Artful Dodger: He's not for free speech, he's not even a free speech advocate. He's just another neo con wanting his 15 minutes.

Artful Dodger: I'm sure you can find more details on him on the web... rather than the neo con website you read.

But hey... in the end how you perceive him is a matter of choice. To the average UK resident.. he's just another Nick Griffin.

Artful Dodger: Really.

"The main reason for Wilders's acquittal lies in his choice of words and oratory skills rather than his motives. The court held that Wilders's statements (including the movie Fitna) were about Islam (a religion, or, as Wilders has it, an ideology) and not Muslims (as individuals or as a group) and, hence, these remarks are not discriminatory or insulting. Nor did they incite hatred. It is about facts – what has been said. Motives are less relevant to the question of guilt. A strict interpretation of selected facts seems to justify the verdict. So it is OK to rant and rave against Islam, even though the subtext suggests that the ranting and raving is geared towards Muslims. As subtexts have no place in law it is back to politics again: there, subtext and intention is all that matters. But how best to resist Wilders and the populist mob?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/23/geert-wilders-acquitted-incitement-hatred

Now... He got off for saying Muslims are ok as individuals, and Islam is eViL as an ideology.

So.. you are agreeing that Muslims are ok?

Artful Dodger:

> SOME individual Muslims are ok. Islam is evil. Completely evil. Yes.

I think some religious people are OK, but in esence religion is evil, completely evil. We look at the millions who have died in religious wars and that convinces me that the problem is not just Islam but all religion. Christianity is no better because Christians have been as war like and destructive as other religions. If Islam is evil, so is Christianity and its zeal to convert others, willingly or forcibly. Those who doubt it have to look at the Inquisition, the Crusades, the conquest of the Americas, and the brutal support of Christianity for fascist dictators.

Artful Dodger: A percentage to give depth to "some" would be better.

As to Islam being evil. If that is based on acts, then what is good? We sided with them against the Russians and called them 'freedom fighters'. Then they were the 'good guys'.

Artful Dodger: Wrong. Any honest Christian knows that other Christians do use the OT as a means to justify their beliefs. Eg .... Genesis. The Ten Commandments, commentaries on sexuality ... and as such the writings proclaiming the coming of a Messiah. It is also the same God that as written told the Jews to kill, maim and slaughter who is our God.

"However, the Koran is full of such teachings of hate and killing. As are the other authoritative writings in Islam. And Muhammad's life, as an example, clearly shows a history of violence, war, and aggression."

It's the history of the formation and wars that came about from other tribes... Just like in the OT re the Israelites.

FYI the guys killing the early Muslims had no rules.

Tuesday: Well, he actually said he didn't come to abolish (change) the law, but to fulfill it. As children growing up the rules appear to change, but it only appears that way because we begin to change. If it appears there are contradictions between old and new testament it's because we are slowing being brought along, just like a good parent is patient as their child slowly learns how to navigate life. Things changed within the book of Genesis alone, so we can't really say there was only one transistion, the one between OT and NT. Most of us can't see the bigger picture because frankly none of us are here long enough to see it. I don't either, but that's where faith necessarily enters in. I don't know if something that happens every day will happen today, but faith based on experience tells me it probably will.

Tuesday: Considering that the Lord appeared many a time in the OT.... what was his/her name back then?

Seeing as the OT translation of "Lord" is more a case of the "I am" derived From "I am what I am" (he who is).

Tuesday: The most important of God's Names is the four-letter Name represented by the Hebrew letters Yod-Hei-Vav-Hei (YHVH). It is often referred to as the Ineffable Name, the Unutterable Name or the Distinctive Name. Linguistically, it is related to the Hebrew root Hei-Yod-Hei (to be), and reflects the fact that God's existence is eternal. In scripture, this Name is used when discussing God's relation with human beings, and when emphasizing his qualities of lovingkindness and mercy. It is frequently shortened to Yah (Yod-Hei), Yahu or Yeho (Yod-Hei-Vav), especially when used in combination with names or phrases, as in Yehoshua (Joshua, meaning "the Lord is my Salvation"), Eliyahu (Elijah, meaning "my God is the Lord"), and Halleluyah ("praise the Lord").

The first Name used for God in scripture is Elohim. In form, the word is a masculine plural of a word that looks feminine in the singular (Eloha). The same word (or, according to Rambam, a homonym of it) is used to refer to princes, judges, other gods, and other powerful beings. This Name is used in scripture when emphasizing God's might, His creative power, and his attributes of justice and rulership. Variations on this name include El, Eloha, Elohai (my God) and Elohaynu (our God).

God is also known as El Shaddai. This Name is usually translated as "God Almighty," however, the derivation of the word "Shaddai" is not known. According to some views, it is derived from the root meaning "to heap benefits." According a Midrash, it means, "The One who said 'dai'" ("dai" meaning enough or sufficient) and comes from the fact that when God created the universe, it expanded until He said "DAI!" (perhaps the first recorded theory of an expanding universe?). The name Shaddai is the one written on the mezuzah scroll. Some note that Shaddai is an acronym of Shomer Daltot Yisrael, Guardian of the Doors of Israel.

Another significant Name of God is YHVH Tzva'ot. This Name is normally translated as "Lord of Hosts." The word "tzva'ot" means "hosts" in the sense of a military grouping or an organized array. The Name refers to God's leadership and sovereignty. Interestingly, this Name is rarely used in scripture. It never appears in the Torah (i.e., the first five books). It appears primarily in the prophetic books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, as well as many times in the Psalms.
Writing the Name of God

Jews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood"). .................

With the Temple destroyed and the prohibition on pronouncing The Name outside of the Temple, pronunciation of the Name fell into disuse. Scholars passed down knowledge of the correct pronunciation of YHVH for many generations, but eventually the correct pronunciation was lost, and we no longer know it with any certainty. We do not know what vowels were used, or even whether the Vav in the Name was a vowel or a consonant. See Hebrew Alphabet for more information about the difficulties in pronouncing Hebrew. Some religious scholars suggest that the Name was pronounced "Yahweh," but others do not find this pronunciation particularly persuasive.

Some people render the four-letter Name as "Jehovah," but this pronunciation is particularly unlikely. The word "Jehovah" comes from the fact that ancient Jewish texts used to put the vowels of the Name "Adonai" (the usual substitute for YHVH) under the consonants of YHVH to remind people not to pronounce YHVH as written. A sixteenth century German Christian scribe, while transliterating the Bible into Latin for the Pope, wrote the Name out as it appeared in his texts, with the consonants of YHVH and the vowels of Adonai, and came up with the word JeHoVaH, and the name stuck.

http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm

It's just a best guess name.

Tuesday: Christ would have known Judaism... And that would have reflected in his words.

Tuesday: The old ways.. Define old ways?

Tuesday: I heard it was about making God available for the Gentiles without the need to live by 613 commandments as well as things like eye for an eye.

Tuesday: I don't think that is a fair assessment. Jesus did not fulfil all of the prophecies that were said to be completed as the Jewish Messiah. I believe that someone else did that (or as near as ) if I remember my history on that matter correctly.

Also, if it wasn't for the Romans the establishment of Christianity would be different. It became a state church, just like when Henry VIII formed the Church of England.. but that was so he could divorce his wife.

Tuesday:

> The Jews rejected his teachings and Peter had a vision telling him to teach the Gentiles as well after Jesus' own ppl rejected him.

We have to remember that Christianity did not exist at the time of Jesus. Jesus never set out to reform or modify Judaism. Neither did the Jews accept or reject his teachings. In reality Jesus belonged to a minority of Jews who was dissatisfied with the way the powerful Pharisees in Jerusalem were running things. People from Galilee saw their greed for wealth and power as opposed to what God had intended for human beings to do on this earth. John the Baptist was also from that same stream of thought.

At the time there were many religious "dissidents", most of them living near the shores of the Dead Sea, away from Roman rule. The Pharisees and Herod had completely surrendered to the Romans. Some people chose armed struggle, others chose a spiritual form of rebellion. Those who sought a spiritual path to liberation started questioning the old ways. This is how baptism arose as a way to clean a person from their sins.

When Jesus had his ministry, he was not the great originator of a new religion as we see him today. He was merely a carpenter's son trying his best to teach people a different way in a world full of greed and violence. Jesus lived and died without immediate impact. His teachings remained only among his apostles and relatively few followers. In that sense Jews neither accepted or rejected him, because for the majority of the population he would have been one more spiritual rebel trying to change the world.

It was St. Paul who worked hard to change things. St. Paul himself had been converted from a Jew and Roman into a follower of Jesus. Prior to his conversion Paul the Apostle persecuted the early Christians, probably along with other dissidents of Pharisee spiritual rule. St. Paul saw the strength of Jesus' message, and set out to spread it along with his apostles. Jesus teachings did not find much resonance among Jews, but they found resonance among Greeks. It is at that point that Christianity accepted Gentiles into the fold, because Paul himself was a gentile Roman. It is also why the New Testament was written predominantly in Greek and not Aramaic.

In reality the distinction between Judaism and Christianity arose slowly over two hundred years after the death of Christ. Christians took many of the old rituals of Judaism and transformed them into symbolic rituals. Circumcision was replaced with baptism. The ritual sacrifice of lambs was replaced with the Eucharist. Many of these conversions had an origin in alternate rituals in old Judaism, but they did not gain their deep spiritual significance until the apostles spread the word of Jesus.

I wouldn't say Jews rejected Jesus. Rather, Jews had no chance to hear his message considering the brutality of Roman rule and the ultimate expelling of Jews from their homeland. Jews survived as a distinct culture and religion by handing onto their old ways as best as they could. The more they were prosecuted, the harder they fought to retain their religion culture and values. It comes as no surprise that they refused conversion to Christianity and Islam in spite of 2000 years of discrimination and prosecution.

Tuesday: No, members of the Jewish priestly hierarchy had Pontius Pilate kill Jesus. The story is they rigged the crowd to make Pilate crucify Christ. As to the crucifixion...... If there was no 'death', there is no 'rising'. I thought Christ knew what was going to happen and let it happen.

Tuesday: Aye.. I thought it very much a hollywooooood excursion. I've also watched "The Life of Brian", "Dogma", "The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ", and many other serious and non serious spoofs on Christ and Christianity in film, on TV and in books. I suppose in the UK we tend to laugh more at ourselves and our relationship with religion then you guys in the USA.

(V): When I learned to read Hebrew I had to remember that a couple words that mean God were pronounced nothing like they looked. Orthodox Jews also do not normally say any of the names of God (Adonai, Eloheynu, etc) unless in prayer. Instead they say Hashem, which translates to "the name." If throwing away something with the name of God printed on it, it has to be specially buried. Even my Reconstructionist Jewish fiancee, who is rather agnostic, is very careful about printing things with God's name, not letting certain books touch the floor, etc.

lizrising: Aye.. The words that to me make that 'connection', I don't use except in prayer.