<< Hilarious   |   WEBLOG   |   Change Of Topic >>


History Of Religion - World Map




What color is your paranoia?

Link.

E@L

Thanks to Samuel for pointing this out.

MORE...


Posted by: expat@large on Oct 16, 07 | 8:29 pm | Profile


OTHER MONKEYS SAID



Does this map imply there is not a significant jewish population in the U.S. or, for that matter, anywhere in the world but Israel? Or am I reading it wrong?


Posted by: Samantha on Oct 16, 07 | 9:35 pm

Oh yeah, gaddam it Samantha, you're right, and there's a coupla Christian guys I know in Turkey and they're not on the map either, not to mention all the Greek Orthodox people in Melbourne... I'll give the map makers a call...

(and ooops, sorry I didn't put in the link - it's there now.)

There has been no real Jewish homeland since the Babylonian diaspora is I think one point that was meant to be drawn from the map.

Don't get me wrong, but you're not really a big picture person are you?


Posted by: expat@large on Oct 16, 07 | 9:59 pm

Hey, settle down Darl. Samantha had a good point there. Be nice!


Posted by: Sister on Oct 16, 07 | 11:31 pm

I was a bit troubled myself about 1 Samuel, but footnotes on the link below helped...

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1samuel/1samuel15.htm


Posted by: Sister on Oct 16, 07 | 11:54 pm

According to that the southern part of Australia is still solidly atheist.


Posted by: Dick on Oct 17, 07 | 1:02 am

Mariah: that *was* me being nice...

Mariah2: yes, they killed the men women and children without pity, but spared the the oxen for sacrifice, and that's why they got in trouble. Nice work Samuel, showed great compassion. "Obedience is better than sacrifice, and submission than the fat of rams." And you say the bad God of the old Testament is not your God, but the nice parts of New Testament Jesus is? Surely that's a denial of the Trinity... Or do you choose which parts of the holy book agree with you.

Dick: I thought the remaining Australians followed the Snake Person? A religion which has lasted 40,000 years is hardly atheism.


Posted by: expat@large on Oct 17, 07 | 7:37 am

E@L your topic (1Samuel) brings us back in history to just after Noah and the Ark - not exactly the most civilized of times...

[Later Jewish tradition also commented on this event:

"He betook himself to slay the women and the children, and thought he did not act therein either barbarously or inhumanly; first, because they were enemies whom he thus treated, and, in the next place, because it was done by the command of God, whom it was dangerous not to obey" (Flavius Josephus, Antiquites Judicae, Book VI, Chapter 7).]

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek

[And if this seem an inhuman command, let us remember the prevailing sentiment that the Amalecites were "inhuman and barbarous; a people with such evil customs deserves no mercy"; for it is a question of national life or death. It is plain, however, that we are far from the Sermon on the Mount.]

Source:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01377c.htm

Remember, you started all this darling! (One had to defend... but it's interesting)



Posted by: Sister on Oct 17, 07 | 5:37 pm

Moi, start this?? I merely put up an innocent map!!

Yeah, maybe the Amalcites were Neandertals. Definitely "inhuman", even in the Darwinian sense!!!

Was this before or after Moses came down with the tablets that said "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? Obviously he left the sub-clauses back on the mountain top: "Except enemies, except if God changes his mind, except if they are barbarous, except if they have evil customs, except if they were inhuman."

Except if they smuggle drugs into Singapore , except if they are "enemy combatants", except if they wear towels on their heads, except if they are not on our side, except even if they are (by accident), except if they annoy us sufficiently and we have broght a gun to school, except if they perform elective abortions, except if they come into Australian waters as refugees and throw their children into the ocean, except if they are in Tasmania in 1850 and black, except if this is the Balkans...

These moral absolutes have a lot of exceptions, don't they? Why do we call them absolutes again?


Posted by: expat@large on Oct 17, 07 | 6:30 pm

You're absolutely a smart arsenal of information Phillipe!

Love you for that !?!?

Now, can we discuss 'Plagiarism'...

Was it not me who used to sign my emails to you with the word 'Moi'? My moral code tells me it's not okay to steal - yours may be different, hmm?


Posted by: Sister on Oct 17, 07 | 9:21 pm

Saying "moi" is plagiarism?! Uhhhh


Posted by: knobby on Oct 17, 07 | 11:21 pm

Phil understands my sense of humour Knobby - do you have one? He and I have known each other longer than you've probably been around!

Nice that you support him though, because you probably see me as his enemy... On the contrary, I happen to love the person!


Posted by: Sister on Oct 17, 07 | 11:48 pm

Enemy? Love? Let's not get carried away... I was just puzzled.


Posted by: knobby on Oct 17, 07 | 11:52 pm

- I can understand that!


Posted by: Sister on Oct 17, 07 | 11:58 pm

Mariah: indeed, but my weaponary is hitting against a giant obstinant brick wall!! Must be your bum! And ditto in reverse!

Knob: Run away brave Sir Knobster!!!

Mariah2: as I already informed you: "moi" is from Miss Piggy in the Muppetts show! hence pubic domain & let's not get into discussions about the age of this particular debate and its origins around the Christmas dinner table...

Finally, before I quit bloggin all together, to quote Freud (whom I am reading at the moment, coincidentally), on Dostoevsky[sic]: "... he landed in the retrograde position of submission both to temporal and spiritual authority, of veneration both for the Tsar and the God of the Christians, and of a narrow Russian nationalism - a position which lesser minds have reached with smaller effort. This is the weakpoint in his great personality. Dostoevsky threw away the chance of becoming a teacher and liberator of humanity and made himself one with their gaolers." (Complete Psychological Works of SF -Vol XXI, Vintage 2001, pg 177.)


Posted by: expat@large on Oct 18, 07 | 12:13 am

Well if you're referring to the aboriginal folk, first Australians whatever then I'm out of my depth. Paganism? Animism? It's OK...no long involved discussion needed.


Posted by: Dick on Oct 18, 07 | 1:53 am

and i'll bet you thought i'd say something, sugar, didn't you?


Posted by: savannah on Oct 19, 07 | 11:04 am


THIS MONKEY SAYS




Notify me when someone replies to this post?
Submit the word you see below:




Powered by pMachine