Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 12-30-2010, 06:45 PM

He may blog about it. He previously posted this which indicates that Golb was not the originator of the theory.

Quote:

. . . According to K. H. Rengstorf, the documents have nothing to do either with the Essenes or with any other sect. They comprise part of the library of the temple at Jerusalem which was stored in a safe place at the time of the Jewish Revolt…The presentation of this theory, which is personal to Rengstorf himself, is preceded by a critique of the ‘Essene’ theory in the form in which it has often been presented, and the author rightly emphasizes the weakness or ambiguity of certain lines of argument. But his own explanation entails great difficulties. - Roland de Vaux, 1959

(from de Vaux, Roland, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Schweich Lectures 1959 (or via: amazon.co.uk), .... p. 105-6)

There is a timeline here:

http://www.gnosis.org/library/dss/dss_timeline.htm

1963 -- K. H. Rengstorf (U of Münster) claims the Dead Sea scrolls originally came from the Temple library in Jerusalem (Hirbet Qumran and the Problem of the Library of the Dead Sea Caves).

***

1970 -- Norman Golb (U of Chicago) presents paper to ASOR Albright Insitute in Jerusalem, questioning whether all Dead Sea scrolls were products of an Essene sect based at Qumran, but is denied authorization to examine unpublished scrolls.

howardfredrics · 12-30-2010, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by howardfredrics

Plagiarism, as defined in Webster's Dictionary:

"The act of using another person's words or ideas without giving credit to that person."

Plagiarism, as defined in Oxford Dictionary:

"The practice of taking someone else‘s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own."

By no reasonable definition is it considered anything else but plagiarism to utilize someone else's ideas without acknowledging them.

Quote:

College Definition of Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the presenting of another's works, ideas or projects as one's original work. To draw upon another's work; to copy out passages (even as short as a sentence) verbatim or with small changes; to use as original another's ideas, interpretations, striking terms or phrases; to paraphrase; or to summarize without acknowledging the source these require acknowledgement (i.e.footnotes or other citations giving adequate description of the source of materials and clearly indicating all quotations either by quotation marks or by otherwise setting off the quoted passage).

Did Schiffman use Golb's work, or did he come to a similar conclusion on his own? Did he crib any distinctive language from Golb? Is Golb the only one who has ever thought that the DSS came from Jerusalem? Could he have copyrighted that idea?

If this were a clear case of plagiarism, Golb would have had a clear remedy. It certainly would have been more effective (and cheaper in the long run) to have set up a blog with a comparison of his ideas and words with those of Schiffman.

But this still doesn't justify impersonating Schiffman.

For the answers to your rhetorical questions, I suggest reading Norman Golb's detailed response to the letter by Prof. Schiffman to NYU officials. Although Schiffman's letter is not posted online, there is enough detailed quotation from the letter to grasp the key areas where Golb believes his ideas were plagiarized.

I am not a DSS scholar, and can't, therefore comment publicly on the details of who developed which idea first and who may or may/not have plagiarized. But what I can comment on is whether or not the matter has ever been adequately explored. When one respected scholar holds a genuine belief (whether rightly or wrongly), and therefore accuses another scholar of plagiarism, this is something that ought to be properly investigated by relevant independent third parties, e.g. NYU or some relevant professional organization.

As far as I'm aware, this matter has been systematically swept under the carpet, and so, though I don't condone all of the tactics used by Raphael Golb, I can completely understand how and why he was moved to take such drastic measures after so many years of witnessing his father getting the short end of the stick on the DSS origin debate platform, while also feeling strongly that his father's work had been plagiarized. If this were, indeed, a "clear" case of plagiarism, it might or might not have been dealt with, for various reasons, including political/religious reasons. But just because the case might not seem immediately clear, doesn't make it unworthy of further investigation. In fact, it makes it all the more important to explore it and make a definitive and fair determination.

Though I might not agree with all of his methods (though I do think satire is an important and entirely appropriate tool for drawing attention to a cause), I also don't believe that anything Raphael Golb did rises to the level of criminality, and certainly not to the level of a felony.

Indeed, as you suggest, a blog comparing the ideas and words of Golb/Schiffman was set up in 2008 (A 'larryschiffman' Wordpress page), but that didn't result in any further investigation by appropriate officials. Yes, had, that resulted in a full exploration of the issues raised, it would have been much cheaper than paying defendant legal costs and public prosecution costs. But that's not what happened.

DCHindley · 12-30-2010, 10:32 PM

Mr Hindley,

You are always spewing lies, for it is said, "he does spew..." (3rd Hezekiah 3:16).

Just finished reading Geoff Hudson's blog (full of chronological inconsistencies - posts supposedly from 2005 have notes about 2007 - with his unique mixture of exact citations and way out conspiracy theories), which reminds me that Raphael Golb is but the tip of the weirdo whack nut DSS iceburg.

Take a look back at page 1 for my take on the insanity that DSS origins brings out in otherwise rational individuals.

As for the idea that the scrolls could have originated from various areas and became deposited in the caves of wadi Qumran, consider this:

As of early 68 CE, Vespasian had with him at that time the 10th and 15th Legions. Also, at the time Vespasian took control of Jericho around June 68 CE, Trajan joined him with the remainder of the 3,000 infantry and 500 cavalry which had subdued Perea (except the fortress of Macharus) under Placidus (JW 4.7.4-6; 5.8.1,2). He then mopped up a deserted Jericho (no mention is made of the fortress of Cyprus just a few miles away) and set up garrisons there. It was into the mountain range along the western edge of the Jordan valley that the inhabitants of Jericho fled, and this “naked and barren” mountain is where Qumran is situated.

During the lull in activities between June 68 and June 69, when Vespasian waited to see how the Roman civil war turned out, Simon bar Giora had control of the villages in the mountains of Judea and set himself up as a sort of king from Nain to the northeast of the Dead Sea (not the Nain of Jesus' miracle) down the western edge of the Dead Sea to the Ackrabatene toparchy at the southwest edge of the Dead Sea. He also managed to take over Idumea and Hebron, and enlarged caves at a valley called Paran where he made use of them “as repositories for his treasures...and many of his partisans had their dwelling in them; and he made no secret of it that he was exercising his men ... for the assault of Jerusalem.”

While "Paran" proper is in the Sinai south of the Dead Sea, this "valley called Paran" must have been somwhere in the mountains that run along the western edge of the Dead Sea, and close enough to Jerusalem to allow him to prepare troops for its assault. "Paran" was probably the nickname that Simon's forces had for the place where they were planning their assault on Jerusalem, as the Israelites had launched their excursion into Canaan from "Paran" in Sinai. It was a symbolic name.

So, here's Simon Bar Giora, a bit of a free spirit but fanatical, secretes "treasures" gathered from Judea and Idumea in a valley called Paran, yet before he was able to enter Jerusalem. I have to wonder whether his "treasures" may have included scrolls, and wadi Qumran was this valley called Paran. If so, any scrolls among those treasures were not from Jerusalem, but would represent the POV of Simon's followers.

Simon's forces were finally dislodged from his haunts north and south of Jerusalem by Vespasian's forces (now including the 12th Legion) and by Cerealis who commanded the 5th Legion (BJ 4.9.3-8) around June 69 CE. The Roman arrow points found at the Qumran settlement likely came at this time, from any of the forces under Titus' command. Simon, by this time, had already entered Jerusalem in May of 69.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

It seems to me that part of the "aggressiveness" Schiffman attributes to Norman Golb was actually actions by his son Raphael. At the time of Schiffman's 2008 NYU report, Schiffman apparently thought that Norman Golb was behind the barrage of museum criticisms now known to be Raphael's doing.

Norman Golb does not mention his son at all in his response to Schiffman's portrayal of himself, preferring to stick to the facts as can be established by published articles and books.

This is typical of Norman Golb's style - he just doesn't get emotional. But you can tell he finds the kind of disparaging remarks that he sees Schiffman and the old guard make about him (and by extension other "dissidents") to be hurtful and dismissive.

Someone will eventually scan the Schiffman report to NYU.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by manwithdream

This might be interesting to people who care about the Golb case:

https://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/schiffma..._2010nov30.pdf

It is Dr.Norman Golb's response to a confidential paper written by Dr. Schiffman for his university about the plagiarism claim against him.

I am not sure if Schiffman's paper is also on that site.

Kenneth Greifer

avi · 12-31-2010, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by howardfrederics

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Does the Torah not represent orthodox, run of the mill, ordinary, "typical" Judaism? Are not all of these "extremist" positions found therein?

This may be badly out of synch, but, whenever I read, or hear about "extremist muslims", I just shake my head in disbelief. Its all there, in black and white, in the Quran, everyone can read it: kill the non-believers.

Does anyone on this FRDB imagine that the jews don't share exactly the same attitude? Have such folks been reading about some other Palestine, some other Palestinians, found in some other, parallel universe perhaps?

I had the good fortune, to hear George Wald explain, at the first Earth day celebration, in Philadelphia 1970, how inhuman our conduct was in VietNam, for employing napalm against the VietNamese. Of course, he was absolutely correct.

The very next day, I attended his lecture to the Jews at University of Pennsylvania, when he urged everyone to demand that the Israeli government purchase as much Napalm as possible, for use against the "subhuman" Palestinians.

Those who imagine that there are "mainstream" Jews, who are somehow more "liberal" than orthodox Jews, are sadly mistaken, in my opinion, as that famous, Harvard University Medical School faculty member, Nobel prize winner demonstrated to my satisfaction, on two consecutive days in April, 1970.

avi

This is incredibly misconceived, Avi. Although the Koran says, in essence, to kill the non-believers, not all adherents to Islam accept every single word that it contains. These are the non-extremist Muslims or so-called "moderate" Muslims.

Likewise, though the Torah may contain some rather barbaric passages by our modern standards of behavior, not all Jews accept every word that it contains as applicable to today's world. In fact, it is rare, indeed, for Jews to abide by any of the sorts of barbarism contained in parts of the Torah. Moreover, such passages, e.g. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" are interpreted in less extreme ways by most Jews as meaning that if someone does something bad to you, you should be compensated in equivalent (whatever that means) monetary terms, not by literally taking out someone's eye or tooth. The literal interpretation is a misconception on the part of those who do not truly understand the history of how these passages were dealt with.

And yes, most Christians, too, believe that much of the Bible is to be taken as allegory, rather than literally.

This, of course, doesn't preclude there being extremist members of each of these faiths, those who would practice violence or bigotry as the best way of dealing with a variety of matters, and who see their religious tracts as inflexible and to be interpreted literally (again, whatever that means, given the myriad problems with translations).

I think we all have to listen to what each individual says and see what he/she does, rather than pre-judging him/her on the sole basis of religious self-identification.

Thanks for your comment.

It is the eve of the new year, so, your optimistic assessment is very welcome.

With regard to your suggestion that my opinion is "incredibly misconceived", I suppose I must respectfully disagree with your idea.

"incredibly", well, no, the experience listening to a Nobel prize winner repudiate his remarks of 24 hours earlier, was very credible. There was no exaggeration, no histrionics, in his speech to the faithful jews. Just matter of fact expression of the famous Harvard biologist's opinion about the need to exterminate an entire population of folks, ironically, genetic cousins of the good, "God's chosen", jews, who would then be wielding God's powerful napalm weapon to carry out the massacre.

"misconceived": I didn't conceive this story, it was an actual retelling of an event that took place forty years ago.

The jews, christians and muslims are all pushing the notion that only a few misguided, uberzealous, hyperbelievers are responsible for the horrific acts of terrorism, to which we are witness, daily, somewhere on planet earth. I deny the validity of their claim. I believe, contrarily, that ALL religions are inherently evil. I associate faith in the supernatural to explain phenomena, with delusional thinking--> pathological, with consequent adverse actions directed against homo sapiens.

My view has nothing to do with misconception. It has everything to do with watching Napalm in action, against the Vietnamese people, a terrorist act committed by the people and government of the USA. George Wald's exhortation to the jewish faithful to demand that Israel acquire napalm for use against the Palestinians, because of its well known infliction of terror on a civilian population, was a turning point in my life, it was not a casual misconception, as you have written. When I think back to the summer before, 1969, sitting at the ocean side, next to the famous scientist, discussing various experiments, hopelessly enamored by the great man's obvious genius, I had no idea that the famous Harvard Medical School faculty member was a simple terrorist.

avi

DCHindley · 12-31-2010, 11:22 PM

While lurking on Dr Robert Cargil's "Who is Charles Gadda" blog, and reading his commentary which accuses Prof. Norman Golb of being complicit with his son Raphael Golb's attempt to smear Lawrence Schiffman, I was inspired to resurrect the 397 day old post below. It was because of an online article I found on Haaretz.com.

Basically, it mirrors my misinformed and oh so obviously wrong evaluation of this whole DSS mess. How refreshing it is to know that someone else is as uninformed and stoopid enough to even suggest that the discussion is not about who wrote the scrolls but what Judaism of the time should have been, or what it could not have been!

FWIW, in Norman Golb's recently posted "response" to Lawrence Schiffman's "confidential" letter to NYU to defend himself against the rumor of plagiarism made by Raphael's sock puppets, he admits he was making efforts to sway museum exhibits and professional associations to include his hypothesis for scroll origins. All Cargil seems to show is that Norman Golb was aware that his son Raphael was lobbying these organizations using pseudonymous e-mail accounts, apparently not convinced that any mail from his or his son's real accounts would even be read.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haaretz.com

Sat, January 01, 2011 Tevet 25, 5771
Dead Sea Scrolls scholar defends son arrested for impersonating rival
Raphael Golb's arrest is the latest in a long saga of conflicts among Dead Sea Scrolls scholars. By Ofri Ilani

The Dead Sea Scrolls scholar whose son was arrested last week on suspicion of impersonating an rival scholar says his son understood his opponents were trying to silence him.

Professor Norman Golb, of the University of Chicago, believes that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not written by the Essenes, as mainstream scholarship holds.

"Raphael, my son, is very devoted to my research. He realized years ago that there was an effort to close the door on my opinions. And so he started debating bloggers who were against me, using aliases. That's the custom these days with blogs, as I understand it," Norman Golb said.

Raphael Golb's arrest is the latest in a long saga of conflicts among Dead Sea Scrolls scholars. Although researchers have condemned Raphael Golb's alleged acts, some scholars in Israel accept Norman Golb's contention that some of the most prominent Dead Sea Scrolls academics do silence their opponents.

Most scholars in the field believe that the scrolls were written by the Essenes or the Qumran Sect - a small Jewish group that lived an ascetic life in the desert.

Golb, however, contends the scrolls found in caves at the Dead Sea near Qumran were written in Jerusalem and smuggled to the Dead Sea area during the Great Revolt of the Jews against the Romans. In an article written under the name Charles Gadda, Raphael Golb calls his father's opponents anti-Semites who are trying to sever the connection between the scrolls and Judaism by presenting them as the product of a marginal sect.

Magen Broshi, the former curator of the Shrine of the Book at the Israel Museum, where some of the scrolls are displayed, called Norman Golb's theory, "foolishness and mean-spirited."

Broshi said Norman Golb is a "mediocre scholar who went into an area not his own. He adheres in a sick way to his positions which are not accepted by anyone in the world."

According to Broshi, "the world is split into two - Golb and everyone else."

However, Norman Golb is not the only one to have doubted the relationship between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Essenes.

Dr. Yitzhak Magen, the chief archaeology officer of the Civil Administration, who excavated at Qumran for 10 years, says he believes, "not even a quarter of an Essene was at Qumran. The scrolls were the outcome of flight from Jerusalem and other areas that were densely settled with Jews."

Magen also called the proponents of the Qumran Sect theory "a guild with money and conferences."

"But it's beginning to change. I hope some of the scrolls scholars will change their positions. I think this theory will finally win out," he added.

Dr. Yaakov Tepler, head of the history department of Beit Berl Academic College and a student of Christianity scholar Prof. Joshua Efron, hews neither to Golb's opinion nor to the mainstream. Rather, he believes some of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written by Christians and says they allude to Jesus.

"I wrote an huge M.A. thesis that was to have become a doctorate about the Teacher of Righteousness - a central figure in the scrolls. I built 300 pages of reasons why I think the allusion was to Jesus. But today no place in Israel will allow me to publish it. It's just impossible to get an article published, not to mention a book, that expresses an idea that deviates from orthodoxy."

Tepler says he thinks the scholarly establishment is silencing a connection between the scrolls and Christianity.

"At some point it was decided that the scrolls are part of Jewish history, as a basis for Zionism and anyone who undermines this is seen as undermining Israel," he said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley November 18, 2009, 07:14 PM

I think there is a large amount of angry knee-jerk reactionism coming from both sides of the debate over the origins of the DSS.

If the DSS are seen as the product of a fringe group, and thus not good representatives of Judaism as it existed in the period they were composed or copied (roughly 2nd century BCE to maybe 68 CE), then Rabbis and Christians can go on believing that they know what Judaism was really like, or at least should be like.

If they are actually a sample of generally circulated books, as Norman Golb and some liberal and non-religious Jews and Christians think, then the Judaism imagined by Rabbis and Christians is way off base and everything is now subject to revision. That is a very threatening position.

Remember how many Christian scholars recoiled in horror when some interpreters thought that certain fragments indicated belief in a suffering messiah was not unique to Christianity? The implication was that Christianity was merely a product of its time, rather than a special revelation or a unique creative elevation of religious ethics over that of Judaism.

Here we have Jews taking sides based on what they believe Judaism really was or should be.

DCH

DCHindley · 01-01-2011, 02:27 AM

While searching to see what DSS alternative history proponent Gregory L Doudna is up to (seems he now teaches Religion at a regional campus of Columbia College in WA, USA), I was reminded of the provenance of clay pottery found in the caves, and the results were that the majority of the common daily pots at Khirbet Qumran are from Qumran itself, from Jericho, Hebron Motsa clay and Edom in Jordania. The scroll jars are from two makes: One local to Qumran and another local to the Hebron-based Motsa clay. Simon bar Giora, who was once the governor of the toparchy of Acrabattene at the border of Idumea, was in control of Hebron, Jericho and Hebron.

Simon's history is as follows:

Early Nov 66: Simon was one of the rebel generals who routed Cestius Gallus at beth-horon.

Between Nov 66-Aug 67: Simon son of Gioras, co-commander of Acrabatene, is accused of ransacking the houses of the wealthy and deposed by Ananus. Simon takes refuge with the Sicarii at Masada (War 2.22.2 652-4; 4.7.3 503-508).

ca. Feb 68: Daily desertions from Jerusalem hampered by Zealots guarding the roads, who kill and leave the bodies unburied. In other words, not too many scrolls are leaving town.

Feb-Mar 68: Simon hears of the death of his enemy Ananus (killed by the Idumeans), leaves Masada with troops to "proclaim liberty for the slaves and rewards for the free." He gains many followers, including the newly released prisoners from Jerusalem (released by the Idumeans before leaving Jerusalem after realizing they had been used by the Zealots). (War 4.9.3 508; 4.6.1 353) Many Judeaen deserters who get past Zealots flee to Vespasian and urge him to protect the city and rescue the remaining loyal inhabitants; but Vespasian first attacks Gadara. (4.7.3 410)

Mar-Apr 68: The Sicarii at Masada conduct raids. "Learning that the Roman army was inactive and that in Jerusalem the Jews were divided by sedition", they are emboldened and conduct a Passover attack on En Gedi. (4.7.2 399-405) Other bands throughout Judaea fall to plundering.

May-Jun 68: Vespasian moved down from Galilee and takes Jericho, but stops further actions to see what happens in Roman civil war. (4.8.1 449-450)

Summer 68: Simon takes control of Acrabetene and many portions of Judaea. His success attracts many citizens, not just "brigands." Establishes headquarters at Nain and storage caves at Pheretae, in preparation for an assault on Jerusalem. This is when he is hiding his "treasures" (4.9.4 509-513). Simon clashes with the Zealots (4.9.5 514). With the covert aid of an Idumaean general, Simon marches into Idumaea unopposed. He has 20,000 troops and 40,000 followers. (4.9.5-6 515-528; 4.9.7 534). Simon takes the ancient city of Hebron in Idumaea, then proceeds to ravage the countryside. (4.9.7 529-537). Zealots capture Simon’s wife, causing him to advance on Jerusalem, torturing everyone he encounters, vowing to break down the walls unless his wife was returned to him. The Zealots send her back, and Simon quiets down. (4.7.8 538-544).

Spring 69: The chief priests led by Matthias, the Idumaeans who had remained in Jerusalem, and the wealthy citizens of Jerusalem decide to overthrow John of Gischala by inviting Simon into the city. Simon is acclaimed by the people as their savior and protector. (4.9.11 571-576).

April 69: Simon plunders all the Zealots stores and with the citizens attacks the Zealots in the Temple. (4.9.12 577)

June 69: Vespasian advances on Jerusalem, takes areas that had been previously conquered by Simon, following a similar path through Idumaea to Hebron. (4.9.9 549-555)

Winter 69-70: John of Gischala, holed up in the temple, makes sallies against Simon in the town to loot stores, sets fire to the supply warehouses.

Spring 70: Simon’s army in Jerusalem numbers 10,000, with 50 commanders. The separate Idumaean contingent was 5,000 with 10 commanders.

This means that Simon held the Qumran area, Idumea and Hebron between June 68 & June 69, but only had access to Jerusalem for a few months between Apr-Jun 69.

If the DSS were originally from anywhere other than Qumran, it would be from the regions of the mountains of Judah and from Idumea, and maybe Jericho (carried by refugees after Vespasian took it over).

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

As for the idea that the scrolls could have originated from various areas and became deposited in the caves of wadi Qumran, consider this:

As of early 68 CE, Vespasian had with him at that time the 10th and 15th Legions. Also, at the time Vespasian took control of Jericho around June 68 CE, Trajan joined him with the remainder of the 3,000 infantry and 500 cavalry which had subdued Perea (except the fortress of Macharus) under Placidus (JW 4.7.4-6; 5.8.1,2). He then mopped up a deserted Jericho (no mention is made of the fortress of Cyprus just a few miles away) and set up garrisons there. It was into the mountain range along the western edge of the Jordan valley that the inhabitants of Jericho fled, and this “naked and barren” mountain is where Qumran is situated.

During the lull in activities between June 68 and June 69, when Vespasian waited to see how the Roman civil war turned out, Simon bar Giora had control of the villages in the mountains of Judea and set himself up as a sort of king from Nain to the northeast of the Dead Sea (not the Nain of Jesus' miracle) down the western edge of the Dead Sea to the Ackrabatene toparchy at the southwest edge of the Dead Sea. He also managed to take over Idumea and Hebron, and enlarged caves at a valley called Paran where he made use of them “as repositories for his treasures...and many of his partisans had their dwelling in them; and he made no secret of it that he was exercising his men ... for the assault of Jerusalem.”

While "Paran" proper is in the Sinai south of the Dead Sea, this "valley called Paran" must have been somwhere in the mountains that run along the western edge of the Dead Sea, and close enough to Jerusalem to allow him to prepare troops for its assault. "Paran" was probably the nickname that Simon's forces had for the place where they were planning their assault on Jerusalem, as the Israelites had launched their excursion into Canaan from "Paran" in Sinai. It was a symbolic name.

So, here's Simon Bar Giora, a bit of a free spirit but fanatical, secretes "treasures" gathered from Judea and Idumea in a valley called Paran, yet before he was able to enter Jerusalem. I have to wonder whether his "treasures" may have included scrolls, and wadi Qumran was this valley called Paran. If so, any scrolls among those treasures were not from Jerusalem, but would represent the POV of Simon's followers.

Simon's forces were finally dislodged from his haunts north and south of Jerusalem by Vespasian's forces (now including the 12th Legion) and by Cerealis who commanded the 5th Legion (BJ 4.9.3-8) around June 69 CE. The Roman arrow points found at the Qumran settlement likely came at this time, from any of the forces under Titus' command. Simon, by this time, had already entered Jerusalem in May of 69.

DCH

howardfredrics · 01-01-2011, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by howardfrederics

This is incredibly misconceived, Avi. Although the Koran says, in essence, to kill the non-believers, not all adherents to Islam accept every single word that it contains. These are the non-extremist Muslims or so-called "moderate" Muslims.

Likewise, though the Torah may contain some rather barbaric passages by our modern standards of behavior, not all Jews accept every word that it contains as applicable to today's world. In fact, it is rare, indeed, for Jews to abide by any of the sorts of barbarism contained in parts of the Torah. Moreover, such passages, e.g. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" are interpreted in less extreme ways by most Jews as meaning that if someone does something bad to you, you should be compensated in equivalent (whatever that means) monetary terms, not by literally taking out someone's eye or tooth. The literal interpretation is a misconception on the part of those who do not truly understand the history of how these passages were dealt with.

And yes, most Christians, too, believe that much of the Bible is to be taken as allegory, rather than literally.

This, of course, doesn't preclude there being extremist members of each of these faiths, those who would practice violence or bigotry as the best way of dealing with a variety of matters, and who see their religious tracts as inflexible and to be interpreted literally (again, whatever that means, given the myriad problems with translations).

I think we all have to listen to what each individual says and see what he/she does, rather than pre-judging him/her on the sole basis of religious self-identification.

Thanks for your comment.

It is the eve of the new year, so, your optimistic assessment is very welcome.

With regard to your suggestion that my opinion is "incredibly misconceived", I suppose I must respectfully disagree with your idea.

"incredibly", well, no, the experience listening to a Nobel prize winner repudiate his remarks of 24 hours earlier, was very credible. There was no exaggeration, no histrionics, in his speech to the faithful jews. Just matter of fact expression of the famous Harvard biologist's opinion about the need to exterminate an entire population of folks, ironically, genetic cousins of the good, "God's chosen", jews, who would then be wielding God's powerful napalm weapon to carry out the massacre.

"misconceived": I didn't conceive this story, it was an actual retelling of an event that took place forty years ago.

The jews, christians and muslims are all pushing the notion that only a few misguided, uberzealous, hyperbelievers are responsible for the horrific acts of terrorism, to which we are witness, daily, somewhere on planet earth. I deny the validity of their claim. I believe, contrarily, that ALL religions are inherently evil. I associate faith in the supernatural to explain phenomena, with delusional thinking--> pathological, with consequent adverse actions directed against homo sapiens.

My view has nothing to do with misconception. It has everything to do with watching Napalm in action, against the Vietnamese people, a terrorist act committed by the people and government of the USA. George Wald's exhortation to the jewish faithful to demand that Israel acquire napalm for use against the Palestinians, because of its well known infliction of terror on a civilian population, was a turning point in my life, it was not a casual misconception, as you have written. When I think back to the summer before, 1969, sitting at the ocean side, next to the famous scientist, discussing various experiments, hopelessly enamored by the great man's obvious genius, I had no idea that the famous Harvard Medical School faculty member was a simple terrorist.

avi

Avi, I understand why you would recoil in horror at your experience in 1969. But please, don't allow this one awful example of brutality color your entire view of religious observers. Most don't exhibit this sort of proclivity to violence, and it is disingenuous to suggest by virtue of this singular but poignant example that all religious practitioners are so brutal.

Now, I do agree completely that religious belief is delusional, and that delusional thinking is potentially dangerous. But there are degrees of delusional thinking and degrees of orthodoxy of beliefs, meaning that the level of danger is not uniform. Would I prefer that no one believed in god? Of course I would. Do I do what I can to subvert theism? You betcha. But the majority of religious people, at least in the West, are not out to murder in the name of religion.

judge · 01-01-2011, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by howardfredrics

Avi, I understand why you would recoil in horror at your experience in 1969. But please, don't allow this one awful example of brutality color your entire view of religious observers. Most don't exhibit this sort of proclivity to violence, and it is disingenuous to suggest by virtue of this singular but poignant example that all religious practitioners are so brutal.
.

How many religious jews speak out against the attrocities in palestine? I know that there are secular jews who take real rasks to spaek out, but are there any religious jews who do so?

howardfredrics · 01-01-2011, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by howardfredrics

Avi, I understand why you would recoil in horror at your experience in 1969. But please, don't allow this one awful example of brutality color your entire view of religious observers. Most don't exhibit this sort of proclivity to violence, and it is disingenuous to suggest by virtue of this singular but poignant example that all religious practitioners are so brutal.
.

How many religious jews speak out against the attrocities in palestine? I know that there are secular jews who take real rasks to spaek out, but are there any religious jews who do so?

The Neturai Karta ultra-Orthodox Jewish organization is virulently anti-Zionist and consistently speaks out on behalf of Palestinian causes. Their opposition to Zionism has a religious foundation underlying it. As a secular Zionist, I vehemently disagree with their position, but it is beyond dispute that they "take real risks to speak out."

judge · 01-01-2011, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by howardfredrics

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

How many religious jews speak out against the attrocities in palestine? I know that there are secular jews who take real rasks to spaek out, but are there any religious jews who do so?

The Neturai Karta ultra-Orthodox Jewish organization is virulently anti-Zionist and consistently speaks out on behalf of Palestinian causes. Their opposition to Zionism has a religious foundation underlying it. As a secular Zionist, I vehemently disagree with their position, but it is beyond dispute that they "take real risks to speak out."

Thanks very much for that info.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.