author: David Read

subject: Living In The Past

text:
Cross-pollination, sowing seedcorn and fertilisation
            -----------------------------------------------------------------

   3  Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow:
   4  And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the
fowls of the air came and devoured it up.
  .5  And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and
immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:
   6  But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root,
it withered away.
  .7  And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and
it yielded no fruit.
   8  And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and
increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an
hundred.

  The Gospel According To Saint Mark Ch. 4: 3-8

                                            -----------------------------

  "Although Jethro Tull can hardly be called the morning star of the
revolution, he lived and played his part not long after the dawn of the
movement. He was educated at Oxford, and for the law at Gray's Inn; and
inherited land in the southern part of England. After the fashion of the
gentlemen of his day, he made the grand tour on the Continent, learning much
about agricultural practices. Before going, he had invented the drill; on
his return, he practised pulverizing the soil. By the former he did away
with the broadcasting of seed; by the latter he hoped to keep his fields
fertile without manure. His main aim was to get the most out of the soil.
Sowing seed by scattering it to the wind was wasteful of seed and of hand
labor. To obviate these, he invented, or re-invented, a machine that would
sow seed in uniform rows and cover up the seed in the rows. Accordingly each
plant would have more space to grow, and although there would be fewer
plants, the net yield would be greater. Aware that manure implanted the
seeds of unwelcome weeds, he thought he had found a substitute in
pulverizing the soil. Such pulverization as was necessary he did by frequent
hoeing, not by hand but by horse. The result was that planting was so
delayed by long-drawn-out cultivation that the crop matured very late, in
the case of wheat, so late that it was subject to rusts. Tull's methods were
not at once adopted, but ultimately the drill was almost universally used,
and frequent cultivation by horse power, especially of turnips, was found to
put the land in inating weeds. Tull was an innovator and he made the
mistakes of a pioneer. He seems to have thought that plants lived on fine
particles of soil, instead of minerals in solution. But he set the example
of inquiry, investigation, and invention, which ultimately led to victory.
His life was sad. With poor help, stupid laborers, inadequate equipment, he
tried to make headway in the face of prejudicious and perhaps malicious
compatriots. At the end of his life he could take pride neither in his
family affairs nor in the acceptance of his principles of cultivation. But
his writings preserved his efforts, were taken up in France, they were
translated, discussed, and approved; and finally, indeed, they were
appreciated even in his native land."

  http://deathstar.comnet.ca/~jkahane/jtull/jtbits/historical-tull.html

                                    ---------------------------

  "Happy and I'm smiling,
  walk a mile to drink your water.
  You know I'd love to love you,
  and above you there's no other.
  We'll go walking out
  while others shout of war's disaster.
  Oh, we won't give in,
  let's go living in the past.

  Once I used to join in
  every boy and girl was my friend.
  Now there's revolution, but they don't know
  what they're fighting.
  Let us close our eyes;
  outside their lives go on much faster.
  Oh, we won't give in,
  we'll keep living in the past."

   "Living In The Past" by Jethro Tull. Words and music by Ian Anderson,
fish farmer

                               -----------------------------

  "Part of the problem is that most of the discussion about what
  soc.history.early-modern should actually be concerned with, and what its
  start and end dates were to be, were discussed almost entirely within
  threads in soc.history.medieval. Although there was cross-posting to
  other history newsgroups, the final cut was disproportionately
  influenced by regulars from s.h.m.

   Why regulars from other history newsgroups did not take part themselves
  to any significant degree is perhaps not knowable, but I would suggest
  that regular subscribers to newsgroups such as soc.history.moderated and
  soc.history.war.misc in particular did not think for the most part that
  the creation of s.h.e.m was necessary.

   If the main driving force behind the creation of s.h.e.m. was at bottom
  mostly a negative one - i.e., a desire to remove the discussion of off-
  charter history from s.h.m - then it is really not surprising that
  s.h.e.m remains a starveling infant. Yet curiously, even from some
  s.h.m. regulars who took part in the discussion about, and voting for,
  s.h.e.m., there are still posts coming through to s.h.m. that would be
  better dealt with on s.h.e.m. There are of course many crossovers, but
  in a culture on s.h.m. that doesn't really like much in the way of
  cross-posting to other newsgroups, s.h.e.m. remains starved of material.

   In order to breathe life into s.h.e.m. I would suggest that *more*
  cross-posting and the setting of follow-ups from s.h.m. is required.
  Even if Chris is right about there being on s.h.m. "a lack of knowledge
  and interest ... about non-British European history (outside war...)" -
  and he probably is - that does not mean that s.h.e.m cannot be kicked
  into action with a good dose of British and/or military discussion
  threads.

   Perhaps for all the spasmodic and inconsistent moaning about off-
  charter history on s.h.m. the fact remains that some people actually
  prefer to discuss off-charter material here than elsewhere. You can post
  the most nonsensical guff about off-charter material on s.h.m. and stand
  a good chance of getting away with it... "

    David Read  - 12 February 2000

  --

  cheers,

  David Read

  "What difference does it make by what pains each
    seeks the truth? We cannot attain to so great a
    secret by one road."
                                      Quintus Aurelius Symmachus.


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
Steven Gross wrote:

Around '99 I heard a cut from Secret Language Of Birds on WXRT and I
thought for a while that they were playing some album cut I didn't know
from the Songs From The Wood period.  Mostly, I think, because Andy
Giddings (or whoever the keyboardist was) did a good job of getting the
same Hammond sound that John Evan used to.

Pat Buzby
Chicago, IL


author: Spiv

subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
"David Read" <[email]> wrote in message
news:d9r5qd$ram$[email]...

much
each
frequent
were
to
he

Jethro Tull invented the first agricultural machine.  He was plonker.  He
was abusing his workers, poorly paid them, never on time and often they
would go on stilke.  To by-pass them he invented the seed drill.  To him
necessity was the mother of invention.


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
Arthur Boff wrote:

Stand Up, War Child, maybe Nightcap.

Pat Buzby
Chicago, IL


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
"ray o'hara" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Did it all go pear-shaped with "Warchild"?

Note follow-ups, if any.... :-)


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
Tony Elka wrote:

The last one I like is Minstrel.  Some bits I've heard from the later
albums, particularly Songs From The Wood, have been good, but that's
about it.

Pat Buzby
Chicago, IL


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
Tony Elka wrote:

The War Child remaster CD has seven bonus tracks.  One was released on
one of the 70's best-of albums ("Rainbow Blues"), one on the 20 Years
box set ("Saturation") and a few others on Nightcap.  Check the
discography page on j-tull.com.

Pat Buzby
Chicago, IL


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
Said I:

Quoth Tony Elka:

That's what I said.  Is your question directed at my
truthfulness or my taste? <g>

Narr


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
I loved almost everything they did up to and including "A Passion
Play," and almost nothing they did afterwards. And as Ray says,
they had a great live show.

They appeared nearby a few years ago, but I couldn't bring myself
to risk the money . . .

Narr


author: ray o'hara

subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
"David Read">

 Living in the past was a fine album, but the first few, 'this
was','benefit','stand up' and 'aqualung' were the best of their work. ;)


author: sdavmor

subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
[email] wrote:

Both of the recent Anderson solo albums are very good records.
Excellent songwriting in an unplugged Tull vein. Quite a few of the
numbers suggest that muscled-up with a full band they'd be excellent
in concert if done by Tull.

Concur on Giddings. He is the keysman on both "The Secret Language
Of Birds" and "Rupi's Dance". A pro's pro.


author: Steven Sullivan

subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
In rec.music.progressive [email] wrote:

If you like bits of SftW, there's no particular reason not to like bits
of the next three albums too.


author: Big Z

subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I consider _Minstrel_ and _Too Old to Rock n' Roll_ to be a quality gap from
which they rebounded with _Songs from the Wood_. The folkie phase ushered in
by that album, as well as their new wave/synthpop period (particularly
1980's brilliant _A_) are just as good as their prog phase and earlier blues
rock incarnations.

TS


author: Tony Elka

subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
In article <[email]>,
 [email] wrote:

It indicated a bit of surprise on my part.  I didn't think their best
work ended wtih A Passion Play, but there's no question it did fairly
recently after it.

Tony


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
In article <[email]>,
 [email] wrote:

You liked almost nothing after A Passion Play?  I stuck with them up
through and including War Child, and liked the occasional bit from
Minstrel in the Gallery and Songs from the Wood.  But that was it.
Stand-Up, Benefit, Aqualung and Thick as a Brick were my favorites.

I only just picked up a CD of This Was, haven't given it more than one
listen yet, do any of you like it much?

Tony


author: Arthur Boff

subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

I've noticed from my (admittedly limited) Tull listening that they seem
to have a tendency to put out one or two more albums in a particular
style than they especially need to. Heavy Horses didn't really build on
Songs from the Wood for me, and I couldn't get into A Passion Play
despite loving Thick As A Brick (although that could be due to the Hare
that Loses His Spectacles Halfway Through the Album and Wrecks the Flow
Utterly, Especially With the Irritating Narration).

In terms of my Tull preferences, of the one's I've heard I like
Aqualung, Living In the Past, Thick As a Brick, Minstrel In the Gallery,
and Songs From the Wood. I don't like A Passion Play, Heavy Horses or
Crest of a Knave. Do people have any recommendations based on that (Tull
or otherwise)?


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
In article <da16kn$hi7$[email]>,
 Steven Sullivan <[email]> wrote:

Yeah probably.  I just got the CD of Heavy Horses and it's about as good.

Tony


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
In article <H9Xwe.1359$[email]>,
 "Big Z" <[email]> wrote:

Their "new wave/synthpop" period was an embarrassment.  I didn't need to
see Ian Anderson in a DEVO suit.

Tony


author: Claus Rogge

subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
"Tony Elka" <[email]> wrote
news:[email]...

Here! Itï¿½s got a bit of a less sophisticated, garage-band, bluesy (Mick
Abrahams) and jazzy (I suspect Ian himself!) feel to it. "They donï¿½t seem to
do this liner note thing much anymore, which is a bit sad since itï¿½s not a
bad thing to say something even if it doesnï¿½t amount to much ..." And if you
know the live Dharma for One from Living in the Past, youï¿½ll be quite
surprised with the studio recording. Apparently they really did some things
to that piece when playing it live


author: Karthik Subramanian

subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
On 6/28/05 4:40 PM, in article
[email], "Tony Elka"
<[email]> wrote:

Actually Songs from the wood is my favorite, followed by Thick as a brick,
Minstrel, Heavy Horses and Stand Up. Never enjoyed Aqualung or A Passion
Playtoo much, though I do dig Benefit. I donï¿½t like This Was either.


author: JS

subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
"Tony Elka" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I was never a huge fan of Tull. They were one of those bands whose music I
enjoyed but never really had the urge to see them in concert.  I also
enjoyed the albums you mentioned and who could resist that guitar solo in
the middle of Aqualung?

  Steve


author: Martin Edwards

subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
David Read wrote:
Their best work was live at the Railway Hotel, Harrow, before they cut a
record [men in white coats break down door and transport poster to the
Royal Hospital for Pseuds].


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
"David Read" <[email]> wrote in message
news:d9rk2m$vd2$[email]...

I saw them live several times all great shows , and while they still tour,
1974 was the last time i caught them.. I  always love martin barre's
playing.


author: Steven Gross

subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
:
. Do people have any recommendations based on that (Tull

*   Ian Anderson's Rupi's Dance 2003 release imo is a total return to very
good form.  Wonderful acoustic numbers.  It may be listed as an Ian Anderson
solo album but it's really to me like a Jethro Tull unplugged album.

Basically very acoustic almost in a Songs or Heavy Horses vein with more of
the folky feel and less of the Scottish feel to it.  Tons of flute and Ian's
voice sounds better than it has in years and beautiful melodies.

It has more of a folky feel to it by far than a prog feel but it's darn good
imo and I'd take it in a heartbeat over Under Wraps, A, Too Old and any of
his late 80s and 90s output.  Best album since Broadsword imo.

Fine acoustic guitar and flute playing from Ian and a string quartet on 3 of
the tracks which really adds a nice feel.  Acoustic melodies that are very
improved upon recent work and the voice sounds fuller and less nasal.
Highly recommended if you like a folky vibe and don't require a prog feel.

Steve Gross


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
In article <[email]>,
 Arthur Boff <[email]> wrote:

Benefit and Stand Up by Jethro Tull for sure.

Tony


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
In rec.music.progressive Tony Elka <[email]> wrote:

"A" is better than you remember, though.

I can't speak for the the stuff after that up until 'dot.com'....because
I either haven't heard it, or haven't heard in the last twenty years.


author: Cabeza Borradora

subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
Tony Elka come on down:

I didn't need to see Ian Anderson in a codpiece!


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
"Claus Rogge" <[email]> wrote in message
news:42c22ff8$0$20760$[email]...

I'm liking _This Was_ more and more, having come around on that gruff,
bluesy sound these last few years. It fits in with Savoy Brown, Colosseum,
early Fleetwood Mac, Family, Blodwyn Pig (of course) and numerous others
from that period who were mixing blues, jazz and rock with nascent
progressive forms.

TS


author: Jeremiah Harbottle

subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
I saw Mick Abrahams last Friday playing with "Blodwyn Pig" in a theatre in
Leamington Spa (UK - nice old Spa town.).

Not a lot of people in the audience - about 100 out of 400 capacity.

Mick & Co. were excellent - played a lot of blues and a couple of This Was
Tull tracks (I think).

Didn't play much from Ahead Rings Out or Getting to This - but they seem to
be a three piece now.


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
I quite like Broadsword, Under Wraps & Rock Island. Catfish Rising isn't bad
either.

I like all the 70s stuff apart from Rock & Roll & This Was.


author: Halmyre

subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
Karthik Subramanian wrote:

I like This Was; certainly more enjoyable than some of their late
80s/90s output. I know Ian Anderson thinks Budapest is a more proficient
example of songwriting than Aqualung, but musically it's not as interesting.


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
"ray o'hara" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I saw them at an open air gig in 1998, with a then fifty-one year old
Anderson still in top form. Their set ran the gamut: 'Budapest","Heavy
Horses", "Dharma for One" (no Vettese-era material, unfortunately.)
"Aqualung" was the worst, as their wear on that obligatory number showed,
though I've no other complaints.

And _Warchild_ is one of their better records. In fact, nearly two albums
worth of material was recorded in those sessions, giving you the opportunity
to make tracklist substitutions if you so wish.:-)

TS


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
In article <da3nqj$t0v$[email]>,
 Steven Sullivan <[email]> wrote:

I remember thinking it was pretty much irrelevant music at the time, but
I'm willing to give it another listen.

Not feeling terribly enthusiastic about it though.

Tony


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
On 7/1/05 11:34 AM, in article da3nqj$t0v$[email], "Steven
Sullivan" <[email]> wrote:

Roots to branches isnt bad. I hated it at first, then I liked it. Now I am
all too familiar with it and its become tepid


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
In article <[email]>,
 "Jeremiah Harbottle" <[email]> wrote:

"This Was" and "Stand Up" date back to the late 1960's.  "Benefit" was
released in 1970.

Tony


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
"Halmyre" <[email]> wrote in message
news:rljwe.11982$[email]...


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
In article <Toiwe.34752$[email]>,
 "Big Z" <[email]> wrote:

What else was recorded during those sessions?  And what album or albums
did they end up on?

Tony


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
In rec.music.progressive Tony Elka <[email]> wrote:

It *was* pretty much irrelevant to what was going on in 1980. But it's
2005 now. It's safe to listen again.

Well, I don't want to raise your hopes *too* high, but...IMO 'Black
Sunday' and 'Pine Marten's Jig' hold their own with anything from "Songs
from the Wood' or 'Heavy Horses'.  I'd start with them.  Eddie Jobson's
contributions jump right out at you throughout the album, which is good if
you're a fan of his UK-era work.  The drums and bass are also fine prog
work.  Barre is comparatively subdued but still gets his spotlight
moments...and his tone still has that good 70's crunch rather than the
wimpiness that came later.

I'm also fond of 'Batteries Not Included', a rather bizarre synth-heavy,
even barely synth-*poppy* track, as Tull songs go.

The remaster comes with the white-jumpsuit video 'Slipstream' (live 'A'
concert material interspersed with goofy studio video).  Good for a larf,
but the performances are tight -- typical for Tull from that era.


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
In rec.music.progressive Karthik Subramanian <[email]> wrote:

oops, sorry, I have that one too -- I forgot it came *before* dot.com. I
quite like 'Rare and Precious Chain', but it's the only track I can recall
offhand. I like 'dot.com' better ('El Nino' beign the standout there for
me) , but one could make a better Tull album than either by combining the
best tracks off both.


subject: Re: Living In The Past

text:
In article <[email]>,
 "Jeremiah Harbottle" <[email]> wrote:

Not Yes, Jethro Tull.

Tony


subject: Re: Story: What I Need Right Now  F/m, spanking, strap-on

text:
I read this last night and it really got my evil  Domme side going. Lol) I
liked the story and that led me to look at your website, which was very
interesting. Lots of food for thought. Thanx for posting this story and for
your website also.
   ~Fawne


author: YunnMan

text:
What a mean, nasty woman she is!

How could she do that to him?  To someone she cared so much about?

<shudder>

I would want to live at least 2000 miles from such a woman.


author: Bella

text:
[email] (YunnMan) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Now now, YunnMan, you never know-she could be just what he needs.
'Specially if he was all nice and ripe, and fresh...


author: Ruhaniya

subject:
The Crocodile Tears of a Duplicitous English Ponce: Paul Hammond &
	British Imperial "Divide and Rule" policy in action

text:
CAUTION NON-BAHAIS

On Mar 7, 1:46 am, [email] wrote:

"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them." -- Eric Stetson, September
2003

Because there are clear historical precedents of you British scum-bags
- being the pimps that you all are - whoring minorities to a group of
predators at point A and then running to the international press and
media claiming HR violations against the predators at point B, all the
while dealing and goading both the victim and the predator at various
points behind the scene. This is the well-worn British imperial tactic
of divide and conquer.

The article categorically suggests it. The more appropriate question
is what does an English homosexual operative of the British Labor
Party, such as you, give a damn about the Bahais of Iran, when a)
ostensibly you have neither ever been to Iran or are Iranian and b)
you vociferously deny being a Bahai when you are accused of such
(although we all know that is bullshit and that you are on the
payroll)? If you say you care about the human rights of minorities
being trampled, pray tell, when have you ever advocated so
passionately about the rights of any other minority group elsewhere?

The bottom line of your position is this: you are the mouthpiece of a
clique of hacks who are a) using the plight of the Iranian Bahais for
their own nefarious reasons because b) you are trying to position
yourselves politically in the event of a regime change in Iran.
Otherwise you couldn't give a damn about any of this, nor is it
remotely your business to care, just as you British scum-bags have
never ever *really* cared about the rights of anyone unless it has
sought to benefit your interests directly. Just like TE Lawrence, your
advocacy and agency are the crocodile tears of a typical English
ponce.

QED

See Bahaism and the British,
http://bahaisandbritannia.googlepages.com/home

Also see, especially,
HOSTAGE TO KHOMEINI by Robert Dreyfuss (New Benjamin Franklin House:
New York, 1980) pp.117-118 (Pdf pages 73-74)

http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/hostage.pdf

&

http://www.archive.org/details/HostageToKhomeini

...Today the Bahai cult is hated in Iran, and is considered correctly
to be an arm of the British Crown. During the destabilization of the
Shah in 1978, it was widely reported that in several instances the
Bahai cult secretly funded the Khomeini Shi’ite movement. In part, the
money would have flowed through the cult’s links to the same
international ‘human rights’ organizations, such as Amnesty
International, that originally sponsored the anti-Shah movement in
Iran. These movements also derive from the “one world” currents
associated with the Bahais since the early 1900s. (If any Iranians
have been misled on the question of the Bahais by the supposed
antipathy of Khomeini’s clique to the Bahais, it should be noted that
the Bahai cultists often deliberately encouraged anti-Bahai activities
as camouflage)...

Also see pp. 115-116 (Pdf page 72)


author: [redacted]

subject:
Re: "Used their sexual charms to attract muslims" <> "had sex for
	conversions"  (The Nima switcheroo wheeled out)

text:
On 7 Mar, 07:07, Ruhaniya <[email]> wrote:

What relevance does your assertions about "British Imperial tactics"
have to your other assertion that these 8 Baha'i women in Kish ever
had sex with anyone, or that any muslims ever converted?

No it doesn't.  The article very clearly and carefully AVOIDS stating
as a fact that any of these 8 accused women actually had sexual
intercourse with anyone.  It also does not specify whether any Muslim
boys actually signed any declaration cards.

The fact that this article does NOT say what you assert is why I'm
asking for your reasons above and beyond this article for claiming as
a fact that these 8 women you keep mentioning actually had sex with
anyone.

Do you have access to any further information that shows this to be
true?

The more appropriate question

I'm not a homosexual.

I'm not a member of the British Labour Party.

I'm not a Baha'i, but I have been interested in the Baha'is for a long
time and had several Baha'i friends through the course of my time at
several Universities in the UK

But why are you changing the subject?  It seems you can't answer the
questions I asked you, and must instead result to "Hazini Imperial"
tactics of the smear and the ad hom against the person whose questions
are too difficult to answer.

Lets just have the facts, please.  Answer these questions if you can.
Don't simply repost an article that doesn't support the construction
you want to put upon it.

--- the unanswerable questions reposted---

What reason do you have for suggesting that these women had sex for
the purpose of converting muslims to the Baha'i Faith?

The article itself does not support this claim.  Do you have any
other
information that leads you to make this allegation in the subject
line?


subject: The SourceWatched Pat Kohli: CAUTION NON-BAHAIS

text:
On Mar 8, 3:23 am, "All Bad" <[email]>
wrote:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_kohli

Pat Kohli, or Patrick Kohli, is a member of the Haifan Baha'i Faith
[1]
who makes regular contributions to the USENET newsgroup
talk.religion.bahai[2]. He is a computer programmer who has worked on
software for various projects, including military systems.

Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Articles and Resources
2.1 Related SourceWatch Articles
2.2 References
2.3 External Articles

[edit]Background
He "is a computer scientist assigned to 4.5.3.3. He works for PMA-231
as the Open Architecture (OA) IPT lead, in the OA/FORCEnet IPT of the
Network Centric Warfare IPT. Prior to this he worked at Saint Inigoes
for 4.5 and developed a prototype next generation flight data
recorder, using COTS components, to meet incident reporting,
maintenance and FOQA needs. Pat also supported the old PMA-282 which
did weapon control systems for guided missiles. Pat has an MS in
computer Information Systems from Florida Tech." [3]

"Pat Kohli, NCW Open Architecture Lead, demonstrated how the E-2/C-2
program office (PMA-231) is continuously evaluating and implementing
software modernization to facilitate transition of the existing E-2
operational flight program to an environment using commercially
available systems. Venlet said, "The Naval Aviation Enterprise has
embraced open architecture as a fundamental building block of weapon
system development from its very inception. Our government/industry
teams continue to leverage these open system strategies and concepts
in achieving reduction in overall development cycle times and
delivering increased system capabilities to the Fleet faster and
cheaper. The advantages of integrating open architecture designs and
contracting strategies are measurable and pronounced as is
substantiated by our E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and P-8 Multi-Mission
Aircraft development programs. The key to continued success will be
maintaining the close partnership with industry experts, as we
provide
the right capabilities, at the right time and right cost to the joint
warfighter."The E-2 Hawkeye team has been representing and directly
supporting Venlet's executive office - the aviation domain lead for
open architecture initiatives - since June 2004, because of its role
as a battle management command and control platform and a central
network communications node in aviation. E-2 Program Manager Capt.
Randy Mahrsaid, "Today's evolving E-2 open architecture model paves
the way for a more mature system to be used by the E-2D prior to it
taking its place in the fleet."[3]

Pat Kohli has maintained a consistent web presence since the late
1990s, particularly on USENET, addressing both external critics and
dissenters within the Haifan Baha'i Faith tradition to which he
belongs [5]. In 1998, he voted against the creation of the USENET
group, talk.religion.bahai, as an un-moderated discussion forum for
issues relating to the Baha'i faith [4]. Official discussion
regarding
the creation of this group may also be found at: [6]. He posts under
the handles Mr All Bad and All_Bad [5]

[edit]Articles and Resources
[edit]Related SourceWatch Articles
[edit]References
↑ Letter from Assistant Secretary, Kishan Manocha, on Behalf of
National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United Kingdom [1],
dated October 8, 2002, Accessed 17 February, 2009.
↑ Discussion Archive of USENET group Talk.Religion.Baha'i, [2],
Accessed February 17, 2009
↑ 3.0 3.1 Drema Ballengee-Grunst, "Assistant SecNav visits NAVAIR T&E
laboratory", November 10, 2005.
↑ Record of votes cast regarding the creation of the USENET group,
talk.religion.bahai,[3], Accessed February 17, 2009.
↑ Excerpt from USENET group talk.religion.bahai,[4], Accessed
February
17, 2009.
[edit]External Articles

Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_Kohli"
Categories: United States | Religion | Military | War/peace


text:
On Mar 8, 2:11 am, [email] wrote:

 "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them." -- Eric Stetson, September
2003

Everything.

Yes, it does.

Yep, your vociferous misdirection of it demonstrates that you and your
masters are sensitive to the charge.

Yes, you are.

Bullshit, yes you are.

Bullshit, yes you are!

No subject changed. Just pointing out the obvious tactic of political
misdirection and obfuscatory interest that is a hallmark of your
government's imperial agenda for a very long time - and your agency in
it.

<BS snip>

W


subject:
Re: The SourceWatche Policy on Referencing (watch out for determined
	propagandists)

text:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:References

SourceWatch is strictly referenced. This means that every piece of
information in an article should be accompanied by a link to an
authoritative source for that information. There are two ways to
insert a link: the default way and an alternative for new editors
looking for an easier (but less useful) way. (See below.)

Some guidelines:

Reference links should point directly to the relevant page on the
referenced website. It is not sufficient to merely give a link to the
homepage. The aim is to make it as easy as possible for readers to
verify assertions in articles.
While providing a simple url weblink in square brackets is useful, it
is best to provide full reference details. For example, often a url
will go dead and, depending on what text is cited, it can often be
difficult to find substitute reference links. However, if a full
reference is included -- author, title of the article, publication,
date of publication etc -- it makes it far easier to find an
alternative link or at least find the original article in news
databases;
You should consider the authoritativeness of the external website when
giving a citation. For example, many Wikipedia articles are themselves
extremely poorly referenced, and so Wikipedia is not considered an
authoritative source for external references. (If you want to do
something about this, please join the Wikipedia Fact and Reference
Check project).
If you fail to provide adequate and convenient references for your
article or contribution, expect it to be heavily edited down by other
users or SourceWatch editors, relocated to the 'talk' page pending
verification or deleted altogether. Although SourceWatch employs paid
editors, it is not their job to bring contributions up to the required
referencing standard. That is your job.


author: All Bad

subject: No One Expects the Hazini Imperial!

text:
AB:  Okay, maybe we do expect the Hazini Imperial, in general, but I do get
surprised in the cases it pops into.

<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

AB:  Accuse.  When challenged make new accusations.  Repeat.  Repeat.
Repeat.

AB:  Nima has been interested in the Baha'is for a long time.  Nima had
several Baha'i friends over the years, though he may deny it now.  His
parents were Baha'is.

AB:  Yeah!  It is like the libel thing on Sourcewatch.org.  He says Pat
Kohli/All Bad is a known libeller and when challenged he accuses you of
being a bahoooooveyeyeyeyeyey.  Okay, he asserts you are a well known
bahoooooveyeyey as he accuses SW of caving in to the Baha'i IT Committee!
And the Labour Party, but he neglects the poncey thing on SW.

"As for the sourced material, as I said, the evidence that Mr Kohli uses
libel and defamation as political tool to silence political critics of the
organization he belongs to is prima facie!"
-W. Azal
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Pat_Kohli

AB:  Being a non-lawyer he might not know that Prima Facie means something
along the lines of 'first look', he doesn't seem to want to give anyone a
first look into his cards on me libeling, or your being a well known
bahooooveyeyeyey, beyond the well known fact he has contunusly laid the
baseless allegation.

Then it would not be the Hazini Imperial!  You are impinging on his religous
freedom to lie about everyone and everything whenver and wherever it suts
him.

I'm sorry.  You tried to be serious w/ W. Azal for a few minutes and I
thought it was just too funny.

Sorry!
- All Bad


author: Mitchell Holman

subject: Re: What are the tell tale signs that a woman is "settling"?

text:
[email] (Sylvester & Tweety) wrote in
news:[email]:

    There is no age limit to filing
a sexual harassment lawsuit.


author: Jim Summers87

text:
The workplace sexual harassment policies have basically made men passive
participants in the romantic world. Millions of men have stopped pursuing women
at work and thus the women are in control to choose everything.....sexual
harrassment is such a big fear with men that I've spoken to guys who haven't
initiated any flirting with women in 5 or 10 years. In every situation they are
forced to sit casually by and let women do all of the choosing and selecting.


author: OffLine

text:
"Jim Summers87" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
women
haven't
they are
selecting.

what ? Surely this can't be? I was told feminism was alllllll about equality
;)

strangely, i see very little equality these days where women are
concerned...it seems more like superiority to me..but surely that wasn't
what feminists were after......was it? ;)


author: Bender

subject: Re: Kursk as a miniatyre Russia (Was: Re: Norway a threat to Russia)

text:
In article <[email]>,
  Veronica LeMans <[email]> wrote:

Errr, in what sense were these "western waters"? First of all, these were
neutral waters. Moreover, they were closer to the coast of Russia than to the
coast of any other country. Certainly, hudreds of times closer to the Russian
coast than to the American coast. Yet, two American subs were circling the
theater trying to spy on the maneuvers. What the hell were THEY doing there?

Maybe it is US that "should stop sending their subs into eastern waters"?
Chances are, this way Russian subs would stop drowning under mysterious
circumstances next to their own coast.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


author: Veronica LeMans

text:
In article <8p44kk$tdb$[email]>, Bender <[email]>
wrote:

Well someone needed to break the news to the rest of the world.  Russia
won't even admit to themselves that one of their subs has sunk, much
less report it to the rest of the world.

Norway, Britain and the U.S. had Intelligence in the area and if not for
them, Putin would have never mentioned it.

Veronica


author: HWM

text:
Bender wrote:

The last Russian sub, or Soviet, to mysteriously sink was the K-278
"Komsomolets" in the Norwegian sea, before that the K-219 north of
Bermuda. Somewhat "western" waters. Maybe the Russians ought not send
out the submarines at all, this way they could just sink into the
harbour.


text:
HWM kirjoitti viestissï¿½ <[email]>...
waters"?

   * * *
... as is the current situation.
My grandpa use to say ryssï¿½ on ryssï¿½ vaikka voissa paistaisi, so I don't
think I could believe anything what the Russians say, categorically.

   m_f


author: Piero Stanig

subject: Middle East Photo Archive

text:
Check out http://www.intertrade.it/users/pulsar/index2.htm for a
selections of pictures of rural Syria:

Peasants on the ancient river-Everyday life on the Euphrates.

Upcoming: a vast collection of post war Beirut buildings...the deserts of
Jordan...castles and archeological sites in the Middle East and more...

Piero


author: JMD Morgan

text:
Jewish Neo-cons are linked to  Wilders party.

Many Muslims want to leave due to Wilders

Monday 29 June 2009

The rise in support for anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders means many
Dutch Muslims are considering emigrating, according to a poll for NCRV tv.

While 75% of Dutch Muslims said they still feel at home in the
Netherlands, 57% say they feel less welcome, the poll shows, according
to the Telegraaf. And 51% are thinking more often about leaving.

In addition, 75% feel they are judged more negatively since the rise of
Wilders and four out of 10 say they are more often discriminated against.

Nevertheless, 18% say Wilders does make some good points, the Telegraaf
says.

Rotterdam

The Volkskrant carries an interview with Rotterdam city council
executive Hamit Karakus who warns that well-educated young Muslims are
increasingly asking themselves if they have a future in Holland.

'My children don't understand it,' he told the paper. 'You cannot say
they do not speak Dutch, do not understand the habits and culture, and
that they are not well-educated. But they still have the feeling that
they are not accepted,' he said.

The rise of Wilders' PVV party, which emerged as the biggest in
Rotterdam after the European elections, means that a growing group of
second and third generation immigrants do not feel welcome and a small
but growing group are turning to radical Islam, he said.

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2009/06/many_muslims_want_to_leave_due.php


subject: Peace to you! Explanation of conditions that must be fulfilled by a true believer (Momin)-continuation of discourse on Divine attribute of Al-Momin (Bestower of Security)-  Remembering and imbibing divine attributes on human level brings peace. LOVE FOR ALL HATRED FOR NONE

text:
Characteristics contained in the Holy Quran that a true Believer
(Momin) should adopt are:
1.	To believe in the unseen
2.	To observe prayer
3.	To spend in the way of Allah
4.	To believe in that which was revealed to the Holy Prophet (may
peace and blessings of Allah be on him)
5.	To believe in that which was revealed before the Holy Prophet (may
peace and blessings of Allah be on him)
6.	To believe in the Hereafter / what is to come.  [ al-baqra v- 3 to
6]
Explanation =
i.	To believe in the unseen means to have absolute firm faith in the
existence of Allah. It is this absolute faith that leads a believer
towards uncovering the truths about Allah. Similarly, believing in the
unseen also entails believing in angels, the life after death, so on.
One must hold on to this faith as securely as possible because it is
this faith that wins the pleasure of God and He can see the condition
of the heart of every human being at every instance.
ii.	To observe Salat is another requirement for a believer.
o	He should strive to uphold his Salat with complete attention and
focus towards God.
o	He should be regular in offering his Prayers/Salat. For some people,
it is difficult to wake up for before-sunrise-prayer i.e. Fajr, but
they should offer this prayer whenever they wake up. Not offering this
Salat on time will stir some type of remorse in their heart or perhaps
they will feel ashamed in offering the Salat later than its appointed
time before the other members of the household, and this will perhaps
encourage them to make the effort on waking up on time. Similarly, it
is often noticed that people who work do not pay due attention in
offering their Zuhr and Asr prayers. A believer is one who protects
and remains steadfast in offering his Salat (70:24), so much so that
his Salat becomes more valuable than any precious thing in the world.
o	A believer offers his Salat on time (4:104).
o	He offers Salat with full concentration.
o	He offers Salat in congregation and that is the reason why one
Hadith tells us that the rewards conferred upon offering Salat in
congregation are far superior than offering it alone.
o	A believer does not only safeguard his own Salat, but motivates his
fellow Muslim brothers as well and in return, he earns God's rewards
for doing so. However, he should keep in mind to motivate others with
love and affection (70:35 & 6:93).
iii.	A Believer spends out of that which he has been given, not only
in the way of Allah, but also to help his fellow brethren. It should
be kept in mind that it is not only wealth that is signified, but also
any type of skills and talents that have been bestowed upon a person
should be shared. This selfless service towards a fellow being creates
a bond between two Muslims, such that they are forever united in a
relationship of unity and accord. As a whole, such a society where
love and peace exists will become a model society, where a wife will
fulfill the duties towards her husband and vice versa, where parents
will look after the best interests of their children and vice versa,
where neighbors will help one another, where the rich and the poor
will provide assistance to one another, so on and so forth, and all
this because believers practice the commandments of God. This path
leads to a unanimous progress of the community.
iv.	A Believer holds firm faith in the teachings that were revealed to
the Holy Prophet (may peace and blessings of Allah be on him),
including the fact that he is the Seal of all Prophets, and that Holy
Quran is the last law-bearing Book.
v.	He must also believe in the verity of all Prophets that came before
the Holy Prophet (may peace and blessings of Allah be on him) (35:25).
This verse also informs that Warners were sent to every nation, albeit
not all are mentioned in the Holy Quran.
vi.	Again, a believer holds firm faith in the life Hereafter. What is
the Hereafter? The significance of the Hereafter is twofold: one is
that there will be a Prophet after the Holy Prophet (may peace and
blessings of Allah be on him), and second that points to the Day of
Judgment.---- Just like there were revelations before the Holy Prophet
(may peace and blessings of Allah be on him), and then revelations
were sent to the Holy Prophet (may peace and blessings of Allah be on
him) himself, similarly, this practice will continue after the demise
of the Holy Prophet (may peace and blessings of Allah be on him) as
well (referring to the advent of the Promised Messiah).
vii.	A Believer must love Allah above all else (2:166). His whole life
should revolve around the existence of the Transcendent God. All the
above-mentioned articles of faith can only have significance if love
for Allah exists. The Holy Prophet (may peace and blessings of Allah
be on him) was the perfect example of this love, so much so that even
his enemies used to say that Muhammad is a true lover of Allah. In
order to acquire this love, one has to turn to Allah Himself and pray
to Him to grant such ability that we can love You.
viii.	A true believer is one who has fear of Allah in his heart when
His name is mentioned (8:3). He must practice upon the commandments of
Allah in order to gain His nearness. He is forever concerned about his
status in the eyes of God and continues to strive in order to progress
in his faith.
ix.	A Believer must be obedient to Allah's word (24:52). A mere verbal
profession of faith is not enough; one's faith is fulfilled only when
the teachings are adopted as a way of life. Similarly, a believer
should follow the instructions of the Khalifa and respect the system
attached. He should wholeheartedly accept the decisions by the
decision board (Qaza), without any dispute, even if the decision is
not passed in his favor. Even if he disagrees with the decision, he
should at least not mistrust the intentions of the decision-maker, and
in order to avert any conflicts, he should not discuss such matters
publicly. If a wrong decision was made against someone who, in his
innocence and naiveté, was unable to defend his point of view whereas
the other party was able to connive their way to a result in their
favor, even then a believing person should comply with the decision
knowing well that he has incurred losses. Allah's help comes to these
people in ways they are least expectant of and He is The Just
(32:16).
A Believer fears God and strives to progress in his faith. He is
occupied in worship and remembrance of God which gains him nearness to
Him. By following the above guidelines, each individual contributes to
the unity and strength of the community as a whole and on an
individual level, his relationship with God improves and becomes a
source of gaining spiritual rewards.--- The holy Caliph to holy
promised Messiah  prays: May Allah enable every true believer to reap
the rewards promised by Allah and  the ability to develop love for
Allah, and let adopt those qualities of a true believer (Momin)  that
are pleasing to Allah and  enshroud with abundant rewards through His
Mercy and His Grace, Ameen.....
Promised divine peace at  www.alislam.org   www.mta.tv  LOVE FOR ALL
HATRED FOR NONE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A book of informat'n and analysis
REVELATION, RATIONALITY, KNOWLEDGE AND TRUTH
CONTENTS:Historical perspective-Individual versus society-Islamic
school of thought-European and Greek philosophy-Hinduism-Buddism-
Confucianism-Taoism-Zoroastrianism-The question of suffering-Secular
viewpoints examined-The concept of God among Aborigines of Australia-
The nature of revelation-Divine revelation and rationality-Belief in
the unseen-A manifest principle-an everlasting teaching-The Quran and
cosmology and E.T.-Entropy and the Finite universe-Origin of life-
Different theories and propositions-The essential role of clay/
photosynthesis in evolution-Survival by accident or design-and more-
It's readable  at  http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/index.html
Peace and blessings be upon you and your loved ones and all humanity.


author: Grantland

subject: America's Real Enemies

text:
America's Real Enemies
By Dr. William Pierce

Hello!

Watching mainstream television news programs these days is a
fascinating experience -- and an enormously educational experience for
those Americans able to read between the lines. CNN Headline News
still carries the red, white, and blue banner "America's New War" in a
transparently obvious effort to build public support for a full-scale
war against Israel's enemies rather than a simple punitive expedition
against the group that organized the September 11 attack on New York
and Washington. Fox News, which is heavy on interviews with
bureaucrats, diplomats, generals, and the like, slants its interviewee
choices and the substance of the interviews to build public support in
the same direction.

There are plenty of knowledgeable Americans who are solidly against
dragging America into a war to clean up the Middle East for the
benefit of Israel, but they have no voice in the mainstream news
media. The people whose opinions are heard by the lemmings want
everyone to believe that the failure of the United States to take out
Iraq and Iran now, in the wake of the September 11 attack, will reveal
us to the world as spineless wimps just asking for another terrorist
attack. They tell us that every patriot should be in favor of a
full-scale war against every country in the Middle East that these
pro-Israel hawks label as an enemy of "freedom and democracy." And
there are lots of reports on public opinion polls aimed at convincing
the lemmings that the public really wants a full-scale war.

To me the interesting thing about this media effort is its
obviousness.  It is so blatant that it should be quite clear to anyone
able to observe it with detachment: the media bosses want a war; the
media deliberately are pushing public opinion toward approval for a
major war. Even clearer is the lesson to be drawn from the way the
news media avoid the obvious questions: Why were we attacked? Did our
government's policies in the Middle East provoke the attack? If so,
should we re-examine these policies and perhaps change them,
regardless of what we do to punish the attackers? The media people and
the "experts" they've been interviewing shrink from such questions
like a vampire shrinks from a crucifix. Any sensible person would ask
such questions, but the media and the people they interview don't.
Fascinating!

The most interesting people to watch giving their opinions in the
media are the Gentile neo-conservatives: the Jeanne Kirkpatricks, the
George Wills, the Jack Kemps, the William Buckleys, the Rush
Limbaughs. These are people -- writers, editors, bureaucrats,
lecture-circuit types -- who make a pretense of conservatism and
patriotism, and who keep the businessman/Republican/flag-waving side
of the public in line. They earn their living by keeping their noses
up under the Jews' coattails at all times. They all understand that
their magazines would disappear from the newsstands, that their radio
sponsors would cease being sponsors, and that there would be no more
lecture invitations if they failed to follow the Jewish party line.
They are a rabid bunch of attack dogs for the Jews without any real
patriotism or any sense of shame at all. Every one of them is now
beating the war drums on behalf of Israel and calling for the
annihilation of Israel's enemies.

These Gentile attack dogs for the Jews really have no opinions of
their own: they simply follow the party line which is laid down by
Jews, most of whom are behind the scenes. During the Clinton
administration I remarked more than once that it was the most Jewish
government America ever had had: a Jewish secretary of state, a Jewish
secretary of defense, a Jewish secretary of the Treasury, a Jewish
secretary of agriculture, two Jewish Supreme Court justices, a Jewish
national security adviser, a Jewish ambassador to the United Nations,
and hundreds of other Jews appointed by Clinton to powerful government
positions.

George Bush's government is different. The people out front, in the
public's eye, are Gentiles -- of a sort: a mulatto secretary of state,
a White Gentile secretary of defense, a Negress as a national security
adviser, a White Gentile Treasury secretary -- and, except for Federal
Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, no really prominent Jews. That is,
there are few Jews out front, where they can be seen. But the Jews are
there, just as in the Clinton government, but working behind the
scenes. There's Richard Perle, who's been gnawing at America's
foundations since the Nixon days, as one of Bush's principal advisers
on military policy, for example. And there's Paul Wolfowitz, nominally
the deputy secretary of defense, but in reality more influential in
defense policy than his nominal superior, Donald Rumsfeld. Wolfowitz
and Perle both judge every policy by the single criterion, "Is it good
for the Jews?" And both are relentless and outspoken advocates of the
destruction of Iraq and Iran, although there is no evidence that
either of those countries had anything to do with the September 11
attack. For Perle and Wolfowitz it is sufficient that those countries
are enemies of Israel. In a top-level military strategy briefing for
Bush on September 13, Wolfowitz urged -- quote -- "ending states who
sponsor terrorism." That's still the position of Perle and Wolfowitz
and all of their neo-conservative camp followers.

How do you "end a state"? What happens to the people?

Hey, the people of Iraq and Iran aren't Jews, so don't worry about it!
What are you, some kind of bleeding-heart, liberal wimp? Don't ask
questions, just do it!

And, of course, no one among all of these bloodthirsty, neo-con
warmongers even hints at putting Israel on the list of "states who
sponsor terrorism" and which, therefore, needs to be "ended." Have you
ever heard of Mossad? That's not just some rogue group of assassins
and terrorists which operates without the sanction of the Israeli
government. It's an agency of the Israeli government. It's part of the
government of Israel. Mossad sends out its murder squads all over the
world to kill people the Israeli government doesn't like. Usually they
don't get caught, or if they do the media hush it up. But they've been
caught shooting a Moroccan with a silenced pistol in Norway, squirting
poison in the ear of a Muslim religious leader in Jordan, putting
bombs in the hotel rooms of Arab diplomats in Syria. They've shot down
civilian airliners if there was someone aboard they didn't like. They
send assassins dressed as Arabs into Palestinian towns to murder
Palestinian leaders in their homes in the dead of night. In 1981
Israeli aircraft launched a surprise bombing raid on Baghdad to
destroy a research center there.

Israel has had several prime ministers who were professional
terrorists before they went into politics, including Menachem Begin,
Ehud Barak, and Ariel Sharon, the current prime minister. The first
leaders of the state of Israel were terrorists who carried out the
terror bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, killing
91 people. Ever hear of letter bombs? They are an Israeli invention.
The Mossad has sent hundreds of letter bombs to scientists,
journalists, and academics in Egypt, Syria, and other countries to
kill and terrorize Israel's opponents.

Indeed, there are states in the Middle East which sponsor terrorism,
in some cases because they have no other way of fighting back against
their oppressors. But Israel has engaged in far more state-sponsored
terrorism than any other state in the region. And yet the "experts"
who speak grimly on American television about "ending states who
sponsor terrorism" pretend as if they have never heard of Israeli
terrorism.

As I said, all of this is painfully obvious, more obvious than Jewish
television propaganda has been for a long time. After the Oklahoma
City bombing in 1995, the unanimous refusal of the controlled media
and the government to acknowledge that bombing as the outraged
response of one patriot to the Clinton government's massacre of
innocents in the Branch Davidian church in Waco two years earlier, and
instead to attempt to blame militias and political dissidents
generally, was a pretty transparent exercise in deceitful propaganda.
But the present attempt by the media and the government to deflect
blame for September 11 from our country's blind support for Israel is
even more obvious. It provides a wonderful education for those
observers capable of being educated.

The effect on the general public of the pro-war propaganda today is
somewhat less salutary but still interesting. The lemmings are
responding as expected, but there is more diversity in the response of
the public than the media bosses like. I have a Jewish Telegraphic
Agency report on my desk showing the results of public opinion polls
taken in the United States a few days ago. The September 28 JTA report
is headed "Polls following terror attacks on U.S. give Israel high
marks." The first part of the report gives the depressing information
we expect. A poll of 1,011 Americans conducted by the Institute for
Jewish and Community Research and the Center for Middle Eastern
Studies at the Hudson Institute found that 92 per cent of those
questioned endorse -- quote -- "full cooperation" between the United
States and Israel in combating terrorism. The president of the
Institute for Jewish and Community Research, Gary Tobin, was quoted,
and I quote: "That's as close to unanimous as you'll ever get in a
national poll. It means that the American public is almost completely
behind Israel and American support for Israel and American cooperation
for Israel." -- end quote --
Well, the support is not quite as nearly unanimous as Mr. Tobin would
have us believe, but we'll get to that in a minute.

A second poll of 1,032 Americans, conducted by CNN, USA Today, and
Gallup, found 55 per cent of Americans saying they back Israel in its
conflict with the Palestinians, while only seven per cent back the
Palestinians. The pro-Israel results are up from about 40 per cent
before September 11, while the pro-Palestinian results remained
relatively unchanged. The JTA report quotes Tim Wuliger, president of
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the huge and powerful
pro-Israel lobby feared by every politician in Washington. "These
polls demonstrate the solidarity between Americans and Israelis,"
Wuliger said. "In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on
America, Americans understand that we should support another country
which has been relentlessly attacked by terrorists and which shares
our values of democracy, sanctity of human life, and tolerance for
differences in personal beliefs." Really, that's what the Jew said:
Israel, where collective punishment and the torture and killing of
prisoners are government policy -- Israel, the world capital of the
White slave trade, where buying and selling kidnapped Gentile women as
sex slaves is legal -- is a country that respects the "sanctity of
human life." What Wuliger forgot to mention is that religious Jews
believe that only Jews are human.

The JTA report also quotes David Makofsky, of the Washington Institute
for Near East Policy, another pro-Israel group. Makofsky says that the
rise in sympathy for the Jewish state is a direct result of Americans
experiencing firsthand the threat of terrorism that has plagued
Israel.
"Americans identify with Israel's plight," he said.

Could it possibly be that the way the Jewish news media present the
news to the American people, always representing the efforts of
Palestinians attempting to regain their country as "terrorism" and the
efforts of the Israelis to repress them as "self-defense," has
something to do with the way Americans view the situation in the
Middle East?

Well, of course, it does. Nevertheless, a larger portion of the
American public than I would have guessed apparently haven't been
fooled by the spin put on the news by the controlled media. The Jewish
poll I just cited, which showed 92 per cent of the public agreeing
that the United States should cooperate with Israel in combating
terrorism, found that slightly more than 20 per cent of the
respondents blamed the September attack on U.S. support for Israel.
The implication is that many of those who understand that U.S. support
for Israel was the cause of the attack still are willing to
collaborate with Israel. In any case, the 20 per cent figure is
encouraging. Also encouraging is the finding that those
most likely to blame Israel are young people and people with
relatively high incomes.

Another finding of the same poll is that 12 per cent of the public
believe that we now should distance ourselves from Israel, while 74
per cent believe that we should not, with the pro-Israel respondents
concentrated in the Bible Belt, where many primitive Christians
actually accept the claim of the Jews to be God's Chosen People.
Remember, these are the findings of a poll taken by a Jewish
organization and reported by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, where the
motive is to absolve Israel of blame and show maximum U.S. support for
the Jewish state.

A separate poll taken by Time and CNN reports that 21 per cent of the
respondents feel less favorable toward Israel after the attack, while
only 10 per cent feel more favorable. The 21 per cent figure in this
poll is consistent with the finding of the Jewish poll that 20 per
cent of the public blame the attack on U.S. support for Israel.

Polls can be tricky, with the results very much dependent on the exact
wording of the questions, but certainly the polls cited in the JTA
report are encouraging, indicating that a significant portion of the
public is able to see the obvious. Perhaps lemmings make up only about
80 per cent of the population instead of the 95 per cent I have
estimated in the past.

The unfortunate fact remains, however, that although approximately one
in every five Americans understands that the September 11 attack was
the consequence of our government's support for Israel's aggression in
the Middle East, one never would guess that from watching television
news, where the pretense is rigidly maintained that U.S. support for
Israel had nothing to do with the attack: that it was an attack by
people who simply hate our "freedom and democracy," as George Bush
puts it. Not one of the "experts" being interviewed daily on
television will give the slightest hint that anyone except a few
"haters" and "extremists" believes otherwise. That must be
intimidating to the enlightened 20 per cent: no one wants to be
labeled a "hater" or an "extremist." And, of course, it's intended to
be intimidating; it's intended to keep the one in five who understands
from explaining the facts to the four in five who don't.

It will, of course, be yet another tragedy for Americans if we let
ourselves be lied into another war to advance the interests of the
Jews at the expense of our own. There is an even greater tragedy
looming than another war, however: that is the loss of our most
fundamental freedoms.
The same people who are using the September 11 attack as a pretext to
push America into a full-scale war on behalf of Israel also are using
it as a pretext to stifle dissent. They have the lemmings under
control, but they're worried about that 20 per cent or so of the
population who aren't buying the television propaganda that the attack
was "unprovoked" and that it was an attack on "freedom and democracy."
They want to use the power of government to shut these people up, so
that they can't influence others.

Intimidation through propaganda is a powerful weapon in the hands of
the warmongers. Perhaps you remember how it was during the previous
Persian Gulf war, ten years ago. Flag-waving yahoos were ready to beat
up anyone who didn't seem an enthusiastic enough supporter of the war
effort.
Anyone who questioned America's terror-bombing of Baghdad was looked
at  with scorn and considered a subversive. The lemmings all tied
yellow ribbons to everything in sight -- parking meters, door knobs,
their car antennas, the fences around their yards, the columns on
their front porches -- lest anyone suspect that they weren't gung ho
to kill as many Iraqis as possible.

The same war fever is being encouraged by the media and the government
today. But that's not enough to satisfy the warmongers, because some
people just aren't intimidated. The warmongers want to lock those
people up. So-called "conservatives" in our government have wanted for
years to have the power to silence troublemakers, dissidents, anyone
who refused to march in lockstep with everyone else. Our present
attorney general, John Ashcroft, is one of the worst of these. They
want new laws to permit them to suppress any speech or opinion or
activity they don't like. Believe me, despite their claims of support
for freedom and the Bill of Rights, these lying bastards do want to
take away our freedom.
They are far more dangerous enemies of America's freedom than Osama
bin Laden could ever hope to be.

They are disguising their fight against our freedom as a fight against
terrorism. They already are ramming new laws through state
legislatures, and they certainly will be pushing hard for new Federal
laws as well.
They want laws that not only will give the FBI and other secret police
agencies additional powers to tap people's telephones and read their
e-mail and scrutinize their bank records, but will broaden the
definition of "terrorism" greatly. They want laws that will define as
a 'terrorist" anyone who speaks in favor of or helps support a person
who has been labeled by the government a "terrorist," or an
organization which has been labeled a "terrorist organization." They
want laws that will make such a person subject to the death penalty.
And who will decide which organizations are "terrorist organizations"?

Hey, you don't have to worry about that! Mr. Wolfowitz and his helpers
in the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center will
make a list. Attorney General Ashcroft will endorse the list. And if
someone is charged under the law with being a terrorist, and you don't
think he is and you give him a donation to help him hire a lawyer to
defend himself, you have just given money to a terrorist and will be
charged with being a terrorist yourself. Pretty slick, eh?

The people who are pushing for these new laws, ostensibly to protect
Americans from terrorism, are the same people who for more than a
decade have been backing "hate crime" and "speech crime" laws. All of
the laws, whether ostensibly against "hate" or against "terrorism,"
have exactly the same purpose, and it's not really about terrorism at
all: it is to silence dissenters, to silence people with Politically
Incorrect ideas.
The Jews and their Gentile hangers-on are afraid that the 20 per cent
of the public that doesn't believe the propaganda coming from
television will be able to influence the other 80 per cent if they
aren't muzzled.
The people in New York and Hollywood and Washington who truly hate
America's freedom are hell bent on using the tragedy of September 11
as an excuse to stamp out that freedom. They are America's real
enemies.
They are the ones against whom we should wage an all-out war, until
the last of them has been annihilated.

Thanks for being with me again today.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of ADVlist.

To subscribe to ADVlist send an e-mail message to:
[email] (The subject and body of the message don't
matter.)

For more information about National Vanguard Books or the
National Alliance see our web site at http://www.natvan.com or
http://www.natall.com

To contact us, write to:
     National Vanguard Books
     Attention:  ADVlist
     P.O. Box 330
     Hillsboro, WV  24946

or e-mail:  [email] please tell us if we can post your
comments and if so whether you want your name or e-mail address
given.

(c) 2001 National Vanguard Books


author: Christopher Morton

subject: Re: America's Real Enemies

text:
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:08:12 GMT, [email] (Grantland)
wrote:

...are pedophile Nazis, definitely.


author: tim gueguen

subject: Re: America's Real Enemies

text:
"Grantland" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Dr. Pierce, a supporter of Nazism, was one of them.  Fortunately he is no
longer around to cause what minimal trouble he did.

tim gueguen 101867


author: Oelewapper

subject: Re: America's Real Enemies

text:
"Grantland" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

The National Alliance maybe ???

Doctor ?? My ass !!  Nazi-doctor maybe...

http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/

http://www.natvan.com/internet-radio/ts/020704.ram
http://www.natvan.com/internet-radio/ts/022804.ram

So those are the last 'real' dissident voices in the U.S. of A. ???

And these are the same kind of white-suppremacists George W. Bush is now
trying to reach out and pander to ???

One answer: www.moveon.org


author: Fred J. McCall

subject: Re: America's Real Enemies

text:
<plonk>

Another idiot disposed of....

Christopher Morton <[email]> wrote:

:On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:08:12 GMT, [email] (Grantland)
:wrote:
:
:>America's Real Enemies
:
:...are pedophile Nazis, definitely.


subject: Re: America's Real Enemies

text:
"tim gueguen" <[email]> wrote:

Murdered by Jews.  Subtly Murdered.  A Martyr!!

Grantland


subject: Re: America's Real Enemies

text:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 11:58:15 +0100, "Oelewapper" <[email]>
wrote:

Age of consent laws are the real enemies of the National Alliance.

In the same fashion as NAMBLA.

Hardly.

They're as loathesome as the National Alliance.


subject: Re: America's Real Enemies

text:
"Oelewapper" <[email]> wrote:

Cretin.

Fuck B00$hhhhh!
Retard.


author: Michael Ejercito

subject: Re: America's Real Enemies

text:
"Oelewapper" <[email]> wrote in message news:<404468d8$0$1928$[email]>...
   I thought you people accused him of pandering to the Jews.

 Michael


author: pan Piotr Glownia

subject: Re: America's Real Enemies

text:
Supper-rich oligarchs.
Why? Simple just look at examples:
-Republik of Rome
-Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
        Just to mention president Teodor Roosevelt. Everybody knows
over who's bodies he stomped to make from a provincial and insignificant
country known as USA a global superpower known as USA.

Piotr Glownia


author: John Burson

subject: Re: America's Real Enemies

text:
Thank God for a free country where even idiots like you can blather on.
"Grantland" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


subject: Re: America's Real Enemies

text:
"Grantland" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
He died of cancer.  No need to murder him.  Besides, as things go Pierce was
little more than a flyspeck.  Yeah, a loser like Tim McVeigh may have read
Pierce's Turner Diaries but its reasonable to assume he would have been a
murderous asshole even without Pierce's crap as a guide.

tim gueguen 101867


subject: Re: America's Real Enemies

text:
[email] (Grantland) wrote in message news:<[email]>...
   You just murdered your last brain cell.

 Michael


subject: Re: America's Real Enemies

text:
[email] (Grantland) wrote in message news:<[email]>...
   Are you pretending he is a five-year-old boy?

 Michael


author: Keith Willshaw

subject: Re: America's Real Enemies

text:
"pan Piotr Glownia" <[email]>
wrote in message news:qhq1c.28083$[email]...

Too much late night eating is certainly bad for you

Right they both ate far too many olives.

Keith


subject: Re: America's Real Enemies

text:
[email] (Michael Ejaculito) wrote:

The mind of a child, certainly.  And "Asserting" would be more
elegant.. but I waste my time.

Grantland


subject: Re: America's Real Enemies

text:
In article <c26t21$93f$[email]>, "Keith Willshaw" <[email]> wrote:

        Sorry for my poor British, but I wasn't born one...

Piotr Glownia


author: Charles Hedrick

subject: review of "When Jesus became God"

text:
I've seen a couple of mentions of Richard Rubenstein's book, "When
Jesus Became God."  I've recently read it.

The subject of the book is the Arian controversy.  It covers only the
period shortly before and after Nicea.  Rubenstein is an expert in
conflict handling, but not a professional church historian.
Nevertheless, he's done a good job of research.  The book is an
interesting one, and I think it is reasonably helpful, within its
scope. However the time limit creates some problems.

So does the title, and I'll talk about that first.  The title
initially caused me to ignore the book, because it looked like typical
revisionist anti-history.  In fact the title "When Jesus became God"
is misleading as to the content.  While there are a few places where
the author implies that it was in the course of Nicea and its
followons that Jesus came to be regarded generally as God, the main
body of the book is more accurate.  Both sides of the Arian
controversy regarded Christ as God.  That's because they accepted
preexistence (which is, after all, in the NT).  This makes it
impossible to regard Christ as just a normal human being.  Where the
two sides disagreed is on the sense in which he is God, and in general
how to speak of the relationship between Father and Son.

While most of the book is historical narrative, there is some brief
discussion about conflict management.  That's the most interesting
part, in my view.  I agree with the author that Constantine's basic
approach was a disaster.  He was desperate for Christianity to be
united.  Thus he pushed for councils and creeds, desparately trying to
get people to agree.  And he intervened in Church affairs, trying to
favor those who supported the creeds.  But the problem is that there
was no agreement.  Thus the creeds didn't represent any actual
concensus.  As the conflict continued, the creeds became problems in
their own right.  Constantine's interventions were so inconsistent
that they made things worse.

There was no real conclusion until the emperors stopped this sort of
intervention.  Progress started almost immediately under Julian, an
emperor who tried to return the Empire to paganism, and thus had no
interest in producing a Christian concensus.  Under Julian, even
Athanasius (who I think should have been executed as a troublemaker
long since) became conciliatory towards moderate Arians.  Progress
continued under the following Christian emperors, who did not restart
the continuous stream of councils and intervention.

Unfortunately it's hard to separate the impact of changed imperial
strategy from intellectual progress.  While the emperors started
dealing with the situation better, there was also now the beginnings
of a real theological answer.  In my view the real problem previously
is that no one had an answer that met a minimal set of reasonable
requirements.  Christians wanted to maintain both that Christ was in
some sense God, and that he was a human being.  But there was no
obvious way to do so without contradiction.  Athanasius basically
denied Jesus' humanity, at least until fairly late in his life.  The
Arians tried to maintain his humanity, but believed that this forced
them to say that he was less than God.  In my view the problem is that
neither side had considered the doctrine of the Incarnation carefully
enough.

The first breakthrough (and the only one dealt with in the book)
resulted from the Cappodocian Fathers' clarification of language.
They distinguished /ousia/ (essence) from /hypostasis/ (individual
existence), thus resulting in the concept that God is one in essence,
but that Father, Son and Holy Spirit had distinct individual
existence, and their own separate characteristics.  This was something
both sides could accept, because it asserted both that Christ was
fully God -- which was the Western concern -- and that he could still
maintain his own individual characteristics, which included his
humanity.

However this was incomplete without a real doctrine of Incarnation,
something that is mentioned at the end, but is outside the scope of
the book.  A proper doctrine of the Incarnation allows for Jesus' real
human existence, while still saying that God was the subject of his
actions.  This is what the moderate Arians had been after in the
first place: a way to do justice both to the divinity of the Logos
and the real humanity of Jesus.

In order to do this properly, two separate doctrines are actually
needed.  In my opinion the original arguments over the Trinity ran
into trouble because they did not distinguish between the Logos and
Jesus as a human being.  Athanasius was properly concerned that the
eternal Logos not turn into a demigod.  But in asserting that the Son
is essentially the same as the Father, he made a mockery of Jesus'
humanity.  A real resolution requires the issues to be separated.  It
is the Eternal Logos that is of the same essence as the Father.  The
humanity is, of course, a different essence.  Until the Cappadocians
clarified the usage of /ousia/ and /hypostasis/, this was impossible.

As I mentioned, I think there are two limitations to the book.  The
first is its omission of theological background before the time period
covered.  The title of the book tends to lead one to the impression
that regarding Jesus as God was an innovation.  In fact it wasn't, as
the author acknowledges in the detailed discussions.  It is Arius who
is being unusual when he claims that the Son doesn't understand the
Father, a statement that is starkly at odds with the NT (and one that
many Arians didn't support).  This does not mean that all of the
Arians' concerns were innovations.  What I read from the book (though
the author may not agree) is that the Arians really did want to find
some sense in which they could regard Christ as God, but thought that
Athanasius' approach was unacceptable because it denied the reality of
Jesus' human existence.  (I think they were right in this.)  But the
basic commitment to regard Christ both as God and human was certainly
not new.  The innovations were the specific language on both sides.

The second limitation is when the book ends.  By not dealing with the
development of the doctrine of the Incarnation (i.e. Chalcedon), two
problems occur: (1) he doesn't give the full resolution of the
original problem, and (2) he leaves the impression that the
controversy was basically solved when the Cappadocians came up with
language that most people could accept (although he does show that
there were still some remaining problems).  In fact the politics
surrounding Chalcedon were if anything worse in my opinion than those
surrounding Nicea.  While Chalcedon is now considered a resolution,
there were large areas where it was not accepted.  Furthermore, I
believe there were a number of missed opportunities, where people who
had very similar views were left at odds because they couldn't
overcome either their own pride or overzealous supporters, and work
together.  It's only in the 20th Century that the Orthodox
acknowledged that the modern descendants of the Nestorians actually
were saying much the same thing but in different language.

                      *        *         *

To get back to the issue of conflict management -- I see a similarity
in the way the Presbyterian Church (USA) and similar churches (e.g.
the Methodists) are dealing with homosexuality.  Of course we could
have simply ejected anyone who accepts that homosexuality might be OK
(or anyone who does not).  But the continuing series of arguments at
all levels of the Church remind me a lot of the problems under
Constantine.  We're in a state of continuous churn, trying to come up
with some legislation that will solve the problem.  Unless we are
prepared to make a serious attempt to eject all homosexuals from the
Church (which we clearly are not), I think we would be better not to
engage in attempts at legislative and judicial solutions.  The General
Assembly was asked a number of years ago by presbyteries to state a
position on homosexuality.  It did, in the form of guidance, but not a
constitutional amendment.  I think that was a perfectly proper action,
but that things should have been left at that.  I'd rather see
different presbyteries and even churches, doing different things than
an attempt to impose agreement were none exists.  Interestingly
enough, we've taken a more "pastoral" approach towards abortion, so
maybe we're learning.

Note that I take this view because the PC(USA) is a fairly liberal
church.  It has already taken a position on the role of women and on
other issues that rule out a consistent conservative approach.  I
wouldn't give the same advice to more conservative Christian bodies,
nor would I suggest that the PC(USA) accept this approach on issues
where there is substantial agreement.  In particular, we need to avoid
having national leaders making public statements that contradict basic
Christian doctrine.


author: Sherif Hanna

subject: Re: review of "When Jesus became God"

text:
Nothing could be further than the truth. Athanasius, as a member of the
School of Alexandria, and disciple of Anthony and the great Alexandrian
tradition, believed in the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus.

"On the Incarnation of the Word" is one of his most famous pieces.
**Incarnation**

Sherif :)

  ---

[I hadn't previously read "On the Incarnation of the Word", though I
had read other things by Athanasius.  I just looked through it.
However I have to say that it's possible that I've missed something.

But overall my reading of it confirms the book.  Athanasius talks
consistently of the Word uniting himself to a human *body*.  He never
talks about a full human nature.  Indeed in a couple of places he
strongly suggests that the Logos effectively played the role of the
soul, with the body being human.  He speaks of the Logos using the
body as an instrument, but doesn't speak of an actual human existence.

If someone had written this work after Chalcedon, he would universally
be called Apollinarian.  However I believe this work was written
before the Cappadocian Fathers had clarified the terminology, and
before the full two-nature theology had been worked out.  Thus it may
be unfair to accuse it of heresy. But that's exactly the point
Rubenstein is making: At the time Athanasius wrote this, there was no
good theologial structure for maintaining both Christ's full divinity
and his full humanity, although that's clearly what Christians wanted
to do.  But when forced to make a choice, Athanasius chose to maintain
full divinity and compromise humanity as necessary.  He thinks the
Arians chose to make the tradeoff in the other direction, although in
my opinion they ended up with a Christ that was neither human nor
divine.  Athanasius at least had a fairly convincing picture of the
eternal Logos.

Rubenstein also says that later in his life, Athanasius wrote more
convincingly of Jesus' human existence.  If so, I haven't seen it.

--clh]


author: Dave Mullenix

subject: Re: review of "When Jesus became God"

text:
In article <8s0pq9$5i$[email]>,
  Charles Hedrick <[email]> wrote:

I think that Rubenstein meant his book covered the final chapter in the
transformation of Jesus from man to God.  This transformation started
with Jesus, an ordinary man, live and walking the earth and ended three
centuries later with Jesus converted to a God equivalent to and finally
identical with the God of Abraham, except different.

Reading the book with the benefit of 1700 years of hindsight, I decided
that Constantine should have called the council, listened approvingly
to every side and then brought it to a conclusion something like this:

A: Tell story of blind men and elephant.

B: Remind listeners of how wildly imperfect an ant's conception of a
human being must be and strongly imply it's worse for a man and God.

C: Conclude that any human understanding of God's _nature_ is
necessarily imperfect and likely to honestly conflict with another's
honest but impossible attempt to understand God's _nature_.

D: This is normal.  God cannot be comprehended by man and all attempts
to do so will generate conflicting descriptions, as we have just seen
here at this council.

E: God's _ORDERS_, on the other hand, are designed by God to be
understood by humans.  All normal humans can understand them, and
there's no excuse for not doing so.

F: Order number one is Obey Your Emperor.  (Read various bits of
Scripture supporting point F here, especially part about all
governments being from God.)

Conclusions:
  1: God says you must obey the Emperor.
  2: You Don't understand the _nature_ of God.
  3: Nobody else does either.
  4: Proclaim your _theories_ of God's _nature_ to your heart's content.
  5: If your _discussions_ of your _theories_ of God's _nature_
generate discord, especially in the form of violent steet fighting
amongst various gangs of Christian believers, God wants you to be a
head shorter real quick.
  6: Ditto for anything that lessens the effectiveness of rule #1.

Apply #5 & 6 evenhandedly for a generation or two.

It might have made a better religion with a less bloody history.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

  ----

[I would agree. --clh]


author: EgwEimi

subject: Re: review of "When Jesus became God"

text:
In his review, Charles wrote:

Yes, that's true.  Of course, the split between Chrisitanity and Judaism had
long since occurred by then, and Jewish thinking was not found among these
later gentile Christians.

I contend that they misinterpreted the "preexistence" passages, but only those
in reference to Jesus.  Unless one accepts the strongest form of predestination
(wherein we have no free will to make any moral choice), there are
"preexistence" passages about Christians as well, but we don't normally
understand them to mean anything more than that our salvation is part of God's
plan.

If someone chooses God, then in Jewish thought, this was what was supposed to
happen.  They would say, then, that God had seen it happen since creation, just
as we we chosen before the creation was laid down (Eph 1:4).  Even more so, the
Messiah was integral to God's plan, and so, the Messiah was in God's every
thought -- and in that sense he existed -- even as God was creating the
universe.

What is impossible for some is quite possible for others.

All creeds serve to draw lines -- lines of fellowship to keep people out.
Thus, together with those particular creeds came the pronouncement of anathema
on anyone who believed otherwise.

I agree with that.  They insisted on adhering to the traditions that they had
been handed -- traditions that came ultimately from gentiles who had converted
to a form of Christianity.  Had they consulted with the Jewish people, they
might not have experienced this struggle.

In my opinion, the problem occurred because they misunderstood the flowery
expressions in John 1.  The logos was an expression of God's message to
humanity and was not a person.  The author was parallelling Jewish thought on
the Torah and extending that thought to include the deeper Messianic
explanation that underlaid the Torah.  The Messiah was not the message itself
but, poetically, it's personification, for he had expressed it so completely to
us.

What about the other positions -- Sabellius', for example?

I see the whole matter as the very kernel of the formation of denominations --
the refusal to recognize one's own opinions and interpretations as merely human
understandings of divine concepts.

Frank


author: Roger Pearse

subject: Re: review of "When Jesus became God"

text:
In article <8s0pq9$5i$[email]>,
  Charles Hedrick <[email]> wrote:

Interesting notes - thank you.

I know what you mean.  Myself I am sick of reading books which are
simply a deliberate attempt to impose a theory (derived purely from
period fashions) on the facts, and then bully anyone who disgrees with
a scholastic appeal to authority.

Best wishes,

Roger Pearse

----------------------------------
http://www.tertullian.org

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


author: Thomas Bushnell, BSG

subject: Re: review of "When Jesus became God"

text:
[email] (EgwEimi) writes:

Do you really think they could have "consulted with the Jewish
people"?  They would have been told to give up all this Jesus
nonsense.  The two groups didn't talk, and both spent effort firing
off fiery invectives against each other.  The Jewish community was not
some group of scholars waiting to be asked, and a little disappointed
at being ignored...they were by this point a different religion
engaged in mutual hostility.

This is a supposition, but the problem here is that there is a
substantial Greek philosohical tradition about that word <logos>.

I'm not sure why "denomination" is a bad thing; "denomination" just
means "moniker".  Forming a group that has a name does not necessarily
amount to the kind of hubris you identify after your dash.

Thomas


author: The Armin

subject: Re: review of "When Jesus became God"

text:
This is incorrect.  The Arians, or at least most of them did not consider
Christ to be God.  Arius, while acknowledging Jesus' preexistence, at the same
time denied that Jesus was eternal as God is.  Arius' catch phrase was probably
borrowed from Tertuallian, "There was a time when the son was not."  In other
words, there was a time when Jesus did not exist.

Furthermore, this is a good book and I highly recommend it.  It fully captures
the history of the Christian struggle and search for who Jesus was and how to
relate him to God.

Peace.

  ---

[The book claims that Arius was willing to use the term God, though in
a qualified sense.  It says that one of the problems with the Nicene
Creed was that it was capable of an Arian interpretation.  Even "God
from God" wasn't enough to exclude them.  I'm not claiming that Arius
agreed with Athanasius on this, obviously.  But there's a common myth
that Jesus was just a plain Jewish rabbi who was later turned into a
God.  If so, by Arius' time the promotion was well under way.  For
Arius Christ already had supernatural characteristics.  However he
certainly wasn't at the same level as the Father.  The book seems
unclear (probably representing differences among the Arians) just how
supernatural they regarded Christ as.  --clh]


subject: Re: review of "When Jesus became God"

text:
In article <8s65tm$o97$[email]>,
  [email] (The Armin) wrote:

Hello Armin,

If you don't mind, I think I'm going to ask you for evidence.  Would
you like to document this claim from their writings?  Remember that
people like Eusebius signed the Nicene creed!

I don't claim to be any kind of expert on this sort of thing, but the
arguments at Nicaea seem to be rather different to this - discussing
the nature of God the Son, rather than Jesus.

May I comment?  This is not the sense of Tertullian's remark, which is
not discussing the existence of the trinity (for which see Adversus
Praxean) but rather the nomenclature of the persons of it, while
confuting the idea of the eternal coexistence of matter.  Tertullian
makes a point that God could not be *called* Lord before there was
anything for him to be Lord of, nor Father before the existence of the
Son.  The terminology is not good, but Tertullian is merely thinking of
the Son as begotten from the Father.  The question of the coequality of
the Son with the Father is not under discussion in Adversus Hermogenem,
and Tertullian has never been charged with holding the view you
attribute to him.  So I think it's a misunderstanding.

Obviously you have no reason to take my word for it, but I trust you
accept that *Tertullian* believed Jesus was God?  If so, that makes the
quote a bit theoretical from your point of view, perhaps.

I can see that a page on this quotation, setting it into the context of
all Tertullian's work, would be a useful thing, and I will add it to my
list of things to do.

Best wishes,

Roger Pearse

Indeed had occurred centuries earlier.  See the epistle of Barnabas for
some examples from C1.

That does sound more like my understanding of things.  Although I am a
little wary as I say this - I wonder whether this was what they were
accused of, rather than what they themselves would have believed?
Controversy tends to exacerbate differences.

As far as I know, believing that Jesus was not God was unusual in the
ancient world.  It was more common to accept his divinity but to wonder
whether he was really human (gnosticism, docetism, etc).

Best wishes,

Roger Pearse

----------------------------------
http://www.tertullian.org

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

  ---

[I agree with this response.  However I'd like to comment on

   arguments at Nicaea seem to be rather different to this - discussing
   the nature of God the Son, rather than Jesus.

I think this distinction wasn't entirely clear.  This was well before
Chalcedon, and the careful distinction between /hypostasis/ and
/ousia/ that was made after Nicea.  It appears that some of the people
were focusing on what we would now call the nature of the Logos and
the others on the nature of Jesus as a human, without a clear
understanding of how these things fit together.

--clh]


subject: Re: review of "When Jesus became God"

text:
This is what Eusebius wrote to Constantine, once he was away from his immediate
presence and the threat of imperial pressure.  Many of those signatures were
the result of imperial pressure not to mention ambiguous wording.

"We have commited a sin for fear of you O great Prince."

I accept that Tertullian considered Jesus to be a god.  However, I do not
accept that he considered Jesus eternal or coequal with 'Ho Theos.'  It is
obvious that Tertullian did not think that Jesus existed before he was
'begotten.'  If Tertullian were alive today, the Roman Catholic Church would
consider him a heretic, because his trinity is not the same as the Roman
Catholic trinity, which is far more refined.  (The same goes for Origen and the
others by the way.)

Peace.

  --

[I believe the sin was agreeing to the homoousios. Remember that
Eusebius claimed that he proposed the creed on which Nicea was based.
The text that he proposed included "God from God" refering to Christ.
So he could not plausibly deny calling Christ God.  He could, however,
say that he was pressured into calling him homoousios. --clh]


subject: Re: review of "When Jesus became God"

text:
In article <8slt0a$ceb$[email]>,
  [email] (The Armin) wrote:

This isn't really a reply to my query, is it?  I realise you may not be
able to substantiate your statements, but surely you could at least
tell us who you are following?  (I also hope you don't feel I'm trying
to bully you with factoids.  I just don't see how we can evaluate
statements without data).

You see, to me it looks as if whoever you're relying on has just
grabbed a couple of quotes (without any context or documentation) and
fitted them into something he wanted to say for some other reason.

As for letters of Eusebius to Constantine, again, can we have the full
reference so we can look up the quotation and see what it refers to?

I don't think you should say these things without some sort of backup,
you know.  Are you telling me that Tertullian believed in two gods?  If
so, stand and deliver! <grin> i.e. produce your quotations.  I should
warn you that I'm holding a copy of Adversus Praxean in my hand as I
write (makes typing awkward!)...  I also know the reasons why he was
regarded as heretical later on (as documented in Augustine De
Haeresibus and 'Praedestinatus', none of which are this sort of (gross)
heresy).

May I murmur that I don't understand the reason for quoting Greek.
Tertullian wrote in Latin.  You're very welcome to quote him in Latin
if you wish, or indeed write entirely in Latin (as the author of
QuickLatin I might get a few registrations if you did!).

Your final comment I'm going to put on one side for now - you know what
I think about it.

Sorry to grill you, but what you're saying isn't right.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
----------------------------------
http://www.tertullian.org

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


author: Maartje Tromp

subject: Pedofiel bij Barend & van Dorp!   Was Sjoerd mag weer posten....

text:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:57:25 +0100, [email] (Bart) wrote:

Inderdaad, hij zat met droge ogen te vertellen dat een pedofiele kennis
van hem in een gepreksgroep vertelde dat hij  aandrang had gehad om een
klas met kinderen uit te moorden. Dit omdat hij zijn gevoelens niet
meer onder controle had omdat hij zijn pedofiele neigingen niet mocht
uiten in deze maatschappij. Die lul bij Barend & van Dorp dacht dat in
een andere maatschappij met ruimere opvattingen hij wel een kind vanaf
ongeveer tien jaar mocht beffen.

Zo'n uitgestreken pedofiele ramkraker moesten ze voor de rest van zijn
leven in een psychiatrische inrichting opsluiten kompleet met de rest
van zijn pedofiele praatgroep!

Maarten,
[email]


subject: Re: Pedofiel bij Barend & van Dorp!   Was Sjoerd mag weer posten....

text:
"Maartje Tromp" <[email]> schreef in bericht
news:[email]...

Tja ik kan het volledig begrijpen, maar vergeet niet dat in vroegere
tijden dit toch echt wel voorkwam. Tenminste dat ze heel jong werden
uitgehuwelijkt.
Maar ja vroeger deden ze wel meer rare dingen en hopelijk zijn we verder
gekomen.
trouwens dom gelul van die pedofiel, want met die redenatie moet
verkrachting etc.
ook maar goed gevonden worden.

Als ik in de stad loop zie ik ook wel eens iets in de winkel dat ik graag
zou willen hebben, en de neiging om het mee te nemen is er ook wel eens.
Die onderdruk je dus, goh zouden er andere maatschappijen zijn die minder
moeite
hebben met jatten? Maar goed, iemand die zulke uitspraken doet is niet
helemaal goed
bij zijn hoofd.

En de rest van de pedopraatgroep ken ik niet, dus daar kan ik niet over
oordelen.


text:
On 15 Dec 2005 08:55:13 -0800, "Maartje Tromp"
<[email]> wrote:

Het lijkt me niet dat leeftijd *het*  kriterium kan zijn, iemand van
78 mag je zonder instemming nl evenmin beffen.

Wat me verder opviel is dat men het zich niet kon voorstellen dat
een pedofiel ook gewoon met kinderen kan omgaan.
Moet je als hetero iedere vrouw die je ziet een beurt willen geven
ofzo of vanwaar komt dat rare idee?


author: Zaterdag de Dertiende

text:
"Maartje Tromp" <[email]> schreef in bericht
news:[email]...
Tsja jongen, dat is nu eenmaal waar het volk voor te porren is. Lichamen in
ontbinding doen het ook goed.

Kijk, dat is tenminste nog eens informatief ipv al die emotie-tv.

 te vertellen dat een pedofiele kennis

Tsja jongen, zo gaat dat. Of hij nou aan zijn vertrouwensarts vertelt of aan
jouw favoriete programma B&vD, het blijft uitgesproken. De man moet gewoon
zijn ei kwijt.

 Die lul bij Barend & van Dorp dacht dat in
Vrij vertaald naar jouw minder frisse inzichten?
Nee, zo werkt dat niet. Wordt iemand betrapt op pedofiele handelingen, dan
streng straffen. Wanneer het vuile praatjes betreft draait het uitzendend
medium er voor op, in dit geval B&vD.


author: Amos

text:
..22.. wrote on 15/12/2005 :

Nee, maar ik heb een veel leukere praatgroep voor u. In Teheran:

http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=2137352748&TOCID=2083225413

Wat heet hier beffen? Sodomizeren, meneer!

Amos


author: Bart

text:
theo1610 <tvbeuningen16@16=1hotmeel.com> wrote:

Ze moet er natuurlijk wel een beetje aantrekkelijk uitzien! We zijn
tenslotte kieskeurig en duiken niet met iedereen de koffer in.


author: Goodcowboy

text:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:57:16 +0100, theo1610
<tvbeuningen16@16=1hotmeel.com> wrote:

Mag dat bij een kind dat 'instemt' dan wel?


text:
"Amos" <[email]> schreef in bericht
news:[email]...

Wat moet ik daarmee?


text:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:23:56 +0100, Goodcowboy
<[email]> wrote:

"Mag dat bij" klinkt net alsof het over een geit gaat
inplaats van over een ander mens.


text:
..22.. wrote on 15/12/2005 :

Iemand zei dat er landen waren waarin het beffen van kleine meisjes was
toegestaan. Ter aardige vergelijking heb ik toen de seksuele moraal van
de Ayatolla te berde gebracht.

En laat ik nu niet meer kunnen vinden waar dat stond, van dat beffen.

Geknoei, ik weet het.

Nou ja, het doet er ook niet toe, het is allemaal uiterst verwerpelijk.

Amos