[continued from previous message]   
      
   While I am bound to admit the well-meaning sincerity of most adherents to the   
   ordinary humanistic sentiment, still all their work and all their sincerity   
   are bound to end in naught. Ordinary humanism is simply devoid of any ongoing   
   source of inspiration.    
   The dictum, “Love your enemies”, [16] sounds sweet in the ears; but, as long   
   as one views any human being as an enemy, it becomes next-to-impossible to   
   love her or him. Similarly a love which extends only to human beings, and does   
   not go out to the    
   animals and plants, will soon dry up by making too many analytical   
   distinctions. [17] While reading the New Testament one is touched by several   
   stirring passages which call for the love of all humanity, but search   
   throughout the entire book and one    
   cannot find a single line supporting love for animals or plants, not to   
   mention inanimate objects. Is love something which one can turn on and off at   
   will? “I love God, and I love human beings, but animals and plants and this   
   rich brown earth are here    
   only to serve my pleasure.” Love just does not work like that. In the final   
   analysis, ordinary humanism, based on a mechanistic view of the universe,   
   cannot be accepted as anything other than pseudo-humanism. Ultimately it, too,   
   rests on the Principle of    
   Selfish Pleasure.   
      
   It is due to the degradation of this ordinary humanism, this pseudo-humanism,   
   that a new humanism based on the Principle of Social Equality is required.   
   Where ordinary humanism concerns itself more with the object of love, trying   
   to embrace all human    
   beings, Neo-Humanism places more stress on the subjective faculty of loving.   
   Because Neo-Humanism takes an' organic, holistic view of the universe,   
   Neo-Humanism can project an equal love for all beings, all animate and   
   inanimate entities. Neo-Humanism    
   does not separate this creation from its creator. It recognizes all and   
   everything as different manifestations of the one Supreme Consciousness. With   
   this outlook it is no longer necessary to maintain two great laws as Jesus   
   said – love God with all your    
   heart, soul and mind; and love your neighbor as yourself. [18] It is   
   sufficient to say simply, “Love God within and without you” or, even more   
   simply, “Love God”. Even Jesus had to admit that one cannot serve two   
   different masters – eventually one must    
   love one and hate the other. [19] Hence the love offered by Jesus was always   
   adulterated with some degree of hatred it was not pure love. [20] Pure love   
   which does not discriminate between friend and enemy, God and this world, can   
   only be realized    
   through pinnacled devotion for a truly all-pervasive Deity – then alone there   
   is no conflict of interest. This pure love will provide the eternal source of   
   inspiration for Neo-Humanism.   
      
      
      
   4                       The Covenant   
   And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lard appeared to Abram, and   
   said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect   
      
   And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee   
   exceedingly.   
      
   And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,   
      
   As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of   
   many nations.   
      
   Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be   
   Abraham: for a father of many nations have I made thee.   
      
   And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and   
   kings shall come out of thee.   
      
   And 1 wilt establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee   
   in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and   
   to thy seed after thee.   
      
   And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the Land wherein thou   
   art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I   
   will be their God.   
      
   And God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and   
   thy seed after thee in their generations.   
      
   This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed   
   after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.   
      
   And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of   
   the covenant betwixt me and you.   
      
   And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child   
   in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any   
   stranger, which is not of thy seed.   
      
   He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs   
   be circumcised: and my covenant shat be in your flesh for an everlasting   
   covenant.   
      
   And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not   
   circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my   
   covenant.   
      
   Genesis 11:1-14   
      
      
      
   Humanism or Property Rights   
   Following Israel's invasion of Lebanon in June, 1982, and the prolonged   
   Israeli military presence in Beirut, an outcry of protest was heard from all   
   around the world, including even the President of the United States. Israel's   
   Prime Minister, Menachem    
   Begin, responded angrily, declaring “Nobody is going to lecture the Jews about   
   humanism”. This was a peculiar remark. Was Mr. Begin implying that Judaism is   
   a particularly humanistic religion? No, surely that was not the point he   
   intended. In my opinion,    
   it was a scathing condemnation of the popular form of political hypocrisy –   
   self-serving censure of others clothed in high sounding humanitarian language.   
   Quite clearly Mr. Begin was not convinced that Christians or Moslems had or   
   have the moral right to    
   criticize Jews on humanitarian grounds; and surely the history of Christian   
   persecution of Jews (as evidenced by the Spanish Inquisition, the Russian   
   Pogroms and, most recently, the German Holocaust) as well as the continued   
   non-acceptance by Moslem    
   countries of Israel's very right to exist as a Jewish country hardly would   
   incline a Jew to believe that Christian and/or Moslem tall talks and   
   humanitarian ideals are anything more credible than a politician's campaign   
   promises. Despite all the rhetoric    
   expended by religious leaders on the subject of universal sorority and   
   fraternity, the global humanity remains still fragmented by petty religious   
   differences while the downcast and downtrodden masses are no longer just   
   hungry but fairly gasping for    
   breath. Mr. Begin's words took on their full import within days after he spoke   
   them, as Israeli defense forces provided tactical military support while the   
   Lebanese Christian Militia moved into the Palestinian refugee camps and   
   slaughtered as many as    
   1500 Moslem men, women and children. Yes, Mr. Begin was correct – no Christian   
   has the right to lecture a Jew on humanism, any more than a Jew has the right   
   to lecture a Christian on the subject.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)