H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
Aristotle stinks. Beyond the few common sense observations he made – his philosophy is virtually worthless (an argument for the existence of a god, which I find about as compelling as a Bugs Bunny cartoon)
- Status
N
Nino
Guest
Yes, And since Jesus usually talked in terms He knew…ie: building trades…when he Spoke to Peter and called him …‘the rock’ of the church…foundation…also Peter is always mentioned first in any list of apostles in all four of the books so whats the big deal…The gnostics were absurd…in one Jesus is quoted as saying that only men can enter into the kingdom of heaven and women,therefor must be changed into a man…true what with the latest hate crimes bill…transvestites might fool Peter at the gates but gee I dunno…
J
josie_L
Guest
I’ve already stated the Church has made mistakes.No – it’s you who can’t stomach critique of your church. Nietzsche isn’t even my favorite philosopher
,
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
How about this for a philosophy:
the collective goal of mankind should always be to conquer nature!
Whether it’s our own biology, our atmosphere, our own planet, and beyond … it seems to me if we need to find “a purpose” for our existence – conquering nature seems as good as any? Part of nature is of course our intellect. Whether we buy into religiosity or not – I can think of few things worse than the certitude of zealotry.
In other words if humanity is ever to reach that elusive point where we can coexist in harmony then we need more than mere tolerance – since to say I love you but too bad you’re going to hell is hardly viewed as tolerant by the “other guy” (to spite what you may subjectively believe). Science has already proven the bible and the quran wrong. We know its creation story is a myth & indeed cannot be true. There’s no evidence in any ancient Egyptian recorded account indicating that anything resembling an Exodus ever occurred. Stories of a god-man who rose from the dead are evidenced in a single secular account given by two short paragraphs written by the Jewish historian Josephus (and honestly we’re not even quite sure how reliable that account is, since Josephus himself concedes he did not witness any miraculous events & never personally met Jesus; and of course none of the manuscripts we have that reference this god man are original – rather the only method this all powerful god of the universe could muster to relay his existence to modern man were copies upon copies of manuscripts and handed down stories written centuries after the fact).
The god of the universe and beyond who is all powerful and did all these wondrous things in days long gone by has apparently left us to our own devices. I guess you could believe that or you could believe what seems to be more logical (which is that the ancient depictions of god are simply untrue).
Albeit the idea of a universe creating itself seems problematic from a causation standpoint, but even if there is something beyond our cognition (and I think there probably is) … it doesn’t mean ancient man alone encountered this being (and we should take these ancient accounts as gospel). In fact since that we know many of these ancient stories are false – why should we believe the rest are true? Doesn’t the bible hinge on the Adam (he seems pretty crucial to New Testament theology if you ask me).
Well, we know there was no historical Adam. So, whether or not there’s some grand architect out there, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism … can all be shown to be untrue. So why all the fuss by people who are otherwise intelligent?
the collective goal of mankind should always be to conquer nature!
Whether it’s our own biology, our atmosphere, our own planet, and beyond … it seems to me if we need to find “a purpose” for our existence – conquering nature seems as good as any? Part of nature is of course our intellect. Whether we buy into religiosity or not – I can think of few things worse than the certitude of zealotry.
In other words if humanity is ever to reach that elusive point where we can coexist in harmony then we need more than mere tolerance – since to say I love you but too bad you’re going to hell is hardly viewed as tolerant by the “other guy” (to spite what you may subjectively believe). Science has already proven the bible and the quran wrong. We know its creation story is a myth & indeed cannot be true. There’s no evidence in any ancient Egyptian recorded account indicating that anything resembling an Exodus ever occurred. Stories of a god-man who rose from the dead are evidenced in a single secular account given by two short paragraphs written by the Jewish historian Josephus (and honestly we’re not even quite sure how reliable that account is, since Josephus himself concedes he did not witness any miraculous events & never personally met Jesus; and of course none of the manuscripts we have that reference this god man are original – rather the only method this all powerful god of the universe could muster to relay his existence to modern man were copies upon copies of manuscripts and handed down stories written centuries after the fact).
The god of the universe and beyond who is all powerful and did all these wondrous things in days long gone by has apparently left us to our own devices. I guess you could believe that or you could believe what seems to be more logical (which is that the ancient depictions of god are simply untrue).
Albeit the idea of a universe creating itself seems problematic from a causation standpoint, but even if there is something beyond our cognition (and I think there probably is) … it doesn’t mean ancient man alone encountered this being (and we should take these ancient accounts as gospel). In fact since that we know many of these ancient stories are false – why should we believe the rest are true? Doesn’t the bible hinge on the Adam (he seems pretty crucial to New Testament theology if you ask me).
Well, we know there was no historical Adam. So, whether or not there’s some grand architect out there, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism … can all be shown to be untrue. So why all the fuss by people who are otherwise intelligent?
T
Toribus
Guest
The premise is rejected. If a statement can be rationally disputed by two reasonable individuals, it can’t be claimed as an objective fact until the dispute is settled.
The dispute is not settled, therefore the “facts” are not objectively true. Thus, your five points (I have abbreviated them to their factual substance) remain to be demonstrated.
As for Hitler being a Catholic, the fact that he tried to erect his own Reichskirche proves that he had far more in common with Luther than Peter.
J
josie_L
Guest
Firstly, the Bible was never a science book to begin with, so how has science proved the Bible wrong? Secondly, many scientists have confirmed that alll of humanity has descended from one couple. Thirdly, just because we don’t have the originals (has if we have the originals for any historical event of the ancient world) doesn’t mean the events didn’t happen (unfortunately the type of paper they had in those days could not survive the centuries without some or total disintegration). Fourthly, Josephus along with Tacitus, and Pliny the elder (there may be someone else I’ve missed but I just can’t remember at the moment) wrote of Jesus (although I don’t understand why all of a sudden you question Jesus’s existence when at first you seemed to think that such a man did exist). And fifthly, do you think I’m a religious zealot?
P.S. Your attitude thus far has been less than tolerant.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
St John 2Of course Hitler was Catholic not Lutheran.
Let’s see if I’m following correctly.
These are the objective facts.
- the church vilifies this man, who was only fighting and advocating on behalf of his people, a people who again the church was clearly exploiting.
- the church continues to vilify this medieval man in the modern era – even accusing him of providing a source of inspiration for fascism (and the holocaust).
- ironically the man responsible for fascism and the holocaust belonged to the church in question.
If this behavior were present in an individual we would call him or her a sociopath. I’m left wondering – how do we define institutional sociopathy? Hmmm … I think I just did
18 Little children, it is the last hour: and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour. It is the last hour… That is, it is the last age of the world. Many Antichrists… that is, many heretics, enemies of Christ and his church, and forerunners of the great Antichrist. 19 They went out from us but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us: but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us. They were not of us… That is, they were not solid, steadfast, genuine Christians: otherwise they would have remained in the church. 20 But you have the unction from the Holy One and know all things. The unction from the Holy One… That is, grace and wisdom from the Holy Ghost. Know all things… The true children of God’s church, remaining in unity, under the guidance of their lawful pastors, partake of the grace of the Holy Ghost, promised to the church and her pastors; and have in the church all necessary knowledge and instruction; so as to have no need to seek it elsewhere, since it can be only found in that society of which they are members. 21 I have not written to you as to them that know not the truth, but as to them that know it: and that no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also. 24 As for you, let that which you have heard from the beginning abide in you. If that abide in you, which you have heard from the beginning, you also shall abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise which he hath promised us, life everlasting. 26 These things have I written to you concerning them that seduce you. 27 And as for you, let the unction, which you have received from him abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you: but as his unction teacheth you of all things and is truth and is no lie. And as it hath taught you, abide in him. You have no need, etc… You want not to be taught by any of these men, who, under pretence of imparting more knowledge to you, seek to seduce you (1 John 2:26), since you are sufficiently taught already, and have all knowledge and grace in the church, with the unction of the Holy Ghost; which these new teachers have no share in.
B
Bob_McKissick
Guest
I must admit that you impeccable logic is irrefutable! How could I ever come up with an answer to “Aristotle sinks!” Wow! How brilliant can one man be? I bow before your massive intellect! bobAristotle stinks. Beyond the few common sense observations he made – his philosophy is virtually worthless (an argument for the existence of a god, which I find about as compelling as a Bugs Bunny cartoon)
J
josie_L
Guest
T
Toribus
Guest
torbius wos ehre
B
Bob_McKissick
Guest
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
No credible scientist has ever proven (or even opined) that all of humanity descended from one couple … that’s just ludicrous. What science has shown is that we all descended from the same race, or species (and evolved from primates).
It’s pretty hard to square the idea of evolution with Genesis 1 or 2. Moreover, the first traces of people were in Africa, not in the Euphrates river valley (as the bible avers). Finally, there’s the obvious problem with chronology (which I’m sure you’re all familiar enough with). Therefore, science has proven false substantial elements of the bible. Even if you take a liberal view regarding Genesis chapters 1 through 6 (which most Christians do at this point) it still doesn’t address the problem of Adam and his prominent role in New Testament theology (particularly Pauline theology).
As far as whether or not I’m tolerant … objectively speaking I haven’t been intolerant. I’ve offered fair, tempered, and polite critique of religion. In other words just because you view any intellectual challenge to your faith in unreasonable terms doesn’t have any bearing on my objective level of tolerance (which is very high).
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
OK Bob I will concede: “stinks” isn’t exactly a logical argument (although it really wasn’t meant as one). My problem with Aristotle is the conclusions he reached; and not necessarily the logic leading up to those conclusions (which in many ways was quite sound). Unfortunately I need to catch a plane (and I’ll be away for the weekend); but I will continue on this point when I return (Aristotelian philosophy is indeed not a topic that I can fairly address in a five minute post … so it’ll have to wait for a few days). BTW I still have an quite a few of my old college books on Aristotle (including his work on metaphysics, which is where you see his theories of causation, forms, etc.). Until then … cheers.
B
Bob_McKissick
Guest
If you check the results of the work on Mitochondrial DNA you will find that there is reason to believe that only one female is the mother of all living humans. bob
J
josie_L
Guest
Firstly, let me remind you of a statement you posted to me awhile back:
“I appreciate the kind words … **but why do you think someone who doesn’t believe as you do is necessarily “hurting”? Isn’t that an arrogant view (to think only your religious system can provide happiness)? Furthermore, isn’t it stereotyping to say atheists are necessarily unhappy?” **
Do you remember these words (even though I had not stereotyped as you thought)?
Now, let me paraphrase your own words with my thoughts:
I don’t appreciate your unkind words (Francis) . . . but why do you think someone who doesn’t believe as you do is necessarily “wasting precious time”? Isn’t that an arrogant view (to think only your world view can provide something real and tangible)? Furthermore, isn’t it stereotyping to say believers are necessarily not getting anything out of their faith just because you don’t believe God exists?
Now let me quote you again (so this time it can sink in):
**“Imagine all the precious time wasted by billions of people believing in false mythology that isn’t real & offers exactly nothing.” **
You state that I waste my time on somthing that offers me nothing? How the H*ll would you know this, objectively speaking? Do you know who I am and what I’ve done with my life (for God, and as such for my neigbours) for you to say this? Or for that matter how it makes me feel to do good and obey God? There are also more than 2 billion Christians, Francis, do you know all of them, and can you say with a certainty that their belief and love for God has “offered exactly nothing”? Even if God didn’t exist (which is false), how has my doing good, or better yet, how has my faith working in love been in vain? Have I not loved my neigbour as Jesus taught me too with tangible results?
If you look at people like the Blessed Mother Theresa, who opened her doors to the “untouchables” of India to express her faith working in love (for Christ) has this not offered her anything tangible and real, do you not see the good that her faith has produced for herself and others?
So no, Francis, objectively speaking you are not being tolerant (I hate this word, it’s so patronizing, I prefer “respectful” really), not as per what I’ve seen in your last posts on this thread!
And another thing, if I truly viewed any intellectual challenge to my faith as unreasonable, then would I have continued to converse with you these last couple of months (do you think me some kind of sado-masochist)? I would have avoided you like the plague if I could not deal with such challenges rationally (I would have lost my cool many times over). But I have and with, I might add, respect for you, a person I consider a friend, not an opponent (although we butt heads most of the time).
J
josie_L
Guest
Before you take a bite out of me for posting something from a Catholic website, please read with an open mind:
Q: What are Catholics bound in faith to believe about human origins? Was Adam really our first parent, or could there have been an entire race of original human beings endowed with immortal souls — an accurate rendering of the Hebrew word “adam”?
Father Oakes: In my opinion, the debate about “monogenism” — the doctrine that says that all humans share the same primal parents — and “polygenism” — that the races come from independent lines of evolution — has been misconceived, for both are true depending on where you stop along mankind’s family tree.
All of us, after all, have one set of parents, but four grandparents, eight great-grandparents and so on, all the way back. But eventually, the number of these putative ancestors will grow absurdly large: in each generation, the number of my direct ancestors must grow exponentially: two, four, eight, 16, 32 and so on.
Even more strangely, the number of actual human beings inhabiting the planet will begin to shrink the further back into history we go. This means that, eventually, the further back you go in history, this vast number of ideal “slots” of ancestors will have to be filled by just one person or two; for example, if two of my grandparents were first cousins, I would have only six great-grandparents, not eight.
Fascinating studies have been done, using the genealogical records of the Mormons in Utah, to show how most Caucasians now dwelling in the United States can trace their ancestry back to just one couple living in eighth-century Europe; and no doubt Americans of other racial background could do the same with their native lands.
For a riveting account of this field of “population genetics” for the general reader, see The Mountain of Names: A History of the Human Family, by Alex Shoumatoff.
So does this process ever reach one couple? According to genetics, yes. In fact, according to the theory of evolution, it could hardly be otherwise, the whole point of the theory being to stress common ancestry.
Of course, if genetics establishes that there is a primal couple, that couple could then trace its ancestry back to a common set of ancestral parents. So according to genetics, both monogenism and polygenism are true, but at several times and at various points along the evolutionary tree. See “The History and Geography of Human Genes,” by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza.
The theological question then becomes: Do we ever reach the Adam and Eve described in the Bible? Here I think we get to the core of the issue.
Often the problems that Christians have with the theory of evolution have centered on questions of the inerrancy of Scripture. But I have often thought that the real problem centers on the doctrine of original sin.
Speaking personally, I see no conflict between evolution and original sin; and I tried to explain why in an article I wrote in November of 1998 for First Things [magazine] called “Original Sin: A Disputation,” where all of these questions are more thoroughly aired.
catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0062.html
to be continued . . .
J
josie_L
Guest
Computer analysis produced many possible family trees by which the present-day sequences could be derived ultimately from a single ancestral sequence. Because of the maternal inheritance of mtDNA, this work was interpreted as showing that all present mtDNA is derived from a single ancestral mtDNA belonging to a woman who lived in Africa some 200,000 years ago. She was nicknamed “Mitochondrial Eve”, the mother of us all.
Some of the implications from these data are more dramatic than is justified. One woman living 200,000 years ago was not the mother of us all. She may well have existed, but was only one member of a population living then. The story of Ariaantje and Gerrit Jansz [Link] will help explain why.
Some 30,000 people living in South Africa today carry the gene for porphyria that either Ariaantje or Gerrit brought with them from Holland in the 1680s. Every one of these people can find a genealogical line leading back to this couple. But that does not mean that Ariaantje or Gerrit by themselves founded this group. Although each of the 30,000 people with the porphyria gene can trace a genealogical line back to this couple, they could do the same for many couples living at that time. We each had 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents, and so on. Because of the restricted maternal inheritance of mtDNA, every time a couple descended from the population to which Eve belonged failed to have any daughters, another line of mtDNA would have died out. By chance alone, Eve’s mtDNA eventually was the only one left. This outcome is similar to the operation of genetic drift in neutral alleles of nuclear genes: in due course a given allele reaches a gene frequency of 100% or disappears entirely [Link to discussion].
users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Primates.html
Mitochondrial Eve (mt-mrca) is the name given by researchers to the woman who is defined as the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for all currently living humans. Passed down from mother to offspring, her mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is now found in all living humans: every mtDNA in every living person is derived from hers. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived at different times.
She is believed to have lived about 170,000 years ago, or roughly 8,000 generations ago. This places her in a period significantly earlier than the out of Africa migration some 60,000years ago, and close to the first appearance of archaic Homo sapiens itself, roughly contemporary to early fossil evidence found in Ethiopia, such as the Omo remains or the Homo sapiens idaltu fossils. Since Mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived in Africa she is sometimes also referred to as African Eve.
Mitochondrial Eve is the MRCA of all humans via the mitochondrial DNA pathway, not the unqualified MRCA of all humanity. All living humans can trace their ancestry back to the MRCA via at least one of their parents, but Mitochondrial Eve is defined via the maternal line. Therefore, she necessarily lived at least as long, though likely much longer, ago than the MRCA of all humanity.
The existence of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam does not necessarily imply the existence of population bottlenecks or a first couple. They each may have lived within a large human population at different times.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
Some of the implications from these data are more dramatic than is justified. One woman living 200,000 years ago was not the mother of us all. She may well have existed, but was only one member of a population living then. The story of Ariaantje and Gerrit Jansz [Link] will help explain why.
Some 30,000 people living in South Africa today carry the gene for porphyria that either Ariaantje or Gerrit brought with them from Holland in the 1680s. Every one of these people can find a genealogical line leading back to this couple. But that does not mean that Ariaantje or Gerrit by themselves founded this group. Although each of the 30,000 people with the porphyria gene can trace a genealogical line back to this couple, they could do the same for many couples living at that time. We each had 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents, and so on. Because of the restricted maternal inheritance of mtDNA, every time a couple descended from the population to which Eve belonged failed to have any daughters, another line of mtDNA would have died out. By chance alone, Eve’s mtDNA eventually was the only one left. This outcome is similar to the operation of genetic drift in neutral alleles of nuclear genes: in due course a given allele reaches a gene frequency of 100% or disappears entirely [Link to discussion].
users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Primates.html
Mitochondrial Eve (mt-mrca) is the name given by researchers to the woman who is defined as the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for all currently living humans. Passed down from mother to offspring, her mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is now found in all living humans: every mtDNA in every living person is derived from hers. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived at different times.
She is believed to have lived about 170,000 years ago, or roughly 8,000 generations ago. This places her in a period significantly earlier than the out of Africa migration some 60,000years ago, and close to the first appearance of archaic Homo sapiens itself, roughly contemporary to early fossil evidence found in Ethiopia, such as the Omo remains or the Homo sapiens idaltu fossils. Since Mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived in Africa she is sometimes also referred to as African Eve.
Mitochondrial Eve is the MRCA of all humans via the mitochondrial DNA pathway, not the unqualified MRCA of all humanity. All living humans can trace their ancestry back to the MRCA via at least one of their parents, but Mitochondrial Eve is defined via the maternal line. Therefore, she necessarily lived at least as long, though likely much longer, ago than the MRCA of all humanity.
The existence of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam does not necessarily imply the existence of population bottlenecks or a first couple. They each may have lived within a large human population at different times.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
B
Bob_McKissick
Guest
Pius XII stated that poly genesis is not permitted in “Humani Generis” 1950. bob
J
josie_L
Guest
We are as Catholics to believe (as this is Truth) that we are descended from one couple (one man and one woman), which is exactly what the article states.
J
josie_L
Guest
Q: Adolf Hitler claimed to be a Christian, but would it be wrong to say he most certainly was not a Christian?Of course Hitler was Catholic not Lutheran.
If this behavior were present in an individual we would call him or her a sociopath. I’m left wondering – how do we define institutional sociopathy? Hmmm … I think I just did
A: So far as we know, Adolf Hitler was validly baptized in the Catholic Church. That means he was a Catholic. Baptism is, literally, a new birth that makes the person a Christian in his very being, no matter how well or how poorly he lives out his faith. Just as physical conception means that a person will always be a human person with inherent human dignity, no matter how detestable the crimes he may choose to commit, so a baptized person, no matter how evil he becomes, remains a Christian. In Hitler’s case though, and in the cases of those Christians who also entirely abandon the faith into which they were baptized, it can be said that they no longer believe in Christianity and that their theological beliefs cannot be considered Christian. If they completely abandon their Christian faith, then they are apostates (cf. CCC 2089), though objectively they remain among the baptized.
The Nazi Party’s overarching policy was described by the term Gleichschaltung, denoting the effort to bring all German culture, religious practice, politics, and even daily life into strict conformity with Nazi ideology. It was a policy of total control of thought, belief, and practice and entailed the systematic eradication of all anti-Nazi elements in the country. The effort to control the churches was termed the Kirchenkampf (the war against the church), although Catholics were not attacked on the legal basis of their Catholicism. Rather, Catholics who opposed the Nazis were arrested and murdered for “crimes” against the state.
catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0811fea3.asp
Rabbi Lapide records that “in Rome we saw a list of 155 convents and monasteries—Italian, French, Spanish, English, American, and also German—mostly extraterritorial property of the Vatican . . . which sheltered throughout the German occupation some 5,000 Jews in Rome. No less than 3,000 Jews found refuge at one time at the Pope’s summer residence at Castel Gandolfo; sixty lived for nine months at the Jesuit Gregorian University, and half a dozen slept in the cellar of the Pontifical Bible Institute.”[15]
Notice in particular that the Pope was not merely allowing Jews to be hidden in different church buildings around Rome. He was hiding them in the Vatican itself and in his own summer home, Castel Gandolfo. His success in protecting Italian Jews against the Nazis was remarkable. Lichten records that after the War was over it was determined that only 8,000 Jews were taken from Italy by the Nazis[16] —far less than in other European countries. In June,1944, Pius XII sent a telegram to Admiral Miklos Horthy, the ruler of Hungary, and was able to halt the planned deportation of 800,000 Jews from that country.
The Pope’s efforts did not go unrecognized by Jewish authorities, even during the War. The Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, Isaac Herzog, sent the Pope a personal message of thanks on February 28, 1944, in which he said: “The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which form the very foundations of true civilization, are doing for us unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world.”[17]
Other Jewish leaders chimed in also. Rabbi Safran of Bucharest, Romania, sent a note of thanks to the papal nuncio on April 7, 1944: “It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the supreme pontiff, who offered a large sum to relieve the sufferings of deported Jews. . . . The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance.”[18]
The Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, also made a statement of thanks: “What the Vatican did will be indelibly and eternally engraved in our hearts. . . . Priests and even high prelates did things that will forever be an honor to Catholicism.”[19]
After the war, Zolli became a Catholic and, to honor the Pope for what he had done for the Jews and the role he had played in Zolli’s conversion, took the name “Eugenio”—the Pope’s given name—as his own baptismal name. Zolli stressed that his conversion was for theological reasons, which was certainly true, but the fact that the Pope had worked so hard on behalf of the Jews no doubt played a role in inspiring him to look at the truths of Christianity.
catholic.com/library/HOW_Pius_XII_PROTECTED_JEWS.asp
- Status