brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Tue Sep 3 00:36:54 EST 2002


"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:2ua7nu04mm68iu981v6d3744jtqahnej84 at 4ax.com...
>> I am quite aware that Jefferson said much that was bad about the Jews.
>> The problem for you is that when you look in detail at what he
>> criticized, he clearly would not distinguish between your "Israelites"
>> and the "Jews".
>
>You're arguing with yourself, and nobody else.

No.

>Wasn't it you who
>proclaimed:  "school prayer has not been banned" and "school prayer had
>already been banned in several states"?

As was clear before you stripped the context, the first sentence
referred to the US Supreme Court decision that you were railing on
about.  The second, as you note in the quote, was about the state
courts.

>And now you're going to violate your own "liberal principles" and tell us
>that Mr. Jefferson knew nothing of the Israelites?

Read what I wrote, not what you wish to misinterpret me to say.

>> Jefferson explicitly railed AGAINST including Biblical law in the
>> civil law.
>
>He railed against establishing ONE Christian church as the national church,

Or as the state church, or as connected with the state in any way.

>not the establishment of Christian principles.  It was because of him that
>your own state constitution still contains that oh-so nasty word
>"Christian":
>
>"That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of
>discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force
>or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free
>exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it
>is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and
>charity towards each other."

Which says nothing of "Christian religion"


>
>> And indeed, when he condemns the Jews, he condemns the Israelites as
>> well:
>> >There are, I acknowledge, passages not free from objection, which we
>> > may, with probability, ascribe to Jesus himself; but claiming
>> > indulgence from the circumstances under which he acted. His object
>> > was the reformation of some articles in the religion of the Jews, as
>> >                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > taught by Moses. That sect had presented for the object of their
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > worship, a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious
>> > and unjust.
>>
>> The religion as taught by Moses of course includes your Deuteronomy
>> verse.
>
>But now you know Moses was an ISRAELITE, don't you?

Yes, he was.  But yet the religion he started is "the religion of the
Jews".  Funny how HE seems to think that Jews and Israelites are the
same things.

>> So Jefferson clearly identifies Moses teachings as the Jewish religion
>> that you have noted that he condemns,  And that last sentence tells us
>> all what he would have thought of YOU and your racism.
>
>Jefferson was the "racist" who decided to eliminate the Indians.

Not an accurate quote of what he said.

>  II. JEWS. 1. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief of one only God.
>But their ideas of him & of his attributes were degrading & injurious.
>
>   2. Their Ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with
>the sound dictates of reason & morality, as they respect intercourse with
>those around us; & repulsive & anti-social, as respecting other nations.
>They needed reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree.

If you read his words carefully, he condemns the Jews not for being
"evil" but for being legalistically *amoral*, claiming that they had
not sense of right or wrong as distinct from what was legal or illegal
Jefferson obviously felt very different.


>> >That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of
>>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >men more learned than myself in that lore. But that he might
>> > conscientiously believe himself inspired from above, is very possible.
>> > The whole religion of the Jews, inculcated on him from his
>>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > infancy, was founded in the belief of divine inspiration.
>>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > The fumes of the most disordered imaginations were recorded in their
>>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > religious code, as special communications of the Deity; and as it
>>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > could not but happen that, in the course of ages, events would now
>> > and then turn up to which some of these vague rhapsodies might be
>> > accommodated by the aid of allegories, figures, types, and other
>> > tricks upon words, they have not only preserved their credit with the
>> > Jews of all subsequent times, but are the foundation of much of the
>> > religions of those who have schismatised from them.
>>
>> That's the Holy Bible he is talking about, when he talks about "fumes
>> of the most disordered imaginations were recorded in their religious
>> code, as special communications of the Deity".  Note also that he says
>> that Christ was raised as a Jew.
>
>If he understood the difference between jews and Israelites, he would have
>had an entirely different opinion, wouldn't he?

There is no difference.

>He suspected that both the Quakers and Calvinists were adversely influenced
>by the jews--and he was dead nuts right on.

They were adversely influenced by their clergy.  And St Paul was a
"perverter" of Christ's message, in Jefferson's view.

>> >Thomas Jefferson on Calvinism
>> >
>> >"Calvin's character of this supreme being seems chiefly copied from that
>of
>> >the Jews."
>> >
>> >"The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are
>those
>> >calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for
>the
>> >structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without
>any
>> >foundation in his genuine words."
>>
>> That's YOU he's talking about.
>
>He suspected that the jews had been involved in distorting the Holy
>Scripture--HE WAS 100% CORRECT.

Actually, he called the perverters Platonists, and carefully
distinguished them from Jews.

>"All men" means all "all WHITE men", and nobody else, just like the Holy
>Bible states so clearly.

The Bible says no such thing.

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list