In using the word "filth" in reference to the Biblical narratives, I wish it understood that its use is intended to reflect the same thought that would be expressed by the religious-minded in judging the literature of sex as found in books other than the Bible.- Joseph Lewis,The Bible Unmasked
Report: Church of Scotland Pressured by Jewish Zionists to amend disputed Israel paper
Obviously none of these white Euro Trash scumbags have anything to do with 'Abraham' anyways because white people, in the sense of light hair and eyes and pale skin of the Europeans who lie about being 'Jews' or Semites could't possibly be Semites or they wouldn't be white Caucasians in the first -thry'd be dark complected Caucasians which they clearly are NOT !And why don't they discuss Abraham's hallucination of Gawd telling him to kill his Jewish son and to rape his wife's maid ?It is unfortunate that I ever thought of Jews as being relatively well educated when in fact it appears that it is the Jews,(white people of Eastern European origin), more than fundamentalist Christians or Moslems who have done the most to drive us, early in the 21st century,towards a religious Dark Age.
I don't care what Judeo-Christian-Moslem-Mormon fundies or 'fundamentalists' say - white folks ain't Semites and most all Jews are Euro trash from Eastern Europe who NEVER had an historic or direct genetic link to PaLESTINE.Can't we all just admit white folk aren't Semites and never have been ?EURO TRASH
Jews are pseudo-Jews and the Palestinians have a closer genetic and linguistic and historic connerction to Abraham whether they are Christian,Moslem or athist than the liars and mass murderers from Europe who now occupy and dare to commit the blasphemy against the Semitic god they claim to adore !
http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Church-of-Scotland-Disputed-Israel-land-paper-revised-313519
....................................
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=9031
Report: Church of Scotland amends disputed Israel paper
The Church of Scotland revised a paper it had published rejecting Jewish scriptural-based rights to the land of Israel after it caused waves of controversy among the Jewish community in the UK, BBC reported Friday.
The amended version of the report entitled "The Inheritance of Abraham," was set to be discussed and voted on next week at the church's general assembly meeting, it was reported
'Jews shouldn't take God's promise to Abraham literally'
In new report titled "The Inheritance of Abraham? The 'Promised Land,''' the Church of Scotland, once a staunch supporter of the Jews' right to their ancient homeland, says Israel does not belong to the Jewish people.
Amir Mizroch
The Church of Scotland says
God's promise of Israel to the Jews should not be taken literally
|
Photo credit: Courtesy  |
In a new report titled "The Inheritance of
Abraham? A Report on the 'Promised Land,''' the Church of Scotland, once
a staunch supporter of the Jews' right to their ancient homeland, casts
serious doubt on the biblical Jewish claim to the land.
The report is a culmination of more than a
decade of increasingly strident anti-Zionism and pro-Palestinian
activism by the church, especially by its local Palestinian Christian
chapters.
"Promises about the land of Israel were never
intended to be taken literally, or as applying to a defined geographical
territory," it concludes. "The 'promised land' in the Bible is not a
place, so much as a metaphor of how things ought to be among the people
of God. This 'promised land' can be found, or built, anywhere."
Local Jewish leaders fear that if the church
adopts the document at its annual general assembly, it may be become
official church policy, the London Jewish Chronicle reported. The Church
of Scotland's annual general assembly is to vote on the report later
this month,
In the report,
the church states that there has been a "widespread assumption" by many
Christians and Jews that the Bible supports an essentially Jewish state
of Israel.
"This assumption of biblical support is based
on views of promises about land in the Hebrew Bible, and that the modern
State of Israel is the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, as well
as the fulfillment of biblical prophets such as Ezekiel, who spoke
about 'the barren mountains of Israel' becoming fruitful and 'the ruined
towns' being rebuilt as the people returned from exile. These views are
disputed," the report says. It adds that the New Testament provides
help in answering some of the "difficult questions" that arise from
these disputed assumptions.
On God's promise to Abraham to make the Land
of Israel a home for the Jewish people ("To your offspring I will give
this land," Genesis 12:7), the Church of Scotland says that a purely
literal reading does show that God promised the land to Abraham and his
descendents, but that the exact geography of the land is unclear, and in
any case the land was given "conditionally to the Jewish people, on the
understanding the land is God's, given in trust to be cared for and
lived in according to God's instruction."
The report then quotes from a slew of
anti-Zionist writers who argue that Israel and Zionism are acting
"unjustly" toward the Palestinian population on the land, in an effort
to make the point that the current State of Israel is not acting
according to God's instructions.
The New Testament, the report states, contains
a "radical re-interpretation" of the concepts of "Israel," "temple,"
"Jerusalem," and "land."
"The boundaries of the land are described in
different ways in different situations," the report says. "Abraham's
descendants, 'numerous as the stars in the sky', will receive 'all these
lands,' and through them 'all nations on earth will be blessed'"
(Genesis 26:4). This suggests a more inclusive picture than "the land of
Canaan" (Genesis 12:5) or even "from the river of Egypt to the great
river, the Euphrates" (Genesis 15:18).
"The lack of detailed archaeological evidence
supports the view that the range of scriptural material makes it
inappropriate to try to use the Hebrew scriptures to determine an area
of land meant exclusively for the Jewish people," the report says.
Making a theological leap from this
geographical "lack of detailed archaeological evidence," the report then
concludes that "the new 'place' where God is found is wherever people
gather in the name of Jesus. If Jesus is indeed the 'yes' to all God's
promises, the promise to Abraham about land is fulfilled through the
impact of Jesus, not by restoration of land to the Jewish people."
The church admits that from the early 19th
century, some influential Christians encouraged the concept of the land
of Israel being promised to the Jews. It may well have been a church
minister, the Rev. Alexander Keith, who coined the phrase "a land
without people for a people without land," the report states.
Scottish Council of Jewish Communities Director Ephraim Borowski said the church should withdraw the report.
"On behalf of the Jewish community of
Scotland, we call upon the church to withdraw it [the report] from the
forthcoming general assembly. If the Church cannot build bridges, can it
at least refrain from burning them?" Borowski told the London Jewish
Chronicle newspaper.
Board of Deputies Vice President Jonathan
Arkush said, "The document ... appears to have been produced with no
consultation with the Scottish or national Jewish community. It is
littered with misrepresentations of Jewish history, values and beliefs,
as well as basic factual errors.
"It is an ignorant and tendentious document
masquerading as a theological statement. The church has done a deep
disservice to itself by producing a document without any regard to the
trust, respect and dialogue on which interfaith relations should be
based."
..........................
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewun01.htm#CHAP1
Abram And Sarai.[4]
The most sacred relation of life is the devotion, the integrity, and
the loyalty of a man and a woman. Without this relationship, without the
mutual pledge and keeping of a sacred faith with each other, there would
be nothing in life to warrant its puny existence. Anything that tends to
strengthen this tie of love, that makes for a more happy union and sacred
trust, is a force of uplift, of advancement, of progress, and of happiness.
Anything that undermines this relationship, that tends to break its bonds,
that puts a commercial price upon its devotion is not only harmful, but
belongs to the baser things of life which civilization abhors as a plague.
For after all, when the sum total of life has been thoroughly analyzed,
it is as Robert Burns would say:
For a man to betray a woman in the marital relationship is a deed of
grave injustice and for a woman to betray a man in this same relationship
is one of the basest of acts. And yet, we sanction the separation of a
pair when their union is incompatible and makes their lives a burden instead
of a source of happiness in this world of so much pain and sorrow. But
if this sacred relationship is used by either party for personal gain and
personal safety, or, to secure special favor or special dispensation, our
condemnation for such an act is only too well known.
Still, in the Bible, there are related acts of such a character; that are not only not condemned, but the parties thereto receive the blessing and bountifulness of God.
We will proceed to relate a story of such a despicable nature. I quote Genesis, Chapter 12, Verses 11-20.
Now in the character of Abram we have a man who has been extolled for
centuries throughout the world as the product of the finest and best in
life. Particularly one whose services in behalf of the Lord should be followed
by every one. It was Abram, remember, who received the Covenant from God.
And his fame is similar to that of our own George Washington, because he
is considered the "Father of the Jewish People." But let me ask:
Would you under the pretext of saving yourself, force your wife whom you
love, to commit an act of prostitution in order that you might secure safe
passage in your travels from one country to another?
Sarai's desires and rights in the matter were of no concern, as long as Abram was sure of protection and free of molestation. We cannot take into consideration, in this narrative, the childish element of God in this transaction, unless we also make him a party to the deal; a deal in which a man's wife is of so little value that he readily consented to have her submit to the embraces of other men in order that he himself might escape harm.
There is no doubt that Sarai performed her part of the bargain with full value, as Pharaoh "entreated Abram well for her sake." It seems in this pretty piece of business sagacity that our sympathies should be with Pharaoh, and our condemnation and contempt for Abram, the Lord notwithstanding to the contrary. Pharaoh distinctly tells Abram, after he has learned the truth, that if he had known that Sarai was Abram's wife, he would not have committed his adulterous act.
Pharaoh should be our model in this story instead of this gentleman whom we are pleased to call the "Father of the Jewish People." Is it from stories like this that our daughters are to receive their impressions and examples of virtue?
Is this the story that the prospective wife is to have before her as an example when she marries the man of her choice; especially, if she is a devout believer in the holiness and sacredness of every word that the Bible contains? Must she picture to herself, when in such a circumstance as related above, that her husband will surrender her to the lust of a stranger so that he may remain unharmed and unhurt? Or, rather, should she select a man as her mate, who follows the example of one who will at all times and under all circumstances protect her first and defend himself afterwards -- one who will lay down his life for her safety?
Further comment upon this story, is, I believe, unnecessary as it speaks its own foul lesson better than anything else could. But we are not finished with this model pair of the Bible, and I must give you another glimpse of their code of morals. One would think that the above story would be sufficient to make any one couple notorious, but the Bible-makers thought additional information of their intimate life would be elevating. And so I quote, Genesis, Chapter 16, Verses 1-2.
Rather a nice compromising situation; a particularly desirable one for
a profligate husband; also a particularly liberal and obliging wife. Can
you picture the situation as related above? Sarai tells Abram, "I
pray thee, go in unto my maid," and the Bible assures us there was
no hesitation on the part of Abram as he "hearkened to the voice of
Sarai."
To-day the conditions seem to be the reverse. When a wife discovers that her husband is getting a bit too familiar with the maid, she generally consults her lawyer regarding a divorce, and quite a number of divorces have been granted where the maid has been mentioned as the corespondent. But there is more to follow and so we continue.
Genesis, Chapter 16 Verses 3-5.
Certainly here is a situation where an appeal to the law seems the only
solution. What jealousy arises in a woman's breast under such circumstances
I do not know; yet it does seem but natural that when a mistress forces
her servant to co-habit with her husband, and when this cohabitation
results in a pregnancy, surely the servant is justified in demanding that
her mistress's husband give her all the protection that a woman in her
condition deserves.
That Hagar should feel contempt for Sarai in the transaction I think is but natural. Well might any one feel contempt for such a woman, especially after she appeals to the Lord to judge between her and her husband. At first thought you might suppose that Sarai was laying a trap for Abram in order that she might secure a divorce from him, assuming that the same laws concerning divorce prevailed at that time as they now do in the State of New York, but that was not her purpose, as the following indicates:
Genesis, Chapter 16, Verse 6.
Of all the relationships between a man and a woman the most contemptible
is that when the man refuses to protect the woman who will soon be the
mother of a child of which he is the father. Sickening beyond expression
is the character of a man, who, after performing the act that he did, and
under the circumstances, should put the blame and the responsibility upon
his wife. True, we hold neither of them in high estimation, but under all
such circumstances let us at least favor the weaker of the two. We have
seen the character of Abram manifested in his relation with Pharaoh and
quite naturally expect him to shirk his responsibility whenever he can.
That he was an adept in "hiding behind a woman's skirt" no one
can deny. It has just occurred to me to inquire how many men to-day would
stoop to the degradation that has so far been related about this leading
Patriarch of early Biblical times. Poor Hagar is banished from the house
and her only refuge is the wilderness. The Lord steps in at this point,
and let us see what his intercession brings to the poor woman.
Genesis, Chapter 16, Verses 7-12.
Enough from this chapter concerning the duplicity of Sarai and the culpability
of Abram. What would we say to-day were such an example as theirs to be
given to the world by our leading men and women? To-day we admire the very
opposite of that which makes up the married life of this infamous couple.
Once more in the life of Abram and Sarai does Abram permit Sarai to submit to the embrace of other men for compensation and to save his miserable self. It appears that he made a business of the scheme, and from reports, shared very profitably after each transaction. One quotation of such a degrading act, I think, is sufficient for us at this time, but for the benefit of those who would like to become more fully acquainted with the life of this "Holy" pair, I advise them to read Genesis, Chapter 20. We all know what happened to Hagar for taking the "good advice" of the Lord and returning to her mistress. Both Sarai and Abram cast her out of the house and again into the wilderness with her child. Judging from this instance, the Lord's advice is not a very good thing to follow.
The blessing the Lord gave Hagar when his angel finds her in "her affliction" and "with child" was not very comforting to her either, for verse 12 says her son "will be a wild man; and his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him."
But on to the next story that bears a close relationship and resemblance to this one.
Notes for: File 1; File 2; File 4; File 5; File 6; File 7
..........................
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewun01.htm#CHAP1
| "To build a happy fire-side clime for weans and wife, Is the true pathos and sublime of human life." |
Still, in the Bible, there are related acts of such a character; that are not only not condemned, but the parties thereto receive the blessing and bountifulness of God.
We will proceed to relate a story of such a despicable nature. I quote Genesis, Chapter 12, Verses 11-20.
| 11. And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt,
that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art
a fair woman to look upon:
12. Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee,
that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but
they will save thee alive. 13. Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee. 14. And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair. 15. The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house. 16. And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants and maidservants, and she asses, and camels. 17. And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues, because of Sarai, Abram's wife. 18. And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? 19. Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way. 20. And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had. |
Sarai's desires and rights in the matter were of no concern, as long as Abram was sure of protection and free of molestation. We cannot take into consideration, in this narrative, the childish element of God in this transaction, unless we also make him a party to the deal; a deal in which a man's wife is of so little value that he readily consented to have her submit to the embraces of other men in order that he himself might escape harm.
There is no doubt that Sarai performed her part of the bargain with full value, as Pharaoh "entreated Abram well for her sake." It seems in this pretty piece of business sagacity that our sympathies should be with Pharaoh, and our condemnation and contempt for Abram, the Lord notwithstanding to the contrary. Pharaoh distinctly tells Abram, after he has learned the truth, that if he had known that Sarai was Abram's wife, he would not have committed his adulterous act.
Pharaoh should be our model in this story instead of this gentleman whom we are pleased to call the "Father of the Jewish People." Is it from stories like this that our daughters are to receive their impressions and examples of virtue?
Is this the story that the prospective wife is to have before her as an example when she marries the man of her choice; especially, if she is a devout believer in the holiness and sacredness of every word that the Bible contains? Must she picture to herself, when in such a circumstance as related above, that her husband will surrender her to the lust of a stranger so that he may remain unharmed and unhurt? Or, rather, should she select a man as her mate, who follows the example of one who will at all times and under all circumstances protect her first and defend himself afterwards -- one who will lay down his life for her safety?
Further comment upon this story, is, I believe, unnecessary as it speaks its own foul lesson better than anything else could. But we are not finished with this model pair of the Bible, and I must give you another glimpse of their code of morals. One would think that the above story would be sufficient to make any one couple notorious, but the Bible-makers thought additional information of their intimate life would be elevating. And so I quote, Genesis, Chapter 16, Verses 1-2.
| Now Sarai, Abram's wife, bare him no children: and she had a handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. 2. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. |
To-day the conditions seem to be the reverse. When a wife discovers that her husband is getting a bit too familiar with the maid, she generally consults her lawyer regarding a divorce, and quite a number of divorces have been granted where the maid has been mentioned as the corespondent. But there is more to follow and so we continue.
Genesis, Chapter 16 Verses 3-5.
| 3. And Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after
Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband
Abram to be his wife.
4. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that
she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. 5. And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the Lord judge between me and thee. |
That Hagar should feel contempt for Sarai in the transaction I think is but natural. Well might any one feel contempt for such a woman, especially after she appeals to the Lord to judge between her and her husband. At first thought you might suppose that Sarai was laying a trap for Abram in order that she might secure a divorce from him, assuming that the same laws concerning divorce prevailed at that time as they now do in the State of New York, but that was not her purpose, as the following indicates:
Genesis, Chapter 16, Verse 6.
| 6. But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face. |
Genesis, Chapter 16, Verses 7-12.
| 7. And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the
wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.
8. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither
wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.
9. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. 10. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. 11. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction. 12. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him: and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. |
Once more in the life of Abram and Sarai does Abram permit Sarai to submit to the embrace of other men for compensation and to save his miserable self. It appears that he made a business of the scheme, and from reports, shared very profitably after each transaction. One quotation of such a degrading act, I think, is sufficient for us at this time, but for the benefit of those who would like to become more fully acquainted with the life of this "Holy" pair, I advise them to read Genesis, Chapter 20. We all know what happened to Hagar for taking the "good advice" of the Lord and returning to her mistress. Both Sarai and Abram cast her out of the house and again into the wilderness with her child. Judging from this instance, the Lord's advice is not a very good thing to follow.
The blessing the Lord gave Hagar when his angel finds her in "her affliction" and "with child" was not very comforting to her either, for verse 12 says her son "will be a wild man; and his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him."
But on to the next story that bears a close relationship and resemblance to this one.
- Index: Historical Writings (Lewis: Atheism and Religion)
- Index: Historical Writings (Books)
- Home to Positive Atheism
- Table of Contents
- Continued on Next File
Notes for: File 1; File 2; File 4; File 5; File 6; File 7
- 1. Quoted from Upton Sinclair's
"Profits of Religion," page 119.
- 2. Buckle, "History of Civilization
in England," vol. III, pages 265 to 276.
- 3. In using the word "filth"
in reference to the Biblical narratives, I wish it understood that its
use is intended to reflect the same thought that would be expressed by
the religious-minded in judging the literature of sex as found in books
other than the Bible.
- 4. The Bible used as reference in this work is the King James version, published by the American Bible Society. "Its sole object," says the printed statement of the society, "is to encourage the wider circulation of the Holy Scriptures without note or comment." It also boasts of having issued over 158,000,000 volumes during its existence.
No comments:
Post a Comment