It is important to realise that the vast majority of people who are religious are sincere, although these pages on other religions are criticisms. My intention is to invite people to think about their faith as everybody cannot be right. There are some self-seekers in every religion too so anybody joining a faith must be aware of the flaws to see where they are vulnerable. I cannot point out every inconsistency, only show some and describe some of my experiences. The rest you have to figure out but I believe personally, though I do not expect people to also believe this as it is from personal experience, that there are souls who are out here who will try to help you, quiet guardians of peace, love and reason.If I have any ambition it is to be one of those guardians myself, to protect the gentle caring unambitious souls who often lead lives of such suffering
My only recommendation to Jews at this point is to read the rest of the site and judge for themselves. I have deliberately in places used the same techniques that the Anne Frank museum interactive centre in Amsterdam does to provoke consideration of the issues. If you find this offensive then please contact that museum, not me. I only assume your God is not on my side, which probably makes me a little different from those who designed the museum and so my approach is different as are the questions I ask.
Simon Wiesenthal can explain that German soldiers who engaged in killing Jewish women and children had problems. They suffered mental problems. Those who had their own children at home could not be the same after. He explains that this is why impersonal methods of killing were developed, gas chambers etc. (One has to say Israel has learnt this trick of impersonal killing of Palestinians, breaking their arms with rocks,as they have been filmed doing etc) . Who are the leaders? Not Nazis, Judaism as a totality. Only the liberal Jews are abhorred by this behaviour of their armed forces, only the conservatives like Wiesenthal try to make out it only happened in Germany.
Wiesenthal cannot explain either why his God can stand by seeing all things and not suffer the same insanity as German soldiers. He can watch 50,000 children die in a tidal wave in Indonesia but show no emotion for example for starving children in Africa. If he created the universe of billions of light years across he could drop a little rain on their crops, but he does not because he is a liar. The emotional response was human. God is a philosophical vanity. reality is more likely to be a competition for position in the spiritual world as in this world. Are Jews happy to do that too, to carve a presence in everyone’s spiritual world as the diaspora has done in the material world and also to establish a corner of the spiritual world for themselves as Israel is in the material world. Would any Jews admit they are already trying to do that, knowing that Jesus has inhibited the minds of converts to Christianity so that they cannot see or conceive of spirituality except as some kind of mysterious evil threat.
I saw a programme on Israel a long time ago and a Jew on that said that where there are two Jews there are always three opinions. Recently, (as I write July 2007), a programme on British television examined rising anti-semitism, (The War on Britain’s Jews, Channel 4, 9th July 2007), in that another Jew said a simlar thing but expanded to a greater number of opinions per Jew than one and a half opinions. The day after this Nigel Lawson wrote in the Independent, an editorial on population. He said “In common with the indigenous populations of other European countries, most Britons seem to have made the decision that they would prefer not to multiply...” He then states “even in strictly Darwinian terms, not to replicate is an evolutionary disgrace” So he is calling Europeans and British people evolutionary disgraces, but of course if Hitler had succeeded their would be no Jews filling the spaces left by this lack of fertility. While in India efforts are being made to persuade people to leave spaces for the Tiger to roam free, which the people acknowledge with statements such as “the tiger has the right to exist as much as we have” and while most nations’ are signing up to biodiversity protocols, Nigel Lawson further states that if the director of the British Antarctic survey is concerned about human impact then hard luck, using the following to express his disgust at the learned man’s efforts “If the worst comes to improbable worst, sorry about the penguins”. His article has more holes in it than a sieve. He claims “the amount of the planet’s surface devoted to the cultivation of food has remained pretty constant since the middle of the last century” but he neglects to say that the amazon has been cut down to provide logs for furniture and soya crops to feed cattle and that the Indonesian rain forest has been destroyed to provide palm oil. This process will continue as the requirement for fuel from plants increases. Criticising China’s population control, calling it cruel, he says “Whatever happens to the size of families, it should be everywhere and always a matter of choice..” but if a virus replicates in an uncontrolled fashion the host dies and it is obvious that controls ought to be in place to prevent the human population destroying the host, planet earth. He acknowledges female emancipation will accelerate the process of people having fewer children, which I agree with, but with his statement that it represents an evolutionary disgrace, is he not also calling female emancipation part of the disgrace while also taking a dig at Islamic male chauvinism elsewhere in the article. Obviously a couple more opinions at odds with each other
I could have a different spin and say that the world needs action now to preserve biodiversity, to stop wars for resources etc. This can only be done by people who do not vacillate but make an effort to preserve this wonderful planet for future generations, including indigenous Europeans, who have compassion for life on earth, not seeing it all as Lawson does, as an exploitable resource only. Jews with three or four opinions among every pair are not going to solve anything and if they were to follow his ill-considered suppositions, (Nigel lawson’s above), will lead us to destruction. Therefore to let Jews reproduce, would be a compassionless “evolutionary disgrace” (remember the penguins). Thus castrating and speying all Jews would be the only answer which sounds lie Nigel Lawson begging or playing brinkmanship with the idea of another Hitler coming to power. To pursue such a policy would be compassionless and against biodiversity which are both against the principles of this web-site.
My concern is that while a Jew may hold the opinion that it is the responsibility of the Jews to bring the word of God to the people of the earth, he may also have the opinion, because they are allowed many, that he should take the Darwinistic approach to life and multiply enormously to spread across the globe as science is “true” , in the other half of his thoughts. This neatly eventually makes a self-fulfilling environment for Jewish ambition, persuading other races to trust a God who says evolution is false, while practising Darwinian principles of survival of those who can adapt best to the environment, himself. Cunning perhaps?