Haftorah: Shabbos Shuva/Repentance

[D.Abraham]

Shabbos Shuva
Hoshea 14:2-10; Yoel 2:11-27; Micha 7:18-20

by Rabbi Dovid Siegel

This week's haftorah quite appropriately focuses on teshuvah - repentance. In the previous verses, the prophet Hoshea strongly rebukes the Jewish people for straying after practices of idolatry. He predicts terrible tragedies for the Jewish nation because of their atrocious behavior towards Hashem. Hoshea concludes his harsh words by saying, "Shomron will be put to shame because she rebelled against Hashem; they will fall by the sword with her sucklings and pregnant women split open." (14:1) But, Hoshea then invites the Jewish people to return and promises them in return all the blessings of Hashem.

Hoshea quotes Hashem saying, "I will heal them from their rebelliousness and love them through My generosity because My anger has turned away from them." (14:6) Metzudos Dovid sees in this passage the revelation of one of Hashem's unbelievable merciful attributes. Although the Jewish nation had been heavily involved in sin, one act of repentance would undo all wrong. The prophet describes the process of repentance in the following words, "Take along words and return to Hashem, say to Him 'Remove all sin and grab hold of goodness and we will replace bullocks with our lips of confession.' (14:3) Hoshea says that Hashem requires one act of them, confession. Repentance for them means a sincere statement of recognition that they have strayed and will not continue doing so. One statement which reflects a sincere desire for Hashem to remove sinful practices from them will fulfil all requirements.

But, Hashem adds an unbelievable dimension to this and concludes, "I will love them out of generosity." 'This', says Metzudos, indicates Hashem's commitment to completely erase their wrong from His mind. Once they repent with sincerity, their past is non-existent. Furthermore, Hashem will increase His love for them in proportions that were never seen before. Although they have no new good track record to show, Hashem accepts their pledge and responds with perfect faith, showering them with love.

This mirrors the beautiful words of Rambam regarding one's relationship with Hashem after repenting. Rambam says, "How great is the merit of repentance! Yesterday one was separated from Hashem and today, after repenting, one merits to cleave to the Divine Presence. Today, one does Mitzvos which are pleasantly and happily accepted and Hashem even craves for them!" (Hilchos Teshuva 7:7)

However, Rambam adds a significant requirement to the Teshuva process. In addition to ones regret over sin and his conviction never to repeat such acts, one must bring Hashem to testify to the sincerity of this conviction.(Hilchos Teshuva 2:2) Apparently, even the Teshuva process can have different degrees of commitment but we are required to make our statement with perfect sincerity. During our confession we must feel - from the bottom of our heart - that we will not return to our shameful, sinful ways.The extent of this is reflected through our willingness to look Hashem"straight in the face" and declare to Him our sincere commitment. The source of Rambam's words is our haftorah wherein it states, "Take with you words of repentance and say to Hashem.. we will never again declare a status of deity to our hands' craftwork." (14:4) Yes, true repentance includes an affirmative statement directly to Hashem that we will never return to our sinful ways. (see commentary to Kesef Mishna to Rambam ibid.) The Jewish people had been involved in serious levels of idolatry and their repentance included an affirmation said directly to Hashem that they would never repeat that sin.

Meirei in his masterful work on repentance sensitizes us to the realistic demand this places upon us. Using the analogy of a beautiful garden now covered by weeds, Meirei warns us of a potential shortcoming in the Teshuva process. In order to clear the garden of the weeds, the uneducated gardener removed every one of them by mowing them down to ground level. For a few weeks his fields was cured of its problem. However, shortly thereafter, the weeds began reappearing. Upon consultation he discovered that weed removal required uprooting the weeds from their source and not merely cutting away their exposed section. In this same manner one must search deeply into his heart to determine the source of his wrong doing. Then, and only then, can he say with some degree of sincerity that he will do his utmost to secure that his wrongful actions will never be repeated.

This idea is alluded to by the commentary of Nachmanides in this week's parsha (Devarim 31:21) In upcoming Parshas Ha'azeinu, the Torah foretells that the Jewish people will engage themselves in very sinful practices and Hashem will respond in very serious measures. Eventually Hashem will redeem His people and bring the world to its perfect state. Nachmanides questions the nature of such prophecy. Generally, the Torah predicts that misfortune will follow if the Jewish people act in sinful ways and blessing if they act in a proper way. We never find the Torah stating as a fact that the Jewish people will definitely follow a sinful course. How then can the Torah make this prediction here?

Nachmanides responds with an insightful comment to this week's parsha. Hashem says, "Because I know what your evil inclination does today before I bring you into the promised land." (ad loc.) Nachmanides sees in this passage the answer to his puzzling question. He explains that the exposure of the Jewish people's imperfect conduct thus far is a clear indication of their future actions. The inception of the Jewish people is happening now and all imperfections in their character will inevitably expose themselves in the future. Although no specific generation will necessarily fall into sin, sinfulness will inevitably occur at some point. In essence, an imperfect seed cannot produce a perfect tree.

These ten days of repentance are the incubating period for all our actions during the year. The basic nature we possess now will inevitably expose itself throughout the year. Viewing character traits as the root of all our actions it is imperative that we address these traits and direct them towards perfection. (see Vilna Gaon on Mishle) If we attack the problem at its root, we stand a fighting chance to rectify it in the future. Only with this approach can we readily bring Hashem to testify to our sincerity of rectifying our sinful ways. When He gazes into our souls He will now see the purity of intent in them with a sincere commitment to follow a perfect path.

Such repentance is readily accepted by our merciful Creator and, in response to this sincere pledge, Hashem erases the past and pleasantly accepts our service and even craves for it! May we merit to attain this level of sincerity which ultimately yielding Hashem's desire and interest in all of our service.


Rabbi Dovid Siegel

Kollel Toras Chaim
Kiryat Sefer
Israel
E-mail: rdsiegel@torah.org

[abu afak]

D.Abraham,

Rules of the Road"

"...Missionary or other religious activity is not allowed."

No one cares or responds to your posts/Haftorahs

Stop Preaching/Spamming this section.

Thank you, abu afak

[andak01]

Originally posted by abu afak
D.Abraham,

Rules of the Road"

"...Missionary or other religious activity is not allowed."

No one cares or responds to your posts/Haftorahs

Stop Preaching/Spamming this section.

Thank you, abu afak

It's the only religious thing happening in the religion forum. I find these posts very informative and entirely appropriate.

Now Abu, if you want to open some threads about Atheism instead of simply attacking everyone else's religion, I'm sure that would be OK. How about a thread on Secular Humanism?

[frizzer1]

Originally posted by abu afak
D.Abraham,

Rules of the Road"

"...Missionary or other religious activity is not allowed."

No one cares or responds to your posts/Haftorahs

Stop Preaching/Spamming this section.

Thank you, abu afak

Religious activity is not allowed on this forum? I can understand missionary work on behalf of other religions not allowed,but the weekly parsha not allowed?
Are we not allowed to discuss judaism???
What do the moderators say?
BTW Abu....no one cares? I do.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by frizzer1
Religious activity is not allowed on this forum? I can understand missionary work on behalf of other religions not allowed,but the weekly parsha not allowed?
Are we not allowed to discuss judaism???
What do the moderators say?
BTW Abu....no one cares? I do.

I think the prohibition is on proselytizing and religious "activity," not discussing.

If D. Abraham posted the above for discussion, that's fine. If it was posted as a one-way communication, it could be a problem.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
I think the prohibition is on proselytizing and religious "activity," not discussing.

If D. Abraham posted the above for discussion, that's fine. If it was posted as a one-way communication, it could be a problem.

Posting Regular Haftorim Is "religous acivity".
It is not discussing Judaism or Islam, but posting Sermons/Preaching.

And indeed, his Haftorim Never get responses,
(http://www.israelforum.com/board/search.php3?s=&action=showresults&searchid=76442&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending),
like the great majority of his the other posts.

It not only violates the spirit of the rule, but violates it specifically.
(andak's obligatory objection to any of my posts notwithstanding... in fact,
andak's objection to anything, being instead proof of that very thing)

[frizzer1]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
I think the prohibition is on proselytizing and religious "activity," not discussing.

If D. Abraham posted the above for discussion, that's fine. If it was posted as a one-way communication, it could be a problem.

Even if it was posted as a "one way communication", I don't understand what the problem would be.
Why would the mods or the members object to a presentation of the parsha? And even if the poster was attempting to steer jews to a better understanding of Torah, or judaism itself, why would someone be offended.
If anyone wanted to discuss why he/she is an athiest or agnostic, what harm would that do either?
I really don't get it..especially in a jewish board.
I don't want christians or muslims coming here and proselytising, but jews???

[abu afak]

Originally posted by frizzer1
If anyone wanted to discuss why he/she is an athiest or agnostic, what harm would that do either?.....
....I don't want christians or muslims coming here and proselytising, but jews???

You have inadvertently affirmed the problem/Blindness.

Not only do the Rules apply to Everyone, but this guy draws NO responses with/becuase-of his Boring Sermons (or even most of his other stuff); occasionally even spanning 2 or 3 whole 10,000 character posts.

This is not someone explaining why he is a Jew. (or an Atheist)
This is someone mindlessly and regularly putting the same Rabbis Sermons without comment.

[frizzer1]

Originally posted by abu afak
Posting Regular Haftorim Is "religous acivity".
It is not discussing Judaism or Islam, but posting Sermons/Preaching.

And indeed, his Haftorim Never get responses,
(http://www.israelforum.com/board/search.php3?s=&action=showresults&searchid=76442&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending),
like the great majority of his the other posts.

It not only violates the spirit of the rule, but violates it specifically.
(andak's obligatory objection to any of my posts notwithstanding... in fact,
andak's objection to anything, being instead proof of that very thing)

If this board was set up to be for political discussion only, with no religious activity or discussions allowed,then I would understand your point.
Is that the case? If so, why have a religion section at all?
As to posting the haftorah...perhaps you have a point by using the term "regular"posting.
But surely you know that the weekly parsha is not merely read.It is dissected and discussed, with opinions varying on what the meanings may be.
The parsha itself is not a sermon.The discussions of the parsha may be used as a sermon.The whole idea is to discuss..and debate it..not merely to present it as dogma.
FYI I am not shomer shabbat..as you can see by the time it is now & here I am.

I am curious as to why you seem to be so upset by his posting? Is it because the board was indeed meant to be political only, and you don;t want to see it become a place for the religious to come & missionize?
Or are you offended by any religious activity?
I'm not attempting to insult you ..I'm just curious..and frankly a little astonished by your complaint.

BTW...you don't like andak...fine...your choice...but why drag him into this...?All he said was that he found these posts informative. Last I heard that wasn't a crime.

[frizzer1]

Originally posted by abu afak
You have inadvertently affirmed the problem/Blindness.

Not only do the Rules apply to Everyone, but this guy draws NO responses with/becuase-of his Boring Sermons (or even most of his other stuff); occasionally even spanning 2 or 3 whole 10,000 character posts.

This is not someone explaining why he is a Jew. (or an Atheist)
This is someone mindlessly and regularly putting the same Rabbis Sermons without comment.

Ok..I understand your position.But I am interested in discussion of the parsha..I always like to learn..so if I respond to his post..and he answers me,would you withdraw your objection?
If he simply posts and disappears..never taking part in a discussion of it, then I do see your objection,although I get the feeling that there is more to your objections.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by frizzer1
If this board was set up to be for political discussion only, with no religious activity or discussions allowed,then I would understand your point.
Is that the case? If so, why have a religion section at all?
As to posting the haftorah...perhaps you have a point by using the term "regular"posting.
But surely you know that the weekly parsha is not merely read.It is dissected and discussed, with opinions varying on what the meanings may be.
The parsha itself is not a sermon.The discussions of the parsha may be used as a sermon.The whole idea is to discuss..and debate it..not merely to present it as dogma.
FYI I am not shomer shabbat..as you can see by the time it is now & here I am.

I am curious as to why you seem to be so upset by his posting? Is it because the board was indeed meant to be political only, and you don;t want to see it become a place for the religious to come & missionize?
Or are you offended by any religious activity?
I'm not attempting to insult you ..I'm just curious..and frankly a little astonished by your complaint.

BTW...you don't like andak...fine...your choice...but why drag him into this...?All he said was that he found these posts informative. Last I heard that wasn't a crime.

Andak will respond to virtually any post I make with the Contra side. Period.
especially in regards religion.

As I have shown, No one, including andak or you, has Ever Responded to his Haftorim.. Ever.. in months.

Now you cry like your rights to discuss religion are being abridged? Wrong.

I and others DO regularly Discuss religion here.
I Probably have as many posts as anyone in this Section
I do not object to discussing religion.
(as I already said in my last post)
The above poster is Not doing so, he is Mindlessly preaching by proxy/Link, and doing so to an obviously Completely unresponsive audience.

You would think with the lack of response he draws, he would have the sense to stop Spamming us already.

[D.Abraham]

Abu,

I'm sorry I upset you with sharing my love of my families traditon, my heritage and ultimately G-d Himself. I place these posts on here to be either to be briefly looked at, learned from, deeply learned from and even ignored -especially by other "Israeli's" -Jews. Who are you to decide what should be put upon the face of this forum? Who gave you control or the ultimate say? Is it bad? -Do the words scare you or do they threaten you or anyone reading these forwards? Maybe we should ask the moderators like Medio or Newsguy? Or better yet, why don't you ask Michael C.. He'll tell you how it is in a free country and in more over in a free forum for one to expressd what he or she deems is relevant, important or worthy of sharing. Perhaps nobody likes hearing from you especially when it is negative? Do any of us as human beings appreciate being ridiculed, picked on, isolated, made fun of? Tell me honestly deep in your hearts is that a good trait for us all to esteem to? Perhaps it would be more appropriate for you to start your own website forum whereby you can control what is said and cater to your particular strong viewpoints whatever those may be.....

D. Abraham
My goal was to share these stories and lessons with love that is all. Anyone can interprete them or disconnect with them in anyway they see fit even your protest. But then again why be mean?

[D.Abraham]

Thanks Andak my Muslim brother. I'm very proud to have you as a friend. And I'd like to thank my egnostic friends at my side too. Who have good common sense.

Love your loyal friend, Darin A.

Let's all not foget that history teaches all of us lessons. No matter your side of choosing. Morever, ALL of the problems that exist in the mideast particularly those of Israel which this forum "claims to be" -are ALL stemming from the beliefs and history of those beliefs, -essentially religion if you please. It includes to this day and probably until the "end-of-days" as we know it- ALL those involved, Arab, Israeli and the many nations of the world who have their hands in this place known as Israel. Everything on this forum ultimately is the result of the texts of the Torah, the prophets, the Patriarchs, the rabbinical interpretations that have ultimetely lead to the birth of Christianity, Catholosism and Islam. Essentially the "word of G-d" is the start of this. Might the beginning explains the end some day? Maybe America and it's Declaration of Independence and it's Constitution would have never come into being if it were not for those original words from G-d during the patriarchial days of anscient Israel as it is said? "Inalienable rights given by the Creator".... Something to think about.... Maybe some of us need to go read the backs of our American dollars as reminder to see the words which still, thankfully, define this great nation -the U.S.A.. Let's hope we never see a terrible and frightening change in our most basic roots and beliefs which brought about the ratification of our bless-ed American doctrines. Do any of us remember the history lessons of the fall of Rome or the Ottoman Empire...?

[abu afak]

Originally posted by D.Abraham
Abu,

I'm sorry I upset you with sharing my love of my families traditon, my heritage and ultimately G-d Himself. I place these posts on here to be either to be briefly looked at, learned from, deeply learned from and even ignored -especially by other "Israeli's" -Jews. Who are you to decide what should be put upon the face of this forum? Who gave you control or the ultimate say? Is it bad? -Do the words scare you or do they threaten you or anyone reading these forwards? Maybe we should ask the moderators like Medio or Newsguy? Or better yet, why don't you ask Michael C.. He'll tell you how it is in a free country and in more over in a free forum for one to expressd what he or she deems is relevant, important or worthy of sharing. Perhaps nobody likes hearing from you especially when it is negative? Do any of us as human beings appreciate being ridiculed, picked on, isolated, made fun of? Tell me honestly deep in your hearts is that a good trait for us all to esteem to? Perhaps it would be more appropriate for you to start your own website forum whereby you can control what is said and cater to your particular strong viewpoints whatever those may be.....

D. Abraham
My goal was to share these stories and lessons ...

I am Just a poster and I do Not ultimately decide what is put here.
Otherwise I Would have stopped this spamming earlier.

Who are you to say I cannot post my Opinion about what is put here?

I can, however, show that what you have been posting, these "lessons"/Sermons and "Sharing the love of your G-d himself" is Religous Testimony Is forbidden under the Rules of the Forum, which expressedly say 'Prosletyzing and "religous activity".

Posting weekly Sermons from your local Rabbi is doing Just that (reaching by Proxy), and I'm sure we all would not want the same done with/from the faiths of the other posters here. (Christian, Muslim, Hindu), and that is what the rules are trying to prevent.

You are quite free to hold up your "Jewish John 3:16" sign wherever you like-- but as far as I can see, It's forbidden here; and as I've shown, the Haftorahs have not drawn a single response. Not one in Months!
Perhaps and therefore, it is You who should open another board ('DiscussJudaism.com"?).

[Donna]

Usually, I do read Darin's posts. While I don't ever post a question, or respond, I do enjoy reading them and I think about them.

I do understand about rules applying to everyone and that's part of why I'm posting with my eyes shut; I don't want to offend Abu, whom I admire and respect very much. But I also don't want to not support Darin, because I respect and admire him as well.

:( :(

[Lowell]

Originally posted by abu afak
You have inadvertently affirmed the problem/Blindness.

Not only do the Rules apply to Everyone, but this guy draws NO responses with/becuase-of his Boring Sermons (or even most of his other stuff); occasionally even spanning 2 or 3 whole 10,000 character posts.

This is not someone explaining why he is a Jew. (or an Atheist)
This is someone mindlessly and regularly putting the same Rabbis Sermons without comment.

I really don't see any problem. Parsha are beautiful in and of themselves, and D. Abraham is not proselytizing- he is Jewish, after all. I. too. read his threads and I find most every one interesting even though I generally do not post. There is nothing wrong with posting religious commentary in the Religion section providing that the intent is not to proselytize- and I don't think this is D. Abraham's intent since he does not compare Judaism favorably with other religions, nor does he criticize other beliefs. Of course he does not add his comments to those of the wise rabbi he respects- would a student studying the calculus attempt to add annotation to the formulas of Einstein? Similarly, D. Abraham posts this rabbi in order to deepen his own understanding of the nuances of thinking of a greater mind.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Lowell
I really don't see any problem. Parsha are beautiful in and of themselves, and D. Abraham is not proselytizing- he is Jewish, after all. I. too. read his threads and I find most every one interesting even though I generally do not post. There is nothing wrong with posting religious commentary in the Religion section providing that the intent is not to proselytize- and I don't think this is D. Abraham's intent since he does not compare Judaism favorably with other religions, nor does he criticize other beliefs. Of course he does not add his comments to those of the wise rabbi he respects- would a student studying the calculus attempt to add annotation to the formulas of Einstein? Similarly, D. Abraham posts this rabbi in order to deepen his own understanding of the nuances of thinking of a greater mind.

I didn't say he was prosletyzing per se.

Board Rules don't just Bar 'Prosletyzing' (Yes, even by Jews Lowell), they bar other 'Religous activity'.

I see you didn't choose (Nor has, or can anyone) to answer my other points in other posts that this is, by the posters own admission, Religous Testimonial/"Sharing his love of G-d", of the type that would not be allowed by other posters of other religions.

... and that despite the Token 30 word reply you just made to his 3 post-spanning 30,000 character, Religous extravaganza, they are drawing no response.

Edit 10/8 10:08PM.. that after-the-fact reply to and old DAbraham posts as if to show interest, is really cyncical argument and tactics.

[Communication]

You know, I remember reading somewhere in the Gemara about two rabbis who were debating how the Jewish people would come to be redeemed. One rabbi said...wait, I have it...it comes in the form of dicta having been transmitted in the names of R. Johanan b. Zakkai's disciples and the debate was between R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus and R. Joshua. The dispute comes down to us in two versions:

R Eliezer said: If Israel repent, they will be redeemed, but if not, they will not be redeemed. Said R. Joshua to him: If they do not repent, they will not be redeemed? Nay, the Holy One, blessed be He, will raise up for them a king whose decrees will be as brutal as those of Haman, and (in consequence), Israel will repent, and he will thus bring them back to the right path.

So according to R. Eliezer, redemption is not an eschatological act. Redemption is dependent on repentance, and there is no fixed time. Still, R. Joshua doesn't sever the act of repentance as a precondition for redemption of the Jewish people. It's hard to imagine in these times of disbelief, the Jewish people involved in a serious widespread undertaking of national repentance. It also seems hard to believe that times could get any worse for Israel, but it is quite possible that they could.

shana tova, Darin.

[Lowell]

Originally posted by abu afak
I didn't say he was prosletyzing per se.

Board Rules don't just Bar 'Prosletyzing' (Yes, even by Jews Lowell), they bar other 'Religous activity'.

I see you didn't choose (Nor has, or can anyone) to answer my other points in other posts that this is, by the posters own admission, Religous Testimonial/"Sharing his love of G-d", of the type that would not be allowed by other posters of other religions.

... and that despite the Token 30 word reply you just made to his 3 post-spanning 30,000 character, Religous extravaganza, they are drawing no response.

Whatever the terminology I believe that D. Abraham is expressing more his love of life, l'chaim, as reflected in the selections he posts, and this, of course, derives from his love of G-d. But it does not constitute Religious Testimony per se since his selections tap into universal feelings, doubts and fears of humans and might well be expressed in the words and nuances of other religions- but D. Abraham choooses those of Judaism, the Torah and Talmud, because these are most familiar to him. In essence, however, his threads and commentaries represent not one religion's view of G-d but all views gathered through the prism of Judaism. BTW that other post was 141 words, counting 'D.' as a word, if you want to get Talmudic. :)

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Lowell
... but D. Abraham choooses those of Judaism, the Torah and Talmud, because these are most familiar to him. ..

Exactly... and if another person chose the "words most familiar to them" (ie Jesus), it would ALSO/STILL Be religous Testimony/Sermonizing, and would also/Still be prohibited by the Rules.

Despite your try at semantic chicanery Lowell.

[Lowell]

Originally posted by abu afak
Exactly... and if another person chose the "words most familiar to them" (ie Jesus), it would ALSO/STILL Be religous Testimony/Sermonizing, and would also/Still be prohibited by the Rules.

Despite your try at semantic chicanery Lowell.

Semantic chicanery? Do you opine, then, that there exist no universal or archetypal human feelings, yearnings and musings that all great religions of the world attempt to address? For example, taking one religion at random, Buddhism adduces much the same intrinsic human concerns vis a vis repentance as does Judaism though, of course, couched in culturally dissimilar words and nuances:

Repent for all sins.
Rejoice over all merits.
Pleading to all Buddhas
For attaining utmost wisdom.
In the past, present and future
Honored one among humans,
Immeasurable ocean of merits,
To thee I prostrate in homage.

http://www.yogichen.org/efiles/e030.html

The three times of yearning and repentance originally represented the morning, noon, and evening liturgies in a day. There was also another exegesis of existence, emptiness, and middle-way for all. However, in the subsequent development, the three times of yearning and repentance were performed consecutively and completed at about the time of sunset. It was not set apart clearly in the morning, noon, and evening any more.

The first discourse teaches that there is no suffering but only happiness for all beings in the Most Blissful World in the West. The suffering of all beings in the saha world, the world in which we live at present, is caused by greed. The greed results from the fact that we are ignorant about our original Buddha nature. Due to greed, we thus create karma through our deeds, words, and thoughts in our life. The accumulation of karma will result in its destined consequence, which leads to an endless cycle of reincarnation...

http://www.albai.org/Buddhism%20Notes/thrice_yearning_and_repentance.htm

All sentient beings are essentially Buddhas. As with water and ice, there is no ice without water; apart from sentient beings, there are no Buddhas. Not knowing how close the truth is, we seek it far away.

--What a pity!

We are like one who in the midst of water cries out desperately in thirst. We are like the son of a rich man who wandered away among the poor...

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/song_of_zazen.htm

Does this, too, as you deem it constitute religious activity? :confused:

[abu afak]

Semantic chicanery? Do you opine, then, that there exist no universal or archetypal human feelings, yearnings and musings that all great religions of the world attempt to address?

..... and Yet more Semantic Chicanery.. yet more elaborate.
Though your post would be an interesting statement in-and-of-itself on religion,
it's no defense of preaching a specific religion here.

Please try and address the point at hand.
"Religous testimony"/Sermonizing of a type that would not be allowed from another religion.
(That's what I "opine")

Your ego is producing Disingenuity on a scale only andak has shown.
And all that needless work on Buddhist Links too.

Really a classic attempt at "if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance,
baffle them with your BS".

[Lowell]

Originally posted by abu afak
..... and Yet more Semantic Chicanery.. yet more elaborate.
Though your post would be an interesting statement in-and-of-itself on religion,
it's no defense of preaching a specific religion here.

Please try and address the point at hand.
"Religous testimony"/Sermonizing of a type that would not be allowed from another religion.
(That's what I "opine")

Your ego is producing Disingenuity on a scale only andak has shown.
And all that needless work on Buddhist Links too.

Really a classic attempt at "if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance,
baffle them with your BS".

Well, your response is evasion on an andak01 scale, for that matter. :) So is it safe to assume that were D. Abraham to post commentaries in a religious form with which he is not familiar it would no longer be 'religious testimony' in your view? It seems that the sticking point is less the content or context of commentary than a poster's familiarity with a given religion. In other words, you would object to a practicing Hindu's thread on the Hindu concept of redemption just as vociferously as you object to a Judaic interpretation, even though in neither instance is there the intent to proselytize.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Lowell
Well, your response is evasion on an andak01 scale, for that matter. :) So is it safe to assume that were D. Abraham to post commentaries in a religious form with which he is not familiar it would no longer be 'religious testimony' in your view? It seems that the sticking point is less the content or context of commentary than a poster's familiarity with a given religion....

Incorrect ...

and So Now your defense is:

"Your honor, my client grew up in a nonverbal household, where abuse and weapons were the norm, Therefore his using a Knife as a means of expression must be excused.. that's all he knew."
My objection, and "the sticking point", STILL is using the board for Testimonials and Sermonizing of any religion.

You at least came Closer to addressing it this time, but still try and incorrectly characrerize it.

(Ironically a D.Abraham string is finally getting some response.
UnIronically, it's really to my post, the Second in the string)

[andak01]

Your ego is producing Disingenuity on a scale only andak has shown.


(Ironically a D.Abraham string is finally getting some response.
UnIronically, it's really to my post, the Second in the string)

Oh yeah, Abu you are the most important part of the Repentance thread. When should we expect you to repent of your own HUGE ego?

[abu afak]

Originally posted by andak01
Oh yeah, Abu you are the most important part of the Repentance thread. When should we expect you to repent of your own HUGE ego?

Important, Not Important... My statement is accurate.

It's My reply to the very premise of the post that Is getting the response, not the subject matter of the Intial one.

You're just emabarrassing yourself lashing out wrongly because it's me.

Get a Grip.

[Lowell]

Originally posted by abu afak
Incorrect ...

and So Now your defense is:

My objection, and "the sticking point", STILL is using the board for Testimonials and Sermonizing of any religion.

You at least came Closer to addressing it this time, but still try and incorrectly characrerize it.

(Ironically a D.Abraham string is finally getting some response.
UnIronically, it's really to my post, the Second in the string)

My small point, which you overlook, is that the mere posting of religious commentary cannot be construed as 'religious activity' simply because of the content or context: there must be intent to proselytize, i.e. a deliberate attempt to sway others to a favorable view of a given religion. Merely posting commentaries that draw upon universal human themes of divinity and redemption does not alone make religious activity. To refresh your memory, from the Reminder thread:

This section covers the religious aspects of the Arab/Israeli conflict, as well as how religion has come to affect world events.
Now, how are we on this forum to discuss how religion affects world events if every religious commentary that taps into universal humanity is condemned, willy nilly, as 'religious activity'?

[andak01]

Originally posted by Lowell
Now, how are we on this forum to discuss how religion affects world events if every religious commentary that taps into universal humanity is condemned, willy nilly, as 'religious activity'?

Amen, Amen, Amen.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Lowell
My small point, which you overlook, is that the mere posting of religious commentary cannot be construed as 'religious activity' simply because of the content or context: there must be intent to proselytize, i.e. a deliberate attempt to sway others to a favorable view of a given religion. Merely posting commentaries that draw upon universal human themes of divinity and redemption does not alone make religious activity. To refresh your memory, from the Reminder thread:

I didn't overlook your point.. you keep overlooking and skating your way around mine.

He is not just posting 'Commentary" he is posting Regular Sermons and Testimonial to a specific Religion.
Something that is not necessarily Prosletyzation, (How many Times must I make this Point Lowell!) but IS the Kind of Religous Testimonial the rules are also meant to prevent and which would be stopped if a Christian did it sharing his Love for Christ, even if it didn't ask people to convert per se.

Comprende?

[Lowell]

Originally posted by abu afak
It's My reply to the very premise of the post that Is getting the response, not the subject matter of the Intial one.


Incorrect. I have been attempting to discuss the original, first, post by defining it in terms of universal or archetypal human themes, whilst you have scrupulously avoided any reference to or even recognition of these themes, other than to disparage, preferring instead to myopically focus upon the old maidenish assertion that it all constitutes unlawful religious activity. Henceforth I shall define evasion in a poster as 'on the scale of abu afak', since you have eclipsed andak01 in this art form. :)

[Lowell]

Originally posted by abu afak
I didn't overlook your point.. you keep overlooking and skating your way around mine.

He is not just posting 'Commentary" he is posting Regular Sermons and Testimonial to a specific Religion.
Something that is not necessarily Prosletyzation, (How many Times must I make this Point Lowell!) but IS the Kind of Religous Testimonial the rules are also meant to prevent and which would be stopped if a Christian did it sharing his Love for Christ, even if it didn't ask people to convert per se.

Comprende?

He draws upon the great thinkers of Judaism from hundreds of years ago to illustrate themes common to all humans of any or no religion. Such could as easily be put in terms of any or no religion.

[abu afak]

You still don't answer my point Lowell.
Skate, Obfuskate, Skate tho you will.
Look at the last page 2nd post...
Or even back on the first page
we're still there.

Plese feel free to get relevant.
(and BTW.. notice how andak confirmed my assertion that he answer/argues with virtually every post I put up in this secton.. no matter how stupid his reply.)

[Lowell]

Originally posted by abu afak
You still don't answer my point Lowell.
Skate, Obfuskate, Skate tho you will.
Look at the last page 2nd post...
Or even back on the first page
we're still there.

Plese feel free to get relevant.
(and BTW.. notice how andak confirmed my assertion that he answer/argues with virtually every post I put up in this secton.. no matter how stupid his reply.)

I am still on the first page. Must be my settings. Relevance? I fear, abu, that a Devil's Advocate has little relevance in this mundane world we inhabit. 'Tis my joy to take a side of an argument and see what I may make of it. Thus, is D. Abraham's thread religious activity? On one level, yes. On another level, however, his thread theme resonates across religions, and in that sense it transcends religion. Redemption as a theme is common to all religions, and if one strips away the words and nuances of Judaism, or uses the words and nuances of, say, Buddhism, you get the basis of my shaitanic advocacy. But this is not your argument, nor is this thread a discussion of themes common to religions... more is the pity. :)

[abu afak]

Originally posted by abu afak
You still don't answer my point Lowell.
Skate, Obfuskate, Skate tho you will.
Look at the last page 2nd post...
Or even back on the first page
we're still there.

Plese feel free to get relevant.
(and BTW.. notice how andak confirmed my assertion that he answer/argues with virtually every post I put up in this secton.. no matter how stupid his reply.)


Originally posted by Lowell
I am still on the first page. Must be my settings. Relevance? I fear, abu, that a Devil's Advocate has little relevance in this mundane world we inhabit. ...

I'll Keep that in mind professor Leary.

[Lowell]

Originally posted by abu afak
I'll Keep that in mind professor Leary.

Kindly do, it may spare me trouble in future. BTW what is the significance of your signature? I went to the site and found it abominable- the Nazi swastika on the American flag, etc. How does that circle jerk site relate to andak01?

[andak01]

It's a link, out of many thousands that I have posted. Abu presents this with ZERO context and without any link to the post that it appears in. I believe it was six or eight months ago. Even if you found the site offensive, it is not a Nazi site. The use of the Nazi logo is used as a negative, not as something to be proud of.

Abu could just as easily put in his signature.

-------------------------------------------------------
Andak is a poster that I wish to discredit by any means necessary in every single post.

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

He has a rather scary devotion to me that I find unsettling. I suppose there's no such thing as bad publicity. :rolleyes:

[Lowell]

Originally posted by andak01
It's a link, out of many thousands that I have posted. Abu presents this with ZERO context and without any link to the post that it appears in. I believe it was six or eight months ago. Even if you found the site offensive, it is not a Nazi site. The use of the Nazi logo is used as a negative, not as something to be proud of.

Abu could just as easily put in his signature.

-------------------------------------------------------
Andak is a poster that I wish to discredit by any means necessary in every single post.

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

He has a rather scary devotion to me that I find unsettling. I suppose there's no such thing as bad publicity. :rolleyes:

Well, of course, the use of a Nazi flag or any Nazi symbol, including the swastika, is always a negative, an evil. Putting a swastika on the American flag in place of the stars is meant to falsely represent the US as a Nazi regime, and is thus used by groups that hate the US. Why would you have linked to this site?

[andak01]

Originally posted by Lowell
Well, of course, the use of a Nazi flag or any Nazi symbol, including the swastika, is always a negative, an evil. Putting a swastika on the American flag in place of the stars is meant to falsely represent the US as a Nazi regime, and is thus used by groups that hate the US. Why would you have linked to this site?

I'll see if I can remember. I tried to look up the link without success. I can say that, in the past, I tried to match counter posts with counter positions. Matching that level of hatred with an equal degree of venom put me in a position that I wasn't even in agreement with. For example, if someone posts an angry Imam's anti-Semitic rantings, and I go looking for an angry Rabbi's anti-Muslim rantings, I'm either going to end up on a militant Zionist site, which isn't exemplary or an anti-Semitic site where the quotes are being used as fodder against Jews.

In that particular instance, I'm guessing that I replied to some list of human rights abuses by Muslims with a link to that site among others. To facilitate things, that's Abu's third truth, the one that deals with hypocracy. For a nation that had institutionalized slavery, ethnic cleansing of the Indians, segregated bathrooms and drinking fountains (even when I was growing up), lynchings, church burnings, high levels of homicide, gang warfare, etc. to tell other nations how to behave is hypocracy. To tell them how to behave under the shadow of missile attacks is imperialism.

Personally, I hate the Nazi analogy. It is intellectually sloppy and inaccurate. I just made note on another forum that contemporary commentators have lost their ability to make accurate analogies. In catering to their audiences woeful lack of education, they must keep going back to the only history anyone is familiar with, the Nazis.

My grandmother's generation used Greek and Latin metaphors to describe the world. Being as there were centuries of history and thousands of personalities to draw from, that allowed for a more accurate view of the world.

I wouldn't post such a link today, because I view it as sort of spreading hatred. I will no longer be party to such a thing. I don't like it when it is done to me, and I won't treat others that way.

[Lowell]

Originally posted by andak01
I'll see if I can remember. I tried to look up the link without success. I can say that, in the past, I tried to match counter posts with counter positions. Matching that level of hatred with an equal degree of venom put me in a position that I wasn't even in agreement with. For example, if someone posts an angry Imam's anti-Semitic rantings, and I go looking for an angry Rabbi's anti-Muslim rantings, I'm either going to end up on a militant Zionist site, which isn't exemplary or an anti-Semitic site where the quotes are being used as fodder against Jews.

In that particular instance, I'm guessing that I replied to some list of human rights abuses by Muslims with a link to that site among others. To facilitate things, that's Abu's third truth, the one that deals with hypocracy. For a nation that had institutionalized slavery, ethnic cleansing of the Indians, segregated bathrooms and drinking fountains (even when I was growing up), lynchings, church burnings, high levels of homicide, gang warfare, etc. to tell other nations how to behave is hypocracy. To tell them how to behave under the shadow of missile attacks is imperialism.

Personally, I hate the Nazi analogy. It is intellectually sloppy and inaccurate. I just made note on another forum that contemporary commentators have lost their ability to make accurate analogies. In catering to their audiences woeful lack of education, they must keep going back to the only history anyone is familiar with, the Nazis.

My grandmother's generation used Greek and Latin metaphors to describe the world. Being as there were centuries of history and thousands of personalities to draw from, that allowed for a more accurate view of the world.

I wouldn't post such a link today, because I view it as sort of spreading hatred. I will no longer be party to such a thing. I don't like it when it is done to me, and I won't treat others that way.

That seems a reasonable explanation of linking to that odious site, a quid pro quo of poison penning 'twixt you and abu. I'm glad you've decided to no longer indulge in that. As for the seeming hypocrisy of the US- as you know we all, men and nations, go through stages of development, and often in our younger years we may commit ugly and even criminal acts against others, but the difference is that some men and nations cease these anti-social actions, and others do not. Is it truly hypocrisy for a man or nation that has gained some wisdom to rebuke a man or nation that continues in folly? Thus, may not the US where once slavery existed but no longer does rebuke the Sudan for still enslaving people? There are other instances where the US may legitimately rebuke other nations. Is it not wrong and misguided to hate a man or nation for the wrongs done to others in younger, misguided years when the man or nation has long since ceased wronging others? Is there, in short, ever any redemption for a man or nation in the eyes of others?

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Lowell
That seems a reasonable explanation of linking to that odious site, a quid pro quo of poison penning 'twixt you and abu.

There was no "quid pro quo", except for my accidental use of a site called BNP of which I was not aware of it's origin, and well after BOTH of his usages of the site... months apart.
I never use hate sites and even objected when 'simon' used 'HinduUnity' against Islam.

Andak used the site in question Twice to my amazement, which is why I even remember it. I was truly stunned the second time as I had objected to it and pointed it out in the first, months before.

"Quid pro quo" is Also an inapt and Idiotic since the site he used was Anti-American, not anti-Jewish or Anti-Israel.
And as far as I know we are both Americans ...
well at least I am.

[Lowell]

Originally posted by abu afak
There was no "quid pro quo", except for my accidental use of a site called BNP of which I was not aware of it's origin, and well after BOTH of his usages of the site... months apart.
I never use hate sites and even objected when 'simon' used 'HinduUnity' against Islam.

Andak used the site in question Twice to my amazement, which is why I even remember it. I was truly stunned the second time as I had objected to it and pointed it out in the first, months before.

"Quid pro quo" is Also an inapt and Idiotic since the site he used was Anti-American, not anti-Jewish or Anti-Israel.
And as far as I know we are both Americans ...
well at least I am.

abu, I asked you the question, if you'll refer back a bit, andak01 merely got to it first. Since I didn't know the etiology of his linking to such a virulent site I was curious. I now know what he and you say, and I agree that 'quid pro quo' is not apt. As for idiotic, don't be too hard on me. Not by the way, I want to apologize for claiming on this thread that your 'evasion' eclipses andak01's; you weren't evading, I was. But at the time, as my tenuous hopes ran out like sand in the tide, swirled away by your resolute reason, I thought to divert you from your purpose by unworthy comparison to an apprentice of shaitan. :)

[andak01]

Originally posted by abu afak
There was no "quid pro quo", except for my accidental use of a site called BNP of which I was not aware of it's origin, and well after BOTH of his usages of the site... months apart.

If you would be so kind as to provide links, perhaps the readers could decide for themselves. Context actually DOES count for something.


I never use hate sites and even objected when 'simon' used 'HinduUnity' against Islam.

Just as your definition of what an anti-Semitic hate site and mine might differ, my definition of an Islamophobic site and yours are certain to. I find that many of your links are hateful and the sites that they connect to are often very skewed. But let me go back and try to offer some examples. BNP.org would be one of them.


Andak used the site in question Twice to my amazement, which is why I even remember it. I was truly stunned the second time as I had objected to it and pointed it out in the first, months before.

I have counted your reposts of articles as many as nine times or more. Recently you posted an article about the dangers of the Laskar Jihad movement in Indonesia that was almost two years old. Laskar Jihad has been disbanded.

How many times have you reported this single fact in your signature??????? Out of over 1700 posts, TWO contain an offensive link. WOW! Really representative.

Out of your posts, hundreds of them defame me by name and offer little more than ad homs. So what? I can take the heat, and I'm still in the kitchen. Deal with it.


"Quid pro quo" is Also an inapt and Idiotic since the site he used was Anti-American, not anti-Jewish or Anti-Israel.
And as far as I know we are both Americans ...
well at least I am.

Since none of us has any context, and I can't remember, we'll have to take your word for it.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Lowell
abu, I asked you the question, if you'll refer back a bit, andak01 merely got to it first. Since I didn't know the etiology of his linking to such a virulent site I was curious. I now know what he and you say, and I agree that 'quid pro quo' is not apt. As for idiotic, don't be too hard on me. Not by the way, I want to apologize for claiming on this thread that your 'evasion' eclipses andak01's; you weren't evading, I was. But at the time, as my tenuous hopes ran out like sand in the tide, swirled away by your resolute reason, I thought to divert you from your purpose by unworthy comparison to an apprentice of shaitan. :)

Thanks Lowell for your eloquent and generous response.
I don't think my fault here is evasion too often, if ever...
perhaps I am too confrontational at times, and was with you as well.

[Lowell]

Originally posted by abu afak
Thanks Lowell for your eloquent and generous response.
I don't think my fault here is evasion too often, if ever...
perhaps I am too confrontational at times, and was with you as well.

No problem. You do live in NYC, and 'confrontational New Yorker' is sort of redundant. ;)

[D.Abraham]

Abu,

I have to ask you a question: Are you also the "Knight Seculurian" from Armenia?

D. Abraham

Lowell, post #27 here is the correct answer. I had to think about that before I ever posted on this site, particularly this forum room.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by D.Abraham
Abu,

I have to ask you a question: Are you also the "Knight Seculurian" from Armenia?

D. Abraham


Wll I'm pretty sure Not a ""Knight Seculurian" from Armenia?"

But Maybe you can share with me and everyone else just what the heck that is????


and BTW... your welcome.
My response to your initial spamming has made this a popular string... of course it has nothing to do with any Haftorah tho.

[Lowell]

Originally posted by D.Abraham
Lowell, post #27 here is the correct answer. I had to think about that before I ever posted on this site, particularly this forum room.

Refresh my memory, please. #27... hmmm.

abu, a little credit to G-d, please. ;)

[D.Abraham]

Abu,

Well, since you aren't familiar with "Knight Seculurian" as it relates to Armenia you are off the hook so to speak. ;) For a moment I thought you were an "old pal" and rival from another forum some time ago. He went by the name "Knight S-.." when he later emailed me directly at my regular email . This was after lengthy debates at an online forum that got a fair amount of international traffic. He was Armenian and brought up Orthodox Catholic and he was also the one who originally introduced me to this forum in a sort of "bragging" kind of way. He was quite intelligent, articulate, well thought out, stringent, most definitely stubborn and had a healthy amount of pride much as you have all these same qualities.... Does anyone know who this might be or was on this forum?

Cheers, D. Abe

Oh, and by the way, everyone in a figurative round-about way - yes indeed this latter part of this post has had everything to do with the content of the haftorah.... I think some of us knowingly and unknowingly have sought forgiveness by repentance to our fellow forum buddies in the discussions.... :) And still some have not too! ;) Call it human nature I call in G-d's design in human nature! Without it imagine how we'd treat one another?

[abu afak]

Originally posted by D.Abraham
Abu,

Well, since you aren't familiar with "Knight Seculurian" as it relates to Armenia you are off the hook so to speak. ;) For a moment I thought you were an "old pal" and rival from another forum some time ago. He went by the name "Knight S-.." when he later emailed me directly at my regular email . This was after lengthy debates at an online forum that got a fair amount of international traffic. He was Armenian and brought up Orthodox Catholic and he was also the one who originally introduced me to this forum in a sort of "bragging" kind of way. He was quite intelligent, articulate, well thought out, stringent, most definitely stubborn and had a healthy amount of pride much as you have all these same qualities....
Well gee it's good to know "I'm off the hook, so to speak".
Perhaps you've made some other wrong assumptions based on even less fact... religion.



Oh, and by the way, everyone in a figurative round-about way - yes indeed this latter part of this post has had everything to do with the content of the haftorah......
You better Stiick with heavy emphasis on the " in a figurative round-about way"

Because there has been No comment whatsoever on the content of you Haftorah... and none on your other's either except for some token ones made after I had pointed out just that.

[Lowell]

Originally posted by abu afak
Because there has been No comment whatsoever on the content of you Haftorah... and none on your other's either except for some token ones made after I had pointed out just that.

Token? Puhleeze... I seriously attempted to comment on the content and substance of the thread, but of course this thread was hijacked and distorted with claims of 'spamming', etc. etc. If your posts attract so much attention, abu, how come so many of your many millions of threads languish and die a fast death... hmmm?

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Lowell
Token? Puhleeze... I seriously attempted to comment on the content and substance of the thread, but of course this thread was hijacked and distorted with claims of 'spamming', etc. etc. If your posts attract so much attention, abu, how come so many of your many millions of threads languish and die a fast death... hmmm?

Lowell you've gone from evasive to Downright Dishonest now.

There was not a single response to ANY of his Haftorah posts, including this one,
over a period of MONTHS!... MONTHS!
And now you say I "Hijacked"-/pre-empted you and you would have responded
to this one? LOFL!

Sorry Buddy That is just NOT remotely Believable.
You only even started responding to a few of his others after my criticism as well.
Yes the token ones.

Try again.
Your response is not only not credible but insultingly dishonest.

[Lowell]

Originally posted by abu afak
Lowell you've gone from evasive to Downright Dishonest now.

There was not a single response to ANY of his Haftorah posts, including this one,
over a period of MONTHS!... MONTHS!
And now you say I "Hijacked"-/pre-empted you and you would have responded
to this one? LOFL!

Sorry Buddy That is just NOT remotely Believable.
You only even started responding to a few of his others after my criticism as well.
Yes the token ones.

Try again.
Your response is not only not credible but insultingly dishonest.

Now, now... as you may notice if you'll refer back I did say that I enjoy these threads even though I generally do not post. Naturally, I could not allow the loss of threads I enjoy reading so I felt compelled to respond to both the content of this thread, redemption, and your 2nd post and subsequent in which you accused the originator of 'religious activity' and 'spamming'...how does this dual response make me evasive and dishonest? Are you the sort, abu, who deems 'In God we Trust' on coins to be religious activity?

[D.Abraham]

How does everyone on here feel about abu in your honest opinion?
Is he often rude, mean, demeaning, full of venom, has a passion to ridicule people, doesn't like to get along with anyone but himself, an angry person is my interpretation of abu. I'm sorry Lowell the comments and compliments you gave abu in private don't hold water. How many of you have had to "bow before his mighty mind and crawl away?" -Or totally agree with (to make him happy)him or else? It's my feeling he also tries to get each one of us on his level, or to bring you down to his level of discontent and unhappiness even amoungst his precieved intelligence. The man, I'm sorry to say, cannot even thank someone for crediting him or giving him an honest heartfelt compliment. Maybe someone could tell me a time when he encouraged you and made you feel welcome? I'm hoping to hear something from someone because I know this man cannot be rotten. It's not even worth the effort giving him encouragement or compliments. Does the man have any sense of humility? He immediately infers you are attacking him. We could use deductive reasoning and conclude to some measure that it is because he is angry about something and argumentative and finds no solutions only more problems. It's truly sad. He's thoughtful, articulate and well spoken... can't he lighten up a little? I've seen enough of the anger, personal attacks spewed out from his words to a great many folks on this board on my time here. I am hardly the person that will willingly go after someone personally but this man has had it coming from soemone for a long time and when the dike is reaching it's maximum level it's time to breach it.

[abu afak]

Well Gee D.Abraham, why don't we look at whose strings draw responses here.
Whose brought more information, history, articles, pictures, petitions, and good argument here.
Who posts in every section from Iraq and the I-A conflict, to Religion and Pro-Israel Petitions, From 'tackling anti-semitism' to Good photos here.

Hint: it's neither you nor Lowell.

{And I also defend/promote the causes Israel and Jews on Many boards
from all over the world, Incuding Arab (3), American (5+), European (2), India (1)...
and all while you're dishing up your pablum here}

[Lowell]

Originally posted by abu afak
Hint: it's neither you nor Lowell.

{And I also defend/promote the causes Israel and Jews on Many boards
from all over the world, Incuding Arab (3), American (5+), European (2), India (1)...
and all while you're dishing up your pablum here}

Wow. Such a web surfer. I guess the nice things I've said about abu in private were misplaced since he in public says nothing nice about me. I don't post as much, I'm evasive. I'm dishonest. Who the hell appointed abu the arbiter of others?

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Lowell
Wow. Such a web surfer. I guess the nice things I've said about abu in private were misplaced since he in public says nothing nice about me. I don't post as much, I'm evasive. I'm dishonest. Who the hell appointed abu the arbiter of others?

No one appointed me arbiter, nor was that last post directed at you, tho you were mentioned.
(I was pretty much done responding to you after catching you in an outright Lie). But..

I did however Prove my points about you being evasive and dishonest though.. Just look up.

I tried to smooth it over with you with a gracious response, and then you Go Lying about me "hijacking" Abraham's string "before you had a Chance to respond", even though you had never responded to one of them in Months.

I'm sorry buddy.. there's no way around that whopper.

You Lied.

(BTW.. who apppointed D.Abraham 'arbiter' over me?.. I await his non-response too)

[Lowell]

In Islam there seems little if any idea of repentance or redemption. This appears to be a trait that Islam attributes to other religions but doesn't recognize in itself, as far as I can gather.

The question about the Qur'ân's teachings on the Fall of man and redemption of mankind could be answered with two very short statements: 1. Although the Qur'ân contains the story of man's temptation and moral failure in Paradise, there is no Fall of man. 2. Mankind does not need redemption from sin.

http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/ab/cschirrmacher/fall.html

The Nation of Islam was founded in 1931 by Wallace D Fard. He presented himself as a Muslim prophet and preached a message of "black redemption within Islam". He claimed "the Asiatic Black Man" had been the original inhabitant of the earth...

http://www.socialistalternative.org/literature/malcolmx/ch2.html

The Buddhist, Christian and Hindu doctrines of salvation have a great deal in common. In each, the emphasis is upon liberation from sin, upon rescue from evil. In each, the objective is a return to the previous state of innocence and bliss. As sin is supposed to be inseparable from life and the phenomenal world is believed to be the abode of evil, it follows that liberation can be achieved only by renouncing the world. This doctrine appears in its purest form in Buddhism. It has been to some extent toned down in Christianity and Hinduism.

http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/Salvation/salvation.html

[D.Abraham]

I couldn't give a damn Abu. Who in their right mind would want to be" Mr. Dominant"? My interest on this forum is on a level of sharing not be-deviling people, or trompling over people in my "quest" to prove I am the greatest in some abtuse or deamining way. But in your case you might deserve it... Don't worry, I'm sure many on here realize your arrogance and may be afraid of you or respect you in some unatural way but at the same time to some degree they also acknowledge your "thoughtful, witty and provacative" -dominance.

By the way, of what religion(s), denomination, faith or philosophie(s) do your base your decisions in life on? You know where mine stem from. Many on here are willing to expose themselves and put themselves in a place of possible crucifiction. I'm not afraid to say what I believe or where my heritage comes from. It's not to prove I'm dominant here or the smartest or have all the answers but simply to prove that I'm an individual who can share issues with others, understand them, hopefully carefully analize them and then hopefully find resolve or a solution in the the latter to it. -And maybe get a few laughs or sighs on the way.

[D.Abraham]

A private message I received earlier for all to read:

From Abu:

Try and control yourself you Stupid St Bernard
I welcome intelligent comment.

However.. stalking me aroound the board with your 60 IQ posts is not constructive and a distraction from board dialogue. Of it continnues a complaint will be lodged.

YOu could at least try and keep your BS in the Religion section where you know at least something.. it nothing anyone else really cares about.

Maybe they'll open a Moutaineering and Ski-Bum section, where you could also put up something vaguely informed.

__________________
`
"So Long Folks" -- andak01 8/01/03

End of message from Abu


To look more closely at the policies concerning this board:
I quote:
"Cross-posting (posting the same content to multiple threads, or repeatedly in a single thread) is not allowed, because it is considered spamming, especially in the case of large chunks of text."

-CROSS POSTING -that is defined as hitting/posting on the many different rooms on this webpage not as outsourcing material(such as parshas from torah.org) I have previously quoted and cited. Bringing outside "clips" of material IS allowed as long as I am not "preaching" as you suggested.

Also, a note on Abu's above private message -personal attacks started with Abu against me and thus far have ended with Abu on the above private email. The policies on this board don't allow it's conduct even from within privately sent mail. My retaliatory strikes then are on an even scale.

Oh, and two more things. These haven't been my Haftorah's as you suggested but rather they are the Jewish People's Haftorah's.

The other, atleast I have a life outside of your prideful world of forums and intelligence... the mountains are a place of peace, beauty, tranquility, harmony, awesomeness and terrific invigorating exercise. Do you climb 5-12c? I'll take you out some time if you make it to the state of Washington. Really.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Lowell
In Islam there seems little if any idea of repentance or redemption. This appears to be a trait that Islam attributes to other religions but doesn't recognize in itself, as far as I can gather.

That isn't correct. The only chance we have of having our evil deeds forgiven is through God's mercy. And God's mercy shines upon those who repent.


The question about the Qur'ân's teachings on the Fall of man and redemption of mankind could be answered with two very short statements: 1. Although the Qur'ân contains the story of man's temptation and moral failure in Paradise, there is no Fall of man.

The fall of man is the responsibility of Adam as well as Eve. But there isn't the idea of original sin passed on to unborn babies. A baby is born in a state of Fitra without sin.


2. Mankind does not need redemption from sin.

You say that so easily, but such a belief would fly in the face of those who think all Muslims strive for hegemony by the sword. A better way of phrasing that would be that the stress lies in the individual.

Deeds DO count for something and so do intentions. Therefore someone who has been forced into belief cannot have intentions and their new religion doesn't count for anything. That's why there is "no compulsion" in religion.


The Nation of Islam was founded in 1931 by Wallace D Fard. He presented himself as a Muslim prophet and preached a message of "black redemption within Islam". He claimed "the Asiatic Black Man" had been the original inhabitant of the earth...

He claimed a lot of stuff. Are we talking about Islam here or NOI? NOI is a relatively small sect which does not represent the Sunni Islam that makes up 80-85% of Muslims. If you want to discuss them, we could start another thread. As you know, I'm not a big fan of Daniel Pipes, but a search of his sight does come up with some fairly informative articles about NOI. Not many people are writing about them these days.


The Buddhist, Christian and Hindu doctrines of salvation have a great deal in common. In each, the emphasis is upon liberation from sin, upon rescue from evil.

There is no rescue from evil according to Islam. We struggle with it everyday.


In each, the objective is a return to the previous state of innocence and bliss. As sin is supposed to be inseparable from life and the phenomenal world is believed to be the abode of evil, it follows that liberation can be achieved only by renouncing the world.

We have a similar concept. It is sometimes referred to as "living as a stranger" to the world. Some Sufis take this to extremes of ascetism. Sunnis adopt a more moderate path.

This struggle between the practicalities of this life and the demands of the next is central to many religions.

[Lowell]

Originally posted by andak01
That isn't correct. The only chance we have of having our evil deeds forgiven is through God's mercy. And God's mercy shines upon those who repent.



The fall of man is the responsibility of Adam as well as Eve. But there isn't the idea of original sin passed on to unborn babies. A baby is born in a state of Fitra without sin.



You say that so easily, but such a belief would fly in the face of those who think all Muslims strive for hegemony by the sword. A better way of phrasing that would be that the stress lies in the individual.

Deeds DO count for something and so do intentions. Therefore someone who has been forced into belief cannot have intentions and their new religion doesn't count for anything. That's why there is "no compulsion" in religion.



He claimed a lot of stuff. Are we talking about Islam here or NOI? NOI is a relatively small sect which does not represent the Sunni Islam that makes up 80-85% of Muslims. If you want to discuss them, we could start another thread. As you know, I'm not a big fan of Daniel Pipes, but a search of his sight does come up with some fairly informative articles about NOI. Not many people are writing about them these days.



There is no rescue from evil according to Islam. We struggle with it everyday.



We have a similar concept. It is sometimes referred to as "living as a stranger" to the world. Some Sufis take this to extremes of ascetism. Sunnis adopt a more moderate path.

This struggle between the practicalities of this life and the demands of the next is central to many religions.

Thanks, andak. As you may have gathered, I know next to nothing about the teachings of Islam or, for that matter, the teachings of Judaism. The items you responded to were from the sites I linked to below each, except for my brief comment at the top, so I cannot take responsibility for those- from now on I'll quote any comments that aren't mine. It's a start. :)

[frizzer1]

Originally posted by andak01

Deeds DO count for something and so do intentions. Therefore someone who has been forced into belief cannot have intentions and their new religion doesn't count for anything. That's why there is "no compulsion" in religion.


My understanding is that good deeds and intentions are not enough for someone to enter Heaven.
That only submission to Allah and thus acceptance of islam will gain you admission.

[D.Abraham]

Does anyone second the motion that if some of us.. o.k all of us, just had a basic understanding of anothers beliefs we might become wiser in to how to live with them and possible go so far as loving them -as individuals in your neighborhood, perhaps even segmented or majority groups in the world at large around us?

Past that, even in the event that a belief, a faith teaches moral codes that "may" or "appear" to infringe on another in some way, or could infringe down the road, can't we here as forum members be willing to open our minds and hearts to atleast hear out and allow for those willing to share their beliefs so as to understand the greater question of "WHY" the world behaves as it does? -Particularly in the events surrounding Israel and the Middle East. Wouldn't it be wrong and ignorant for us to smuther or shut down the most basic and fundemental logics,- reasons for the current and historical events? -Religion and it's literal literature and it's interpretation and motivation has EVERYTHING to do with events in Israel. Matter of fact, most anywhere in the world. Israel would not exist today in our modern times if it were not for the religious mission of Herzel and the Zionist thought pattern. By not allowing ourselves to fall into a conundrum of stereotypical thought patterns and behaviors regarding our interpretations of a religion or belief we allow ourselves the opportunity to gain insight and wisdom as to "WHY" things have happenned as they have in the past, why they may exist as they now do -and ultimetely where we are heading in the future.

[andak01]

Originally posted by frizzer1
My understanding is that good deeds and intentions are not enough for someone to enter Heaven.
That only submission to Allah and thus acceptance of islam will gain you admission.

There is a verse in Surah Maidah, verse 69 which says:

5:69
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

I think that we can show an intolerance towards our own actions without extending that intolerance to others. Since we cannot know what is in the hearts of others, it isn't our place to judge them. Yes it is true, Muslims are taught that non-believers are going to Hell as Christians are taught that Muslims and others are going to Hell. But in reality, we don't know how God will judge people in the end. We can only be responsible for our own souls, not those of others. Taking on that responsibility is a disrespect and lack of faith in Gods wisdom and mercy.

[frizzer1]

Originally posted by andak01
There is a verse in Surah Maidah, verse 69 which says:

5:69
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

I think that we can show an intolerance towards our own actions without extending that intolerance to others. Since we cannot know what is in the hearts of others, it isn't our place to judge them. Yes it is true, Muslims are taught that non-believers are going to Hell as Christians are taught that Muslims and others are going to Hell. But in reality, we don't know how God will judge people in the end. We can only be responsible for our own souls, not those of others. Taking on that responsibility is a disrespect and lack of faith in Gods wisdom and mercy.

The problem I have is that for every verse like the one you quoted,there is another saying something completely different.
I mean no disrespect to you or Islam, Andak, but it seems to me that there is a schizophrenic quality to all this.
How do non muslims reconcile the different quotes from the Qu'ran? Please don't ask me for specifics..I don't have the verses, but I've seen many of them posted on muslim forums.
I do know that there are muslims calling for a sort of reformation of Islam, and others who say that is heresy.
All I know is that the more I study Islam, the more confused I get.
I hope that by now you know me well enough to accept my apology if this has offended you in any way.

[andak01]

Originally posted by frizzer1
The problem I have is that for every verse like the one you quoted,there is another saying something completely different.
I mean no disrespect to you or Islam, Andak, but it seems to me that there is a schizophrenic quality to all this.
How do non muslims reconcile the different quotes from the Qu'ran? Please don't ask me for specifics..I don't have the verses, but I've seen many of them posted on muslim forums.

I seen them posted again and again and again and again. I collected them all. There are some 40 or 50 verses in the batch, out of over 6000 verses. That is, of 6000 verses, 40 or 50 taken out of connotation CAN be interpreted negatively. These 40 or 50 come almost entirely from just three or four Surahs.

You can also go to the Bible and find at least that many. Read the book of Joshua for example.


I do know that there are muslims calling for a sort of reformation of Islam, and others who say that is heresy.
All I know is that the more I study Islam, the more confused I get.
I hope that by now you know me well enough to accept my apology if this has offended you in any way.

I have tears in my eyes. Someone is apologizing to me for a change. Apologies back at you. My skin is thicker than that by now.

It seems that nobody is really studying Islam at all, but only the aspect known as jihad. When Muslims study Islam, we spend a good deal of time with the central concept of Tawhid or monotheism.

The first words and the last words that a Muslim says are the Shahadatan, Ashadu an la illa Allah, was ashadu anna Muhammadan rasooluhu wa abduhu. I swear that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is a messenger and a servant of Allah. Reciting those words with proper intention makes one a Muslim and reciting them prior to ones death allows a Muslim time in Paradise. Understanding the full implications of one God, prophethood and submission is everything worth knowing about Islam. The rest of Islam is a mnemonic device subserviant to the concept of Islamic monotheism.

We say shahada as a declaration that we recognize Allah and Allah only.
We pray so that we can remind ourselves that we are Allah's servants.
We give zakat to the poor, because to treat them badly is to forget Allah's blessings and to hold ourselves above them.
We fast to remind ourselves how easily Allah's blessings can be taken from us.
We make the pilgrimage of Hadj in honor of the prophets who did the same back to prophet Abraham (SAW).

Muslims proselytize and some become zealots and force conversions. Christians proselytize and thousands have been killed when they became zealots. Forced conversion is neither a tenet of Islam or of Christianity. Someone forced to convert cannot have intent and intention is key to attaining Paradise, without it, we are mere automatons.

"He who believes in God and the Last Day should honour his guest, should not harm his neighbour, should speak good or keep quiet." (Bukhari, Muslim)

"Whoever hurts a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys God." (Bukhari)

"He who hurts a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state, I am his adversary, and I shall be his adversary on the Day of a Judgement." (Bukhari)

"Beware on the Day of Judgement; I shall mysefl be complainant against him who wrongs a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state or lays on him a responsibility greater than he can bear or deprives him of anything that belongs to him." (Al-Mawardi)

"Anyone who kills a Non-Muslim who had become our ally will not smell the fragrance of Paradise." (Bukhari)

[D.Abraham]

Originally posted by andak01



I have tears in my eyes. Someone is apologizing to me for a change. Apologies back at you. My skin is thicker than that by now. )[/i] [/B]

Yes, that is true.


Originally posted by andak01

It seems that nobody is really studying Islam at all, but only the aspect known as jihad. When Muslims study Islam, we spend a good deal of time with the central concept of Tawhid or monotheism.)[/i] [/B]

Also true to many measures


Originally posted by andak01

The first words and the last words that a Muslim says are the Shahadatan, Ashadu an la illa Allah, was ashadu anna Muhammadan rasooluhu wa abduhu. I swear that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is a messenger and a servant of Allah. Reciting those words with proper intention makes one a Muslim and reciting them prior to ones death allows a Muslim time in Paradise. Understanding the full implications of one God, prophethood and submission is everything worth knowing about Islam. The rest of Islam is a mnemonic device subserviant to the concept of Islamic monotheism. )[/i] [/B]

"Shema Israel Adonai Elohenu Adonai Echad"

Hear O' Israel the Lord our G-d, the L-rd is One!"