The Rabbi's response to Ann's "Perfected" comment

[Donald Isler]

I agree with Saul's description of Pizza.

[Sapphire]

I'll be happy to speak at the CMG idiots convention. You'll be the only member of the audience.

You've been stalking Saul and taking cheap shots at him since he came on this board. Your reason is obvious. He's Jewish and he's outspoken -- a combination you can't abide. You just tried to have him "gagged" for doing precisely what you've been doing. The big-mouth is on your face, not mine.

I welcome a review of the Wagner thread and the empty headed nonsense you spouted, including your absurd, meaningless ad hominem attacks on well-known scholars who advanced theories, supported by uncontroverted evidence, that contradicted the dogma of hard-core Wagnerites such as yourself and your disgusting, vile pal dzalman/AC Douglas, or whatever his name is. Your having come off as baked do-do was a generous understatement; the do-do wasn't even half-baked.

You are 100% wrong on all this.

I have not "stalked" Saul. Unlike several others, I ignored most of his stupid rants. I had never discussed his banning in any shape or form, before the public reference by Corlyss. I do not know who comprised the Committee of the Outraged but I had nothing whatsover to do with any aspect of it. Admin can confirm this.

I do not know, and have never had any previous or subsequent encounter with, or discussion or correspondence of any description, with David Zalman. My first and only encounter with him was on the Wagner thread as he attempted to deal with some of the Anti-Wagner dross, and evidently false accusation on other matters made against him. The nonsense spouted by you in particular was painful both in its ignorance and blinkered bias.

Your views on Wagner's music are extreme, pernicious and all based on completely ridiculous and baseless analysis by discredited authors.


Sapphire

[SaulChanukah]

I'll be happy to speak at the CMG idiots convention. You'll be the only member of the audience.

You've been stalking Saul and taking cheap shots at him since he came on this board. Your reason is obvious. He's Jewish and he's outspoken -- a combination you can't abide. You just tried to have him "gagged" for doing precisely what you've been doing. The big-mouth is on your face, not mine.

I welcome a review of the Wagner thread and the empty headed nonsense you spouted, including your absurd, meaningless ad hominem attacks on well-known scholars who advanced theories, supported by uncontroverted evidence, that contradicted the dogma of hard-core Wagnerites such as yourself and your disgusting, vile pal dzalman/AC Douglas, or whatever his name is. Your having come off as baked do-do was a generous understatement; the do-do wasn't even half-baked.

You are 100% wrong all all this.

I have not "stalked" Saul. Unlike several others, I ignored most of his stupid rants.

Sapphire

I didn't read this one, I have just ignored it and dismissed it as a "Stupid Rant", Sapphire. At the moment I'm not even reffering to you, because I am ignoring you. I dont even take the time to type this small response to you, Its pointless. Most of the time I ignore your posts, even though I read almost everyone of them. I don't even know that you are a member here, because I am ignoring you, and read your posts and think how to respond to them. I am good at ignoring people like you, I achieve it, by writing well crafted arguments that only gets you up in arms calling people "Stupid". Let me just remind you that at this very moment I am ignoring you and Im not typing any response to you, even this particular one.

With Ignoring Wishes,

Saul

[pizza]

I'll be happy to speak at the CMG idiots convention. You'll be the only member of the audience.

You've been stalking Saul and taking cheap shots at him since he came on this board. Your reason is obvious. He's Jewish and he's outspoken -- a combination you can't abide. You just tried to have him "gagged" for doing precisely what you've been doing. The big-mouth is on your face, not mine.

I welcome a review of the Wagner thread and the empty headed nonsense you spouted, including your absurd, meaningless ad hominem attacks on well-known scholars who advanced theories, supported by uncontroverted evidence, that contradicted the dogma of hard-core Wagnerites such as yourself and your disgusting, vile pal dzalman/AC Douglas, or whatever his name is. Your having come off as baked do-do was a generous understatement; the do-do wasn't even half-baked.

You are 100% wrong all all this.

I have not "stalked" Saul. Unlike several others, I ignored most of his stupid rants. I had never discussed his banning in any shape or form, before the public reference by Corlyss. I do not know who comprised the Committee of the Outraged but I had nothing whatsover to do with any aspect of it. Admin can confirm this.

I do not know, and have never had any encounter or discussion or correspondence of any description with David Zalman. My first and last encounter with him was on the Wagner thread as he attempted to deal with some of the Anti-Wagner dross, and evidently false accusation on other matters made against him. The nonsense spouted by you in particular was painful both in its ignorance and blinkered bias.

Your views on Wagner's music are extreme, pernicious and all based on completely ridiculous and baseless analysis by discredited authors.


Sapphire

In reverse order, the problem is that nobody you could or did mention discredited Marc Weiner or Larry Solomon, two well known scholars other than yourself and your vile, disgusting pal, with the usual empty and personal attacks. The only one discredited was you. I pointed out the lack of contradicting evidence at least a half-dozen times and requested something concrete, all to no avail. As I said before, I welcome a review of that thread, and I'll be happy to re-engage you or any other hard-core Wagnerite in a rematch.

A simple review of your posts reveals that you take practically every opportunity possible to interject a cheap, vile and insulting shot at Saul in any thread dealing with Jews, Judaism, Israel or anti-Semitism, despite your disingenuous claim that you have no interest in these subjects. It is you who are obsessed, not the "lobby". Look it up for yourself.

[absinthe]

[
I didn't read this one, I have just ignored it and dismissed it as a "Stupid Rant", Sapphire. At the moment I'm not even reffering to you, because I am ignoring you. I dont even take the time to type this small response to you, Its pointless. Most of the time I ignore your posts, even though I read almost everyone of them. I don't even know that you are a member here, because I am ignoring you, and read your posts and think how to respond to them. I am good at ignoring people like you, I achieve it, by writing well crafted arguments that only gets you up in arms calling people "Stupid". Let me just remind you that at this very moment I am ignoring you and Im not typing any response to you, even this particular one.
Saul

Can I just get this straight? Are you ignoring Sapphire?

[SaulChanukah]

[
I didn't read this one, I have just ignored it and dismissed it as a "Stupid Rant", Sapphire. At the moment I'm not even reffering to you, because I am ignoring you. I dont even take the time to type this small response to you, Its pointless. Most of the time I ignore your posts, even though I read almost everyone of them. I don't even know that you are a member here, because I am ignoring you, and read your posts and think how to respond to them. I am good at ignoring people like you, I achieve it, by writing well crafted arguments that only gets you up in arms calling people "Stupid". Let me just remind you that at this very moment I am ignoring you and Im not typing any response to you, even this particular one.
Saul

Can I just get this straight? Are you ignoring Sapphire?

It was a poetic Joke.

[DavidRoss]

So you think calling someone "thick as a brick" is a neutral comment? Interesting. What would your mother have said about such behavior? Nevermind. Look, don't behave like a troll. I think you and perhaps others are trying to bait Saul into a confrontation so a Committee of the Outraged can then go to Lance and insist that he be at least suspended if not banned. It's happened before. If you'd come to me with your complaints and Saul had done no more than he has here, I would have told you that you were just as likely to get wrapped on the knuckles as Saul. I don't want it to happen again because Saul is not slanging offensive epithets at any of you. So be forewarned: if it continues, I'll just come behind you and delete your posts. You want to slang, do it in a PM or an email, not here. Got it?

Well, yes, Corlyss, I did think it a neutral comment--a simple statement of fact with voluminous substantiating evidence available on this board alone. But I will henceforth refrain from offering unflattering observations about Saul or anyone else here. Is it too much to ask that everyone be held to the same standard?

As for baiting Saul and the Committee of the Outraged, etc. : Far from it. I would not like to see Saul or anyone else banned. I actually like Saul. He is a sweet, good-natured innocent, forthright and guileless, and there is voluminous evidence supporting that assessment here, as well. What's more, I admire his earnestness and his commitment to his faith. I'm not offended by his constant proselytizing here and elsewhere. I learned long ago to just scroll past his posts, not because I'm offended by their intent, but simply because the content is predictable and rarely of interest.

In this case, however, I was intrigued and then amused by the monumental hypocrisy of his and others' attacks on Coulter. I have not been trying to bait him or anyone, but simply trying to penetrate their prejudices and help them to discover that the source of their "outrage" lies in themselves, not in Coulter's comments. And I see that as a service. There certainly is anti-Semitism in the world and it merits outrage. I think they would better serve themselves and their cause if they stopped calling the sheepdog a wolf.

Finally, I have no complaints to lobby with Lance or you or anyone. I've never petitioned for anyone's dismissal. If someone annoys me enough, I just ignore their posts. If the climate of the board irritates me, I just stay away for awhile. As for the Committee of the Outraged, whoever they may be, the whole idea strikes me as hilarious, especially in the case of Saul, who seems but a sweet, innocent soul trying as best he can to walk the path he believes his faith requires. It would be nice if he could find it in his heart to give others the same benefit of the doubt, instead of pouncing to damn for any imagined transgression, but that's between him and his God.

[DavidRoss]

In reverse order, the problem is that nobody you could or did mention discredited Marc Weiner or Larry Solomon, two well known scholars other than yourself and your vile, disgusting pal, with the usual empty and personal attacks. The only one discredited was you. I pointed out the lack of contradicting evidence at least a half-dozen times and requested something concrete, all to no avail. As I said before, I welcome a review of that thread, and I'll be happy to re-engage you or any other hard-core Wagnerite in a rematch.

Pizza, is this in reference to a thread several months ago in which Douglas and others claimed there was no anti-Semitism in Wagner's works? If so, I vaguely remember that. Douglas, as usual, seemed blind to the obvious and impervious to reason--a condition not uncommon to diehard Wagnerites, who remind me of no one so much as Star Trek fans--"Trekkies"--but without a sense of humor.

It's nice to see Marc Weiner mentioned. He was a friend and colleague in a former life--a formidable scholar and a heck of a nice guy with a wicked sense of humor.

[pizza]

In reverse order, the problem is that nobody you could or did mention discredited Marc Weiner or Larry Solomon, two well known scholars other than yourself and your vile, disgusting pal, with the usual empty and personal attacks. The only one discredited was you. I pointed out the lack of contradicting evidence at least a half-dozen times and requested something concrete, all to no avail. As I said before, I welcome a review of that thread, and I'll be happy to re-engage you or any other hard-core Wagnerite in a rematch.

Pizza, is this in reference to a thread several months ago in which Douglas and others claimed there was no anti-Semitism in Wagner's works? If so, I vaguely remember that. Douglas, as usual, seemed blind to the obvious and impervious to reason--a condition not uncommon to diehard Wagnerites, who remind me of no one so much as Star Trek fans--"Trekkies"--but without a sense of humor.

It's nice to see Marc Weiner mentioned. He was a friend and colleague in a former life--a formidable scholar and a heck of a nice guy with a wicked sense of humor.

Yes, that's the one. It's full of bluster, epithets and other personal attacks on those who advanced the claim that anti-Semitism existed in some of Wagner's works. Even Mahler and one of his contemporaries who recognized it received the hard-core "treatment", albeit minus the personal slurs. But of course, when constantly prodded to do so, these folk offered nothing whatsoever of any substance to contradict the evidence.

[Sapphire]

In reverse order, the problem is that nobody you could or did mention discredited Marc Weiner or Larry Solomon, two well known scholars other than yourself and your vile, disgusting pal, with the usual empty and personal attacks. The only one discredited was you. I pointed out the lack of contradicting evidence at least a half-dozen times and requested something concrete, all to no avail. As I said before, I welcome a review of that thread, and I'll be happy to re-engage you or any other hard-core Wagnerite in a rematch.

Pizza, is this in reference to a thread several months ago in which Douglas and others claimed there was no anti-Semitism in Wagner's works? If so, I vaguely remember that. Douglas, as usual, seemed blind to the obvious and impervious to reason--a condition not uncommon to diehard Wagnerites, who remind me of no one so much as Star Trek fans--"Trekkies"--but without a sense of humor.

It's nice to see Marc Weiner mentioned. He was a friend and colleague in a former life--a formidable scholar and a heck of a nice guy with a wicked sense of humor.

Yes, that's the one. It's full of bluster, epithets and other personal attacks on those who advanced the claim that anti-Semitism existed in some of Wagner's works. Even Mahler and one of his contemporaries who recognized it received the hard-core "treatment", albeit minus the personal slurs. But of course, when constantly prodded to do so, these folk offered nothing whatsoever of any substance to contradict the evidence.

What a peculiar memory you have, Pizza. On the contrary, all this was discussed at the time and it was you who came off looking worse for wear.

The arguments you advanced, based largely on the work of Solomon, fell for several reasons:

• (i) You could not provide any form of counterfactual to compare Wagner’s art-works against one free of alleged anti-Semitic material, given the general standards for such works of the time.
  
  (ii) You failed to provide any evidence that Wagner intended his operas to be used as vehicles for racist attacks on Jews. You were prompted several times for this and yet you who could not provide one scrap of any evidence of intent on the part of Wagner. Even the much quoted reference to Mahler’s view in one instance turned out to be largely a damp squib if you had read the Mahler quote properly, which you clearly hadn’t done so.
  
  (iii) As was repeatedly pointed to you, Wagner’s musical art-works are so rich that anyone who is determined to find odd bits anti-Semitic evidence will likely find it, but if so it does not mean that it provides proof that anti-Semitic of intent was in any way the central feature or purpose of that art-work.
  
  (iv) As was also pointed out to you, Wagner came under philosophical influences such that he was not just anti-Jew, but anti-Christian as well, and in fact became more and more anti-people in general. You had trouble understanding this, I recall. Solomon’s analysis did not attempt to rationalise these influences, but instead was extremely naïve, based entirely on assorted trivia relating e.g. to voice sounds of mythological nibelungs etc. It was completely laughable in its naivety.

When these arguments and questions were put to you, all you did was evade them by raising yet further smokescreens of obfuscation. And when you were reminded of your evasiveness, it was you who lashed out with claims of being subject to an ad hominem attacks. Your replies became increasingly pathetic, just like your efforts throughout this thread have been to try to establish anti-Semitic credentials on the part of Ann Coulter merely for expressing the standard Christian doctrine about the spiritual virtues of accepting the New Covenant.


Sapphire

[Corlyss_D]

I didn't read this one, I have just ignored it and dismissed it as a "Stupid Rant", Sapphire. At the moment I'm not even reffering to you, because I am ignoring you. I dont even take the time to type this small response to you, Its pointless. Most of the time I ignore your posts, even though I read almost everyone of them. I don't even know that you are a member here, because I am ignoring you, and read your posts and think how to respond to them. I am good at ignoring people like you, I achieve it, by writing well crafted arguments that only gets you up in arms calling people "Stupid". Let me just remind you that at this very moment I am ignoring you and Im not typing any response to you, even this particular one.
Saul

Good move, Saul. Keep up the good work.

Can I just get this straight? Are you ignoring Sapphire?

I'm beginning to get complaints about her. I think it would be a good idea for people who are going to get riled up by her comment's to just follow Saul's lead.

Sapphire, if you are slanging Saul, I suggest you quit it for the same reason I suggested Dave quit it.

[Corlyss_D]

So you think calling someone "thick as a brick" is a neutral comment? Interesting. What would your mother have said about such behavior? Nevermind. Look, don't behave like a troll. I think you and perhaps others are trying to bait Saul into a confrontation so a Committee of the Outraged can then go to Lance and insist that he be at least suspended if not banned. It's happened before. If you'd come to me with your complaints and Saul had done no more than he has here, I would have told you that you were just as likely to get wrapped on the knuckles as Saul. I don't want it to happen again because Saul is not slanging offensive epithets at any of you. So be forewarned: if it continues, I'll just come behind you and delete your posts. You want to slang, do it in a PM or an email, not here. Got it?

Well, yes, Corlyss, I did think it a neutral comment--a simple statement of fact with voluminous substantiating evidence available on this board alone. But I will henceforth refrain from offering unflattering observations about Saul or anyone else here. Is it too much to ask that everyone be held to the same standard?

As for baiting Saul and the Committee of the Outraged, etc. : Far from it. I would not like to see Saul or anyone else banned. I actually like Saul. He is a sweet, good-natured innocent, forthright and guileless, and there is voluminous evidence supporting that assessment here, as well. What's more, I admire his earnestness and his commitment to his faith. I'm not offended by his constant proselytizing here and elsewhere. I learned long ago to just scroll past his posts, not because I'm offended by their intent, but simply because the content is predictable and rarely of interest.

In this case, however, I was intrigued and then amused by the monumental hypocrisy of his and others' attacks on Coulter. I have not been trying to bait him or anyone, but simply trying to penetrate their prejudices and help them to discover that the source of their "outrage" lies in themselves, not in Coulter's comments. And I see that as a service. There certainly is anti-Semitism in the world and it merits outrage. I think they would better serve themselves and their cause if they stopped calling the sheepdog a wolf.

Finally, I have no complaints to lobby with Lance or you or anyone. I've never petitioned for anyone's dismissal. If someone annoys me enough, I just ignore their posts. If the climate of the board irritates me, I just stay away for awhile. As for the Committee of the Outraged, whoever they may be, the whole idea strikes me as hilarious, especially in the case of Saul, who seems but a sweet, innocent soul trying as best he can to walk the path he believes his faith requires. It would be nice if he could find it in his heart to give others the same benefit of the doubt, instead of pouncing to damn for any imagined transgression, but that's between him and his God.

Thank you, Dave. Very well put. I agree with everything you've said.

People can attack anyone and everyone that's not a member of this board. Personally attacking members of this board is a violation of the house rules. That goes for everyone here, including Sapphire.

[jack stowaway]

I'm beginning to get complaints about her. I think it would be a good idea for people who are going to get riled up by her comment's to just follow Saul's lead.

Sapphire, if you are slanging Saul, I suggest you quit it for the same reason I suggested Dave quit it.

I'm personally dismayed that anyone is complaining to Admin about any other poster. It seems to me an underhand tactic and rather cowardly. I would much rather that members state their disagreements publicly and leave it to the discretion of Corlyss to judge when a line has been crossed.

I don't believe that posters themselves should be trying to influence the moderator through PMs or emails, unless in extraordinary circumstances.

The case is analagous to a current lamentable practice in soccer. When a player commits a foul, members of the opposing team sometimes crowd around the referee demanding the culprit be shown a red card (i.e. dismissal). The practice has rightly been condemmed as unsportsmanlike attempts to influence the referee's independent judgement. No less so, I think, private complaints to the moderators.

This thread, and its companion, seems to have become focussed on the question of anti-semitism and what constitutes it. My own view is that anti-semitism is the product of irrationality, religious bigotry and plain ignorance. Where it exists it ought be exposed for the lethal and shameful doctrine that it is.

This thread is trying, at least in part, to determine whether Ann Coulter's remark falls into that category. My expressed opinion is that, on balance and in context, it falls rather into the category of interviewer-motivated controversy.

My main interest in the topic is in the larger issue (to me) of religiously-motivated inhibitions on freedom of speech. I am especially concerned about Islamic attacks on all public debate concerning that religion, and the effects of this militancy on free and open discourse. I viewed (and still view) Saul's original post in response to Coulter's remarks in this context.

The resulting debate, however, has forced me to re-examine my own position. And also, incidentally, to reconsider what it was about Saul's original post that stirred me sufficiently to respond to it.

I think it was the stridency and intemperateness of Saul's attack on Coulter that irritated me --it seemed out of all propotion to the alleged offence and touched on that freedom-of-speech nerve that is so important to me. But, as I have already conceded, Saul is entitled to his response.

An issue still remains, for me, of religious fundamentalism. And just as I protest it in Islam or Christianity, so I argue against it in Saul.

But even here I have modified my position as a result of this debate. Saul, or anyone, is entitled to believe what they like. Forcing others to believe in like manner is the real danger. And Saul, quite manifestly, is innocent of this. My point here is not my own belated insight, but that it was arrived at (or clarified) as a result of this uncensored debate.

Saul personally strikes me (and evidently many others) as sincere and well-meaning. His posts have also been very illuminating to me on matters of Jewish sensitivities, history and theology generally. Even (especially) where I disagree with them, I find them thought-provoking and enlightening to read. I would hate for him to be banned or restricted in his posting for any reason.

And just as I have learned from Saul, so I have learned from the counter-arguments of David and Sapphire. (This whole doctrine of 'perfectability' for example, is new to me, even thought I was raised in the Catholic faith.) Both parties believe in their faith-posiitons as much as does Saul in his and both are entitled to the same benefit-of-doubt against over-sensitive readings.

All of the above is a roundabout way of pleading for greater tolerance on this board and an end to private PMs to the moderators.

We may safely leave it to Corlyss, unaided, to decide who is violating the rules of the game and to show the red or yellow card as required. Or, if one does feel compelled to appeal to Corlyss, do so publicly and state the reasons why.

[SaulChanukah]

By Rabbi Shmuley Boteach


The Mosaic Law was one of several covenants in the Bible and was a conditional covenant, i.e. it brought blessings or the wrath of God depending on Israel's obedience or disobedience with regard to complying with it. Israel failed miserably in this regard (e.g. Jesus’ the clearing out of the Temple).

A "New Covenant" to supersede the old Law was anticipated in the book of Jeremiah (31:31,33). "See, the days are coming when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel, but not a covenant like the one I made with their ancestors on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt".

Sapphire,

Please listen and learn.

First, I have no Idea where you came up with this new Idea of "Conditional covenant". In the entire Hebrew Bible the word "Conditional" is none existent when it comes to the "Ever Lasting Covenant".
The Torah clearly says that God had made an "Everlasting Covenant" with the Jewish People.

Let me clarify things for you:

The Torah mentions God's everlasting covenant with the Jewish people.
It also mentions Punishments and rewards if the Jewish nation will or will not adhere to the Covenant. The punishments are strong but God swears that a total destruction of the Covenant will never take place.

Pay close attention to these following Verses regarding the Eternal covenant with the emphasis on verse 14 :

Deuteronomy Chapter 29 Verses 8 through 14 :

8 Observe therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may make all that ye do to prosper.

9 Ye are standing this day all of you before HaShem your God: your heads, your tribes, your elders, and your officers, even all the men of Israel,

10 your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in the midst of thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water;

11 that thou shouldest enter into the covenant of HaShem thy God--and into His oath--which HaShem thy God maketh with thee this day;

12 that He may establish thee this day unto Himself for a people, and that He may be unto thee a God, as He spoke unto thee, and as He swore unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

13 Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath;

14 but with him that standeth here with us this day before HaShem our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day--

A close examination of verses 13 and 14.

What God means when he says that he doesn’t make the covenant only with those that are standing on Mount Sinai but also with the ones that are not standing here?

Can one make a covenant with people before they are born?

The Talmud explains:

God had brought down all the Jewish Souls that will be born until the end of times from Heaven down to earth on that great mountain to join the living Jews on earth and to be witnesses and take part in the covenant.


God continues to talk to the Jewish people on Chapter 30 verses 1 to 5.
Note, that he is talking to the Jews standing before him on the foot of mount Sinai and tells them that in the end of times after they would have gone through all the good and bad times, a time will come that he will remember them and return them to the land of their forefathers.

Please pay close attention:


1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt bethink thyself among all the nations, whither HaShem thy God hath driven thee,

2 and shalt return unto HaShem thy God, and hearken to His voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul;

3 that then HaShem thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the peoples, whither HaShem thy God hath scattered thee.

4 If any of thine that are dispersed be in the uttermost parts of heaven, from thence will HaShem thy God gather thee, and from thence will He fetch thee.

5 And HaShem thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and He will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.

The Covenant is mentioned again in Leviticus Chapter 26.

Pay close attention how God tells the Jewish people in a very clear manner that after all the punishments that they will suffer for their transgressions , in the end, he will remember the Covenant and he will never ever go so far to destroy them completely, but the remembrance of the Covenant will be ignited and the memory of their saintly fathers will be elevated before him and thus he shall remember them and embrace them again and they shall be his people and he shall be their God:

Pay very close attention to Verses 44 to 45:

44 And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break My covenant with them; for I am HaShem their God.

45 But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am HaShem.

What sapphire got confused about was the land of Israel. In this case , there is a condition attached to the Jewish people's right to stay in the land of Israel. God says that Jewish presence in the land of Israel is depended upon their adherence to the Torah. If they will not be faithful to the Torah, then God will send them to exile, and that did happened.

But Sapphire because of her ignorance, took the "Land Condition" issue and attached it to the "Covenant issue". The eternal covenant had nothing conditional about it, it was simply eternal and everlasting.

This ignorance and blunder is just another example of truth twisting, and doing everything in one's power to strip the Jewish people of their eternal covenant and thus create "New covenants" that have no base in history and reality.

I would suggest Sapphire, that you should take a few courses in Jewish history and Hebrew, that can help you understand the verses and spare you the shame of making such major mistakes as this.

[SaulChanukah]

Oh and the verse from Jeremiah that you brought . Oh, how much you missed his intentions! You are so ignorant, God help you!

Thank God that I know Hebrew and can read the actual holy words of the Prophet:

Here is what he means:

He sees a vision sent to him by God of a future days when God will make a new covenant with "Bies Yisrael" the house of Israel and "Beis Yehudah" the house of Judah.

Now what this will "New Covenant" be like, he goes to explain:

This covenant will not be of the same character like the covenant of the desert.

Why not?

The Prophet explains :

The Jews broke the covenant, the covenant that they made with God.
Note, the prophet says that the Jews broke the covenant, but that doesn’t mean that the everlasting covenant was destroyed. If one is not %100 faithful to the marriage, that doesn’t mean that the marriage is destroyed.
God punsihed the Jews for not been %100 faithful to the marrige, but he never destroyed the everlasting covenant with them, because he swore it by his great name that this covenant will be everlasting regardless. The Prophet just points out that the Jews broke the covenant , and in no way suggesting that the everlasting covenant that God had made with them is destroyed.

The Jews were not faithful to the Desert covenant and thus were punished and exiled. But this new covenant that the Prophet envisions will not have this character.

In this New covenant that the Prophet envisions the Jewish people will not break it. How they will not break it?

The Prophet answers in verse 32 that God will put his Torah (In Hebrew the verse says "Natatee et Toratee Bekeerbam Veall Leebam Eiktavena" literally, I will put my Torah in their inward parts and Will write it on their hearts").

That means that God will strengthen the Torah in the hearts of the Jewish people in such a way that they will never leave it anymore. This New covenant will strengthen the Desert everlasting covenant in such a way that the Jews will never break it. And that's a Biblical promise.

So there is absolutely no hint or reference to a "New Covenant" the way Christians want it to be.

The Prophet is talking to the Jewish people and tells them their future as God had told him to say. Absolutely nothing to do with changing or leaving people for a new people or making a new covenant that is foreign to Judaism and Torah.

Another astronomically shocking manipulation and misunderstanding of the Hebrew Verses by Christians such as Sapphire.

I cant believe the ignorance, its so in your face ignorance its really shocking.

[DavidRoss]

Well said, Jack. One correction, if I may. It may seem a little matter to others, but not to me.

I have not stated a personal "faith-position," but rather have tried to explain what Ms Coulter's seems to be, in hopes of clearing up ill-will stemming from ignorance of her theology and a rush to judgment in lieu of understanding.

My own "faith-position" is rather more catholic--lower-case, please note--and might be stated succinctly as "God is knowable to those who seek earnestly within." Religion may be a guide or an obstacle to this discovery; none grasps more than the elephant's ear.

[jack stowaway]

Well said, Jack. One correction, if I may. It may seem a little matter to others, but not to me.

I have not stated a personal "faith-position," but rather have tried to explain what Ms Coulter's seems to be, in hopes of clearing up ill-will stemming from ignorance of her theology and a rush to judgment in lieu of understanding.

My own "faith-position" is rather more catholic--lower-case, please note--and might be stated succinctly as "God is knowable to those who seek earnestly within." Religion may be a guide or an obstacle to this discovery; none grasps more than the elephant's ear.

I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification.

[pizza]

In reverse order, the problem is that nobody you could or did mention discredited Marc Weiner or Larry Solomon, two well known scholars other than yourself and your vile, disgusting pal, with the usual empty and personal attacks. The only one discredited was you. I pointed out the lack of contradicting evidence at least a half-dozen times and requested something concrete, all to no avail. As I said before, I welcome a review of that thread, and I'll be happy to re-engage you or any other hard-core Wagnerite in a rematch.

Pizza, is this in reference to a thread several months ago in which Douglas and others claimed there was no anti-Semitism in Wagner's works? If so, I vaguely remember that. Douglas, as usual, seemed blind to the obvious and impervious to reason--a condition not uncommon to diehard Wagnerites, who remind me of no one so much as Star Trek fans--"Trekkies"--but without a sense of humor.

It's nice to see Marc Weiner mentioned. He was a friend and colleague in a former life--a formidable scholar and a heck of a nice guy with a wicked sense of humor.

Yes, that's the one. It's full of bluster, epithets and other personal attacks on those who advanced the claim that anti-Semitism existed in some of Wagner's works. Even Mahler and one of his contemporaries who recognized it received the hard-core "treatment", albeit minus the personal slurs. But of course, when constantly prodded to do so, these folk offered nothing whatsoever of any substance to contradict the evidence.

What a peculiar memory you have, Pizza. On the contrary, all this was discussed at the time and it was you who came off looking worse for wear.

The arguments you advanced, based largely on the work of Solomon, fell for several reasons:

• (i) You could not provide any form of counterfactual to compare Wagner’s art-works against one free of alleged anti-Semitic material, given the general standards for such works of the time.
  
  (ii) You failed to provide any evidence that Wagner intended his operas to be used as vehicles for racist attacks on Jews. You were prompted several times for this and yet you who could not provide one scrap of any evidence of intent on the part of Wagner. Even the much quoted reference to Mahler’s view in one instance turned out to be largely a damp squib if you had read the Mahler quote properly, which you clearly hadn’t done so.
  
  (iii) As was repeatedly pointed to you, Wagner’s musical art-works are so rich that anyone who is determined to find odd bits anti-Semitic evidence will likely find it, but if so it does not mean that it provides proof that anti-Semitic of intent was in any way the central feature or purpose of that art-work.
  
  (iv) As was also pointed out to you, Wagner came under philosophical influences such that he was not just anti-Jew, but anti-Christian as well, and in fact became more and more anti-people in general. You had trouble understanding this, I recall. Solomon’s analysis did not attempt to rationalise these influences, but instead was extremely naïve, based entirely on assorted trivia relating e.g. to voice sounds of mythological nibelungs etc. It was completely laughable in its naivety.

When these arguments and questions were put to you, all you did was evade them by raising yet further smokescreens of obfuscation. And when you were reminded of your evasiveness, it was you who lashed out with claims of being subject to an ad hominem attacks. Your replies became increasingly pathetic, just like your efforts throughout this thread have been to try to establish anti-Semitic credentials on the part of Ann Coulter merely for expressing the standard Christian doctrine about the spiritual virtues of accepting the New Covenant.


Sapphire

Your so-called recollection of the Wagner thread is truly pathetic and about as "accurate" as your misleading fairytale concerning the deadly Brit concentration camps of the Boer War era. It's here for anyone to read:

http://www.classicalmusicguide.com/view ... cle+wagner

In the thread, I explained the failure of the blind, hard-core Wagnerites such as yourself to make the slightest dent in Weiner and Solomon's argument or to attempt a refutation on a point by point basis:

"I can easily understand why neither you nor ACD have attempted to refute Solomon's thesis on a point by point basis. You can't. And the reason is simple. Whenever one attempts to probe beneath the surface of a work, whether it be art, music, prose or poetry, one establishes hypotheses based upon evidence. Evidence is that which convinces -- nothing more and nothing less. In such matters the hypotheses need not be proven beyond doubt. It's sufficent to establish a prima facie case if it's plausible, based upon reasonable inferences to be drawn from evidence offered in its support. That's precisely what Solomon has done. And that's precisely why you studiously avoid dealing with the substance of his argument. You can't argue that there is no basis whatsoever for his hypotheses -- it's beyond argument that Wagner was a rabid anti-Semite, who made anti-Semitism an integral feature of his life and made no effort to conceal it in matters extraneous to his art-- indeed, offering it as the central thesis of some of his writings on music and musicians -- so why can't it be seriously argued that under no circumstances whatsoever would he have divorced his art from his personal beliefs. He never gave any indication whatsoever that his art didn't reflect his beliefs. And it's instructive to consider why Wagner was quoted as saying that he intends to appeal to the listener's emotions while circumventing his critical faculties. That statement alone is sufficient to raise the question."

A review of the thread shows beyond any question that both Marc Weiner's and Larry Solomon's arguments were supported by many specific examples that clearly pointed to anti-Semitic content in the music and Solomon explained in detail the reasons why. What's laughable is your persistence in denying it, but not quite as laughable as your hokey claim that his thesis failed because it wasn't tested by scientific methodology. You were asked at least a half-dozen times to provide a single example where such a method had ever been used when analyzing musical and literary material and you refused.

In your haste to adopt it as support for your view of Wagner's music as totally benign, you misread and completely misunderstood Mahler's statement, after which I posted the obvious explanation of what he actually meant. When you realized your error, you then reverted to form, taking a cheap shot at Mahler himself by belittling his observation of anti-Semitic content in Wagner's music because he was a Jew who had converted to Christianity "in order to qualify for a plumb conducting job in Vienna"; in other words, for monetary reasons, and whose views were therefore not to be taken as seriously as you had originally intended. How typical of you.

As for Coulter, your statement that I tried to "establish anti-Semitic credentials" for her is a blatant lie. That an isolated remark may be anti-Semitic within a particular context doesn't necessarily mean that the person making it is an avowed or credentialed anti-Semite. I said her remarks were offensive to Jews. They were also offensive to other religions within the context of American pluralism. If you don't see the difference, and think only an accredited anti-Semite can make such remarks, it reveals much more about you than it does about her.