Superb.

I really enjoyed this. It seems to have gotten some attention over at The Anchoress as well...

Thank you.

Gerard, you really should think about publishing your recent essays in a dead-tree edition (even if the book publishing industry is in a bad way). Thank you once again for a memorable post.

Wow. Your prose has as much power as your poetry.

Wonderful dissection.

Perhaps the Old Testament's entrity to take 'an eye for eye' would be better reverted to amigo?

out-STANDING.

I'm reading it again just to savor every 'lovin word.

Thank you Mr. VdL, for another fine essay perfectly timed for my psychological needs.

And as kudos roll in, it is a worthwhile exercise to wonder whether Jesus of Nazareth MEANT for His 3 promises to point toward Him Who came May 23rd, 1844.

For if Jesus WAS invested with Absolute Knowledge and if Jesus IS the Truthful, the All-Wise, then the One Whom He foresaw coming in 1844 must have come to prepare the way for the Lord of Hosts, with us (as prophecied by Micah 7:15) 40 years, and Who triumphed over decades of exile, torture, derision and imprisonment!

Today's whiners and the rise of the Left were all predicted, and their brief visibility sets the stage for the near-universal recognition of Him to Whose commands we are all conforming! He brought the one-ness of God, the one-ness of humankind, the equality of men and women, the independent investigation of truth; and justice for all.

When your essays touch on these, they resonate powerfully within your readers, GvdL! Thank you!

"Perhaps the Old Testament's entrity to take 'an eye for eye' would be better reverted to amigo?"

This actually meant that the defendant would have to pay the value of an eye for an eye, rather than, say, be executed, or have to pay huge sums not proportionate to the crime, or have his relatives punished, etc. It was a metaphor for keeping reparations proportionate to the loss.

That might be the most misunderstood verse in the entire Hebrew scriptures.

anyway.....

What gets me is the frantic attempt to love the enemy by my fellow Jews, since we don't even have much of that in our tradition. It's a very practical way of life. Plenty of pursuing justice and protecting the weak, but none of that gauzy romantic "turn the other cheek" stuff.

We have a whole series of lessons about the Amalekites, which I think is meant to teach us not to become romantic and naively conciliatory about really evil people. Progressive Jews don't like the Amalekite material because there is a justifiable fear of calling the wrong people Amalekites and using those commandments as an excuse for genocide. However, refusing to confront and eliminate evil behavior is overcompensating in the other direction.

I think most of these Jews have been brainwashed by the majority Christian Lite culture, and bought into the whole myth that the "Old Testament" is about vengeance and punishment and the "New Testament" is about love and puppies.

Fabulous writing. You are so right-on about the media's appropriation of the word Holy for all things religious yet not Judeo-Christian, the "Holy Koran" becoming the most eggregious example (but also things like "the Holy City of Najaf", etc.). One other minor amendment: while it is true that no *infidel* may so much as sneeze in the same room as a koran, the 'holy warrior' himself may do anything to it in the name of Jihad, up to and including flushing it down the proverbial toilet. (I had some reflections on the utility of this difference between infidel and muslim urine on my own site if you're interested). Great post!

You write that the progressive elites, because they think it helps their utopian fantasy to control, dominate and redistribute resources, like it when comrades of the terrorists kill our soldiers.

You believe this?

i think he just got carried away