that one, which reads:
>
> --------------
> Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos
> vulgus Christianos appellabat. Translated: "Nero fastened the guilt and
> inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations,
> called Christians by the populace." [Perseus Digital Library]
> --------------
>
> The abominations (flagitia) to which reference is made were claims that, among
> other things, Christians ate the flesh of children. Does this statement get
> rejected as false, while the statement about Christ get accepted as true? If
> so, why? On what basis does one judge these consecutive sentences. The point,
> Howard, is that evaluation of historical sources requires a critical approach.
> Credulousness leads nowhere.
>
>
> Francis A. Miniter
Mmmm. That's pretty bad. Did Tacitus claim that the Christians ate
the flesh of children? Where did that come from?
There are some issues with which I am more intimately acquainted by
reading, but also by an acquaintance with the society of people
involved. When it comes to believing in the authenticity of the four
gospel accounts of Jesus' ministry, I am much more persuaded by an
intimacy with the spiritual, and with those whom I know to be sincere
and devout Christian people. Jesus had made statements, according to
the Gospel of John, to the effect that the Holy Spirit would come
after Him and would reveal the things of Christ to them. Jesus called
the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth, by which we come to understand
that there is a manner of knowing things that does not depend upon an
academic approach. It's like both animals and humans are able to know
certain things by what is loosely called intuition. Dogs can sense
things we cannot. All animals have an innate sense of certain things
that defy reason. Paul also wrote words to the effect that the spirit
of man knows the things of man, but no one knows the things of God
except the Spirit of God and those in whom He dwells.
--
Howard
Howard Duck
wrote:
> Ah yes, but he made us that way, n'est-ce pas, 'oward? So if we use our
> talents to be sceptical as he no doubt intended, how can we be held wrong?
It's not the skepticism that's at fault, it is rather the attitude
with which we seek the truth of the things of God. If you petition
God for knowledge, it must be with profound humility, otherwise you
most likely will not get an answer.
> On the other hand, those who blindly accepted the words of men without
> question might well be simply sheep, accepting what they should question.
> That would seem especially true when the words of men tell you to kill
> without cause or for a purpose most certainly not that of a god. Is a
> patriot who goes to war and kills others, oft-times civilians, women and
> children, solely on the word of his commander-in-chief to be held to
> account? Should he not have questioned the purpose and justness of the
> actions he so blindly pursued? Did he not have the responciblity to say
> "no"?
Certainly. No objection here.
> Should a just man accept what *you* say concerning god without putting you
> to the test? And the god you support as well?
Of course not. But I can only offer words. They are not intended to
convince people, but simply to stir up a curiosity so that one may be
moved to diligently seek God for him or her self.
> And if other gods can be questioned and dismissed - and their commandments
> ignored - why would we not question yours, and dismiss him in the absence of
> proof? To do otherwise would be to blindly follow without using out given
> talents
Well, but the proof comes in a form that is not academic. Call it
another sense, if you will, but it can be entirely persuasive. The
proof of the pudding is in the tasting, not in essays or arguments.
> Willow.
--
Howard
Francis A. Miniter
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:59:49 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
> <min...@attglobalZZ.net> wrote:
>
>>Applying this to the Tacitus materials
>>(Annales Bk. 16, Ch. 44), they are indeed relevant, but his sources are at best
>>secondary, not primary, and not themselves neutral on the issue. So, his
>>statements, so far as they deal with the person Christus, have to be assessed as
>>unreliable. If you want to claim Tacitus as strong evidence of the historicity
>>of Jesus, then what do you do with the sentence preceding that one, which reads:
>>
>>--------------
>>Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos
>>vulgus Christianos appellabat. Translated: "Nero fastened the guilt and
>>inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations,
>>called Christians by the populace." [Perseus Digital Library]
>>--------------
>>
>>The abominations (flagitia) to which reference is made were claims that, among
>>other things, Christians ate the flesh of children. Does this statement get
>>rejected as false, while the statement about Christ get accepted as true? If
>>so, why? On what basis does one judge these consecutive sentences. The point,
>>Howard, is that evaluation of historical sources requires a critical approach.
>>Credulousness leads nowhere.
>>
>>
>>Francis A. Miniter
>
>
> Mmmm. That's pretty bad. Did Tacitus claim that the Christians ate
> the flesh of children? Where did that come from?
>
Tacitus did not overtly make the claim, though he refers to flagitia as the
reason for Nero's persecution of them. But that was the rumor that was popular
then, along with that of sexual perversity (since they called each other brother
and sister, that made sex into incest). It obviously came from a
misunderstanding of the celebration of communion - the transubstantiation of
bread and wine into the body and blood of the Son of God.
Minucius Felix, an early defender of Christianity, writing about the time of
Tertullian (probably late 2nd, early 3rd century), wrote a dialogue called
_Octavius_. In it, two people debate. Caecilius Natalis argues the pagan point
of view and recites this rumor and others as to why Christians are reviled.
Octavius Januarius defends the Christian point of view and refutes the accusation.
Francis A. Miniter
Willow Arune
"If you petition
God for knowledge, it must be with profound humility, otherwise you
most likely will not get an answer."
But if you do that, Howard, you are already admitting "he" exists. The
skeptic doubts that and with good cause. If faith is passed on by the Holy
Ghost, then why give it to some and not others? In particular, why only
give it to those who already beleive? Calvinism at work?
> > Should a just man accept what *you* say concerning god without putting
you
> > to the test? And the god you support as well?
>
> Of course not. But I can only offer words. They are not intended to
> convince people, but simply to stir up a curiosity so that one may be
> moved to diligently seek God for him or her self.
But Howard, your words do not do that at all. They simply reinforce the
negative view of Christianity that I and others already have. They do not
make me diligently seek your god but rather steadfastly denouce him and his
works. If that is your strategy, your tactics are failing.
> Well, but the proof comes in a form that is not academic. Call it
> another sense, if you will, but it can be entirely persuasive. The
> proof of the pudding is in the tasting, not in essays or arguments.
Howard, each of us gets a warm gushy feeling when confronted with cute
puppies or kittens. We "sense" they need to be cuddled and held. It is
totally persuasive. That does not mean that the puppies or kittens have the
faintest understanding of what we are feeling.
And when one does not have the taste of the pudding, one has to accept what
others say about it. It does seem to me that if this god type will not give
me a sniff of the nice tapioca pudding, my failure to bow down and worship
him is totally his fault.
Willow
Willow Arune
Amongst other things, Howard stated:
"When it comes to believing in the authenticity of the four
gospel accounts of Jesus' ministry, I am much more persuaded by an
intimacy with the spiritual, and with those whom I know to be sincere
and devout Christian people."
And...
"It's like both animals and humans are able to know
> certain things by what is loosely called intuition. Dogs can sense
> things we cannot. All animals have an innate sense of certain things
> that defy reason."
So, if a person sees another person as "good" and that other person has a
faith or belief, that in and of itself makes the faith true? Heavens! I
know good types who are of all faiths or none. In fact, most of the
Christians I know are bad examples. Walk into any business office where
there is an overt religious display and you know you are going to be taken -
or that they are going to try.
Intuition? Our three dogs have no sense of christianity. Nor do the cats.
Come to think of it, I do not see any of either species lined up to take
confession or communion. Are you suggesting that religion depends on
nothing but intuition? A sense that "there must be something"? That may
well be true but if so it means that your faith is no more or less "true"
than any other. For while intution might give you the warm feeling, it does
not prompt the books and rules. What "intuition" guides one to one faith
instead of another? One tends to have the faith of one's upbringing.
Howard, this makes no sense at all.
Willow
Howard Duck
wrote:
> Amongst other things, Howard stated:
Are you purposely misconstruing the point I was making? Of course
animals of different types don't necessarily possess the same kinds of
sense or instinct or intuition. Certain flocks of birds and schools of
fish are able to move groupwise as a single organism. Some dogs have,
by some means, found their way home over hundreds of miles. Some dogs
can sense a pending episode of illness or seizure in humans. Certain
humans possessed of a familiar spirit can sense spiritual presences in
others. Christians can often discern the kind of spirit other people
have. Some of us can sense that a story is relating a hidden meaning
behind its overt storyline - and this may be without having a complete
understanding of its intent. The apostle Paul had revelations out of
the OT scriptures which bore meanings quite beyond the original
historical sense. He told the Galatians that the story of Abraham's
wife Sarah and handmaid Hagar with their two sons, Isaac and Ishmael,
were metaphorically linked to the two mounts, Zion and Sinai, which
symbolized the contrast between Christian salvation by faith and
legalistic practices of law. Knowledge of such things comes not at all
by scholarly studies of many writings, but by a revelatory grasp of
inner meanings. I was using the word intuition to try to convey this
understanding of a sense that is quite beyond pragmatism and
ratiocination.
--
Howard
Howard Duck
wrote:
> "Howard Duck" <hbd...@geusnet.com> wrote in message
> news:il0um31hjufppvh7c...@4ax.com...
>
> "If you petition
> God for knowledge, it must be with profound humility, otherwise you
> most likely will not get an answer."
>
> But if you do that, Howard, you are already admitting "he" exists. The
> skeptic doubts that and with good cause. If faith is passed on by the Holy
> Ghost, then why give it to some and not others? In particular, why only
> give it to those who already beleive? Calvinism at work?
Perhaps Calvinism. I don't know. One usually reaches out to God only
when life is threatened or becomes meaningless - it is in what seems
to us as our extremis that we are impelled to "reach out" to the
unknown.
> > > Should a just man accept what *you* say concerning god without putting
> you
> > > to the test? And the god you support as well?
> >
> > Of course not. But I can only offer words. They are not intended to
> > convince people, but simply to stir up a curiosity so that one may be
> > moved to diligently seek God for him or her self.
>
> But Howard, your words do not do that at all. They simply reinforce the
> negative view of Christianity that I and others already have. They do not
> make me diligently seek your god but rather steadfastly denouce him and his
> works. If that is your strategy, your tactics are failing.
Then, alas, I have failed. At least, in your case. But you cannot
presume to speak for others.
> > Well, but the proof comes in a form that is not academic. Call it
> > another sense, if you will, but it can be entirely persuasive. The
> > proof of the pudding is in the tasting, not in essays or arguments.
>
> Howard, each of us gets a warm gushy feeling when confronted with cute
> puppies or kittens. We "sense" they need to be cuddled and held. It is
> totally persuasive. That does not mean that the puppies or kittens have the
> faintest understanding of what we are feeling.
>
> And when one does not have the taste of the pudding, one has to accept what
> others say about it. It does seem to me that if this god type will not give
> me a sniff of the nice tapioca pudding, my failure to bow down and worship
> him is totally his fault.
>
> Willow
Perhaps one day you too will come to a critical moment when there is
nowhere to turn but to God.
--
Howard