Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
04-22-2007, 05:42 PM | #31 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: US Citizen (edited)
Posts: 1,948
|
Conclusion of # 30
Love is great and is indeed the principal moral norm, as Cicero saw, but this come from Cicero the jurisprudent, who also knows that love is not the wisdom of what is right and what is wrong. As a social principle, love is a sufficient norm for a tribal society which does not hold property and holds all things in common (as the monastic Essenes of Galilee and as the Israelitic Christians did. [See Acts of the Apostles.]
The Isra-ELites and the YUdaeans were ultimately incompatible, just as El and Yuh are, just as a tribe and a nation are, just as the shepherds, children of Abel, and the agrarians and craftsmen, children of Cain, were; and ethnically (with theirown lnguistic and other traditions) partially different as the Araboid Galileans and the Caucasoid Judeans were. It was the nation of Judea that went into the babylonian captivity, where they edited the traditional tales and composed the Books (from a Judean perspective), that fought to preserve a Judean royalty, and fled after the destruction of Yahweh's Temple. At the same time, as far the people's allegiance was concerned, the Nation of Judea did not supersede the Tribe, though no longer named Israel. Hence, the Jews in exile, who had lost a kingdom, reformed as a nameless Tribe, and lived in hosting countries by the laws of survival. _____________________________-- An inevitable question arises: How come that a small village like Rome became a republic (where the legislative Jous/ Juppiter evolved into jurisprudents) and that the kingdom of David did not evolve into a republic (wherefore the temple in Jerusalem would be the reasoning house of jurisprudents)? Any other possible reason aside, Rome started as a monarchic city/nation. If Romulus' kingdom had not been overcome by the Etruscan kings, the Roman monarchy may have been perpetuated as long as the Davidic monarchy. Now, whereas David founded a kingdom, the Roman people who liberated themselves from the Etruscan kings CHOSE to be free rather than becoming subjects of a king of their own. It was the free Romans that established a republic for themselves... and the rest is history. There was no evolution from a kingdom into a republic; so, it lies in the the might of David's kingdom and in the Biblical teachings (which make Yahweh anoint David) that the subjects never created a republic for themselves, and could not turn against the God-appointed monarch. The religion/theology of the Judeans was already different from the religion/theology of the Romans and of the Greeks. The authority of the rabbinical teachings, that God releaved what is true, what is good, and what is delighful precluded the Jurisprudence of the Romans, the Philosophy and History of the Greeks, and the arts of the Greeks and the Italians. The minds of the Judeans have been forever locked [through their systematic indoctrination] in the Age of Gods and the Age of Heroes. The Age of Men is foreign to them; it is a Gentilistic/Foreign Age unto them. |
04-22-2007, 06:26 PM | #32 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Quote:
|
|
04-22-2007, 07:05 PM | #33 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Neither is purveying false etymologies for tendentious purposes.
Quote:
But you didn't provide this information about the verb iuuo as relevant to anything. Quote:
Quote:
In fact you've just put up three posts which avoid your etymology. I guess you can see that it's not worth a pinch of cow dropping and that you'll just get on with your original stuff without the pseudo-linguistic trappings. That means, though, you don't even have the pretend etymology to give the stuff any veneer of seriousness. And do in the future try to avoid couching your propaganda in false etymologies and baseless linguistic judgments such as "poverty of language". You need to know something substantial about a language's resources before you can give any meaningful evaluations about it. spin |
|||
04-22-2007, 09:03 PM | #34 | |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: US Citizen (edited)
Posts: 1,948
|
Continuing the Etymological research....
From Wikipedia .... The Tribe of Judah (the fourth son of Jacob)... Quote:
As for Odeh, that's the classical Greek word ODE (0mega, delta, eta), contraction of AOIDE (alpha, omicron, iota, eta), which means: song of praise; specifically: lyric song; (magically) charming song. The affine verb is AEIDO (alpha, epsilon, iota, delta, omega), "ancient and poetic form of the Attic A(i)DO" (= to sing). / AIODOS = singer./ AIODOTHETES = song-composer/ AIDOTOKOS = originator of songs, chants, poems.. Undoubtedly the Jewish scholar, Yehudah, who found that some 600 etyms in Biblical Hebrew can be found in Homer's Iliad, found also "odeh." (The few surving copies of his book are under lock and key in a couple of libraries.) |
|
04-22-2007, 09:17 PM | #35 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
|
I'm through arguing with Amedeo. If anyone is confused and actually thinks that Amedeo is right, then by all means I'll answer questions, but I'm through dealing with anti-Semites.
|
04-22-2007, 09:30 PM | #36 | |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: US Citizen (edited)
Posts: 1,948
|
Quote:
(Sorry. Cross out "Jewish". Why derogate such an Indo-European word?) |
|
04-22-2007, 09:37 PM | #37 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
|
Quote:
Once again, if anyone sincere is wanting to know more, that's fine. |
|
04-22-2007, 10:38 PM | #38 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
This thread seems to have veered away from Biblical Criticism and/or History. I don't see anything productive coming out of it.
Closed before something worse is posted. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|