Ben,

first of all sorry for the delay in my answers. Its our new year and things are busy. :)

Anyway,
I agree with most of your latest points addressed to me and to Babak.

You said you were concerned about teh opportunities this administration has missed. I completely agree with that. But these are all opportunities this administration has created, and it has been able to do that only through its new paradigme and vision of a democratic middle east. My objection is still in considering this administration to have been " one of the worst the US has ever had" or "incrtedible damage that it has brought to teh world". It is simply not correct.

OK, now to your main point. I agree that for a people under brainwash, it is impossible to immidiately form a functioning liberal democratic system and that this could be dangerous certain times.
But what is your solution? How can the people get effectively out of brainwash. Just annulling the previous ones by utter force is not sufficient (though it is sometimes necessary- like Germany after the Nazis or the Palestinians now... and many Iranians as well as you mentioned). they also need the actual experience of making choices and living by teh consequences, ie in a society that has democratic frameworks imposed on it nevertheless, but that is controled tp prevent the consequences get out of hand untill the bulk of the peopel are ready and mature enough to stan on tehir own feet. So in Iraq and Afghanistan indeed the US must continue preserve and controle the tense situation and the subtle balance as long as it is necessary. Again I agree that it can do much better than it is, but in principle the US policy is very much in this line. The administration refuses to set a time for moving out troops or any specified plan of retrieval (which the democrats, teh only other alternative, demand by the way!)
The problem is taht unlike the mood after WWII, the world especially the West is not yet desperate enough , and at the same time it is not yet mature enough to act correctly without despair and so the US hands are more tightly bound compared to say Germany or Japan.

As for Palestinians, yes the US push for democratization is indeed a pressure but that is not where the problem is. Th eproblem as you said is in all teh money that they get after a pety sham electiosn from all sides. But that is not a specific failure of this admisnitration, but the malady in US policy for many many years now. just look at US aids to Egypt!

On teh other hand US has not taken charge in Palestinian authority has it has done in Iraq or Afghanistan now, or Germany before. Israel however has still much more direct power over the region. As nathan Sharansky has been saying all teh time, Israel has been almost as lax in not implementing real anti-brainwash hard hand policies among palestinians as it should have. Indeed Rabin's mistake was to bring back Araft to controle the palestinians in what ever way he wanted just to keep Israel out of this messy business and you can see th results. The thing about the new paradigme of Bush's adminsitration is a departure from this attitude at least in the large scale. It has not yet reached the stage of real policy in Palestine itself, true, but still it is the move in the right direction.

I have question now. Are there evidence for Alqaida activity in Hams controled regions?
If so it is a bit surprising. Hamas has been very careful in keeping its activities solell against Israel to prevent the West to be directly involved against it as a terrorist group. Giving such grounds to al Qaida is a big risk that could finally bring in the US and all its fight against terror to the palestinian lands. If that is indeed what Hamas is doing, it would be great advantage in the long run for Israel.
I mean the like sof Hamas, Islamc Jihad and Hezbollah are as much terrorists as the Al Qaida and as brutal. What is it they need Al Qaida for? They can do all of that much better and with the same cold inhumanity themselves. After all the likes of Emad Muqnieh are much more dangerous than Bin Laden and his gang. don't you agree?

Hello AIS,
Please, feel free to take your time ;)
I shall attempt to address all the points we disagree on and also those which I feel I can contribute additional information:

["My objection is still in considering this administration to have been " one of the worst the US has ever had" or "incrtedible damage that it has brought to teh world". It is simply not correct."]
My thoughts of this administration to be "one of the worst" is a matter of opinion and I believe that unless this administration succeeds in ridding the world from the loose ends it created (by honest mistakes), then in post factum, when we'll look back in say...15-20 years from now, and history will be the judge, this administration will be regarded as the scapegoat for the later terror/radical-Islam developments to such a degree that would pale the blunders of Carter.

["But what is your solution? How can the people get effectively out of brainwash."]
Regarding my "Phase A" suggestion, my idea of how to implement it is this:
Stemming in the fact that a large group of brainwashed people is a global issue and not just regional (especially since the use of terrorism in general and nuclear terrorism in specific could potentially hurt the rest of the world and not just the involved sides of a conflict, not to mention other actions of war), brainwashed people such as Palestinians must be dealt with as a global issue just as the greenhouse effect, world pollution and other matters are regarded.
This requires a coalition of many nations to help the Palestinians create a strong, stable and progressed state:
1) A union of a dozen states or more should military neutralize hostile elements in the field and also outside of it. If this was implemented in Iraq you'd see Iran face a coalition of dozen angry countries or more just because it interferes in Iraq. (for general informaton: Iran is actively responsible for most of the insurgency actions against the Americans in Iraq -the very thing that tied the U.S. and causes them to face failure.)
2) Neutral state such as Switzerland should take upon the task of creating a complete and perfect constitution and set of laws (this is not a war per se, so they should loosen up a bit on their neutrality tho I doubt these selfish shellfish will ever agree to that). Supposedly a good start would be to take what the Swiss already have in their own country and fit it to the needs of the Palestinian reality.
A temporary (Pre-democratic) legislative system for the Palestinians should also be created by the [Swiss] in order to dynamically shape their laws according to developing experience and needs.
Riding on creation of laws, an appropriate educational system must be created by them, eliminating brainwash.
3) An allied country which would be abstained from being militarily involved should be crowned with the role of creating a judicial system for the Palestinians.
4) The executive system of police and military which will be created is supposed to be maintained by all of the coalition forces excluding the previous two.
This system should actively fight terrorism, unauthorized arms and illegal actions, crimes..
It shouldn't be consisted of high percentage of foreign forces. Most of it should be consisted of Palestinians in order to help them learn how to sustain order themselves.
***
I think this process could take 20 years or more to be successful, however, it requires such consistancy, determination and decisiveness, that I doubt it could ever be done by this world. Even after the shock of nuclear anihilation of a country by terror or war. This world is composed of selfish countries which are the results of majority of apathetic and selfish human being that care of nothing as long as it doesn't concern their own short term well being. But since you asked, this is my proposed solution, and I don't see other ways of completing Phase A.

["But that is not a specific failure of this admisnitration, but the malady in US policy for many many years now. just look at US aids to Egypt!"]
Indeed, the U.S. has a difficulty identifying its allies most of the time:
If you remember a few months ago I posted here a link to the video of the Egyption T.V where in a children show a 3.5 y/o girl was venomously incited against Jews. This is what the supposedly moderate Mubarak allows in his country. This is not a one time incident. This is what goes on in their T.V all the time (Yes there is more) and also against the west.
This is Egypt that signed a Peace treaty with Israel. When the majority of the Egyptian public is encited enough from birth, Mubarak or his replacement will be "suprised" when the public will overthrow them in order to crown someone with (comparatively to Mubarak) radical views.
And the U.S. still thinks Egypt is their ally. She gives them money, weaponry and other supplies believing she supports a moderate ally; While in reality, she just feeds a monster that can wake up at any time. I don't think the solution is for the U.S. to stop supporting Egypt. I think the solution would be conditioning the help Egypt gets with really proving it's moderate.
Besides that matter of allies, in the matter of support, I'd like to mention that the U.S also "unconditionally" supports Palestinians (with money and supplies) believing they (Arafat/Abu Mazen -Fatah) are moderate. While in Reality this is what goes on in Palestinian T.V and life. I laughed when I saw Abu Mazens frowned face when Hamas won their elections. He also besides the disengagement and the U.S involvement had his share. It's him that allowed the radicalization to happen and did nothing about it. Now Hamas is going to get rid of him as soon as they feel secure enough in their own manifested government. And he himself is to blame for that.

["Indeed Rabin's mistake was..........in the right direction."]
You know, that is exactly why Sharon has come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a partner in the Palestinian side and Israel is unfortunately doomed to make unilateral steps.

["Are there evidence for Alqaida activity in Hams controled regions?
If so it is a bit surprising. Hamas has been very careful in keeping its activities solell against Israel to prevent the West to be directly involved against it as a terrorist group. Giving such grounds to al Qaida is a big risk that could finally bring in the US and all its fight against terror to the palestinian lands. If that is indeed what Hamas is doing, it would be great advantage in the long run for Israel. "]
First of all, now that Hamas has won the election, theres no such thing as "Hamas controlled regions" per se because ALL of Gaza and the West Bank are today under Hamas rule.
Secondly, Hamas, which is the Palestinian extension of the "Muslim brotherhood" from Egypt is financed and trained mostly by Iran and it has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda besides the fact that they are both Islamic terrorist organizations.
Al-Qaedas intentions are to (independently of Hamas) gain control over Palestinians and this actually gives Hamas (and also Abu Mazen) headache and stress.
The first signs of the Al-Qaeda activity in the Palestinian regions happened in October 2005, few months after the disengagement, and these terrorists are believed to have crossed into Gaza through Egypt after the border was opened (because there were no signs of them before the summer of 2005).
Al-Qaedas presence doesn't give Israel any advantage, not even in the long run because it will just create more casualties and the U.S. is so tangled in Iraq militarily and with Iran on the diplomacy plateau that the chance for it to get involved fighting Palestinian terrorism is delusional.
Finally, YES, there IS evidence for Al-Qaeda activity in Gaza and the West bank.
First came the intelligence reports and warnings. Some of which were made public in the Israeli and world media.
Then, there was the talking about "signs of Al-Qaeda" by the Palestinian officials themselves:
Abbas: Al-Qaeda has infiltrated Gaza Strip
Abbas: Al-Qaeda has infiltrated territories
Only a couple of weeks later we get this:
Al-Qaeda-Linked Palestinians Charged With Planning Attack
For first time, Israel charges West Bank Palestinians with al-Qaeda link
West Bank Palestinians indicted for joining Al Qaeda

["After all the likes of Emad Muqnieh are much more dangerous than Bin Laden and his gang. don't you agree?"]
Imad Mugniyah and Bin Laden both are Islamic terrorists. I'm not a professional psychologist but from what I see, their Islamic inferiority/narcism complex is indistinguishable and makes them both equally dangerous from the motivation point of view. The only other major factor that contributes to their ability of killing masses of people is their funding. In that field, Bin-Laden is much wealthier.

Ben,

I still don't understand what your point is. The story of Purim is a myth, written much later probably during teh Seleucid reign and it is part of teh whole Biblical worldview. The ancestry of Haman is the actually the main thing here becuase Amalekites are the Biblical enemies of jews and they are the ones who are trying to annihilate them whenever they can. Persia and the Perisan court is just the setting. You are being a bit funny when you regard all this as historically valid, Haman being aperisna minister and all that. haman is a mythical character. The book is filled with historical inconsistencies and the only historical figure there is teh king. That's it. The basis is , as I have saied heer before, A baylonian myth which recounts how the chief Babylonian deities Marduk and Ishtar defeated and replaced their Sumerian counterparts Haman and Vashti celebrated as part of a spring festival. If there is any historical core of the events that isnpired the use of this old babylonian myth (use of Babylonian myths is the hallmark of the Bible, teh creation and the Garden of Eden, the Flood,the child Moses in the basket on river,.. tey are all originally Babylonian myths), any way any historical origin would have probably been in the problems of returning Jews with Samaritans and other inhabitants of the land around the building of the second temple in the land of Israel or maybe Syria as a Perisna Satrap and not in Persia proper. As I said the book is itself written much later and could have been addressed primarily toward Seleucides or Romans. This was also common practice in that time in the scriptures, using Babylon for referring to Greece or Rome, it is there even in the christian book of revelations. There is even a mention in Apocrypha (book called usually as "The Rest of Esther) of Haman which calls him Haman the Macedonian.
Anyway ou can understand the message and inclusion of Esther only in relation to other parts of the Bible, especially the counterpoint voice it playes to teh exodus and the different salvations.

To use this to assert that Iran has succumbed twice etc is a bit ridiculous really.
It's good you mentioned Neturai Karta because they seem to disagree with you about their message or that of the idiot Islamist Ahmadinezhad when they have gone to Tehran and fully endorsed hisposition and defended it.
My point is simple, i am not arguing about genealogical ancetsry. I am showing why such oversimplifications and categorizatiosn, what country feel to this how many times etc, is meaningless. The roots of anitisemtism are deep and complex and they arise in many different contexts and shapes. Islamism is antisemtic and violent. Nazism the same. So was Communism actually too. These are ideologies and people can succumb to tehm, including groups of people who can gain power over a region as a result of complex hitorical inetractiosn and even chance and impelment them. (And these people can include even Jews, yes and it has. I don't want to go intro this but some of the vilest accusations agains the jews was made by converted ex-jews say during teh mioddle ages. Paul was jew too. Marx too. There wass even a Jewish neo-Nazi aspirant...)
you see Ben . You are right when you say this has nothing to do with lineage or birth. It has to do with ideas and groups of people. Nations like lienages are a more general term and is as absured to categorize them like you did as it is for geneologies. well almost!
Attributing this to nations, any nation, is absured and gets you no where. It is always people and groups with ideologies that act this way. Nation is too broad a aconcept to fit in here.

Indeed the Biblical; writers understood this much better than you. That is why they looked for footprints of Amalek, the idealized archetype of these mentalities, to explain the events.

As I said before. You shoudl read more. Don't take it personally. We all should.

AIS,
You seem to contradict yourself.
Indeed a myth is a possibility not only for the story of Purim, but also for the whole bible.
Still, many myths hold some connection to actual events and I believe the Purim story to be much more accurate than the story of the garden of eden for example simply because there was less time for it to mutate. It's much recent on the alleged timeline.

When I read your comment, I found it very peculiar that on one hand you call the story of Purim a myth, and on the other allow yourself to burst out to the open with statements about its origin, characters and relation, that have no grounds at all. Theories and subjective interpretations are also myths untill proven and you seem to forget that. Your only obsession is about reading. But what does it worth when you read wrong, conclude wrong or judge wrong?

Examples? There you go, here are a few of your claims that can't be proven which you presented as facts or plausible and by these turned your own comment into a myth "just like" the story of Purim:
1) ["haman is a mythical character"] -How can you prove that?
2) ["The book is filled with historical inconsistencies"] -Well if you read so much I believe you can mention a few?
3) ["only historical figure there is teh king"]
4) ["A baylonian myth which recounts how the chief Babylonian deities Marduk and Ishtar defeated and replaced their Sumerian counterparts"] -Where is your proof that the connection isn't coincidental?
5) could have been addressed primarily toward Seleucides or Romans."] -Speculation? yes sir!

["There is even a mention in Apocrypha (book called usually as "The Rest of Esther) of Haman which calls him Haman the Macedonian"]
Well now, I guess we really can't be sure (in the light of this) where he's really from.. Did you ever think of a reason why "The Rest of Esther" stayed "The Rest"?

["To use this to assert that Iran has succumbed twice etc is a bit ridiculous really. "]
You can't prove or disprove the existance of these events and trying to interpret their origins too much is like becoming an Exobiologist just like you can't prove or disprove the existance of life on another planet.
But the basis for a positive possibility of existance, both for these events and aliens, exists.
I believe in the higher credibility of later events more than I do of earlier because of the detrition of quality in the time factor.
And although I'd agree many facts there could've been distorted, theres no way the location would.
It's just too big of a parameter in the story.
To say the location was somewhere else would be like trying to claim the exodus was actually from Edom and not from Egypt.
Bottom line is that whether this has some roots in real events, which I believe it does, it did happen in Persia. And now, rises in Persia a king, asking to wipe Jews. Second time that this kind of bullshit comes from Iran. That was my point. You made too much of a mess out of it.
Besides of that:
["With the irony god and faith play on us, this Haman could be the very ancestor of mister Ahmadinejad. Don't you think?"]
Thats what I said and we can't really verify something like this so it really doesn't matter if they are or aren't relatives. Apparently, if you don't write "CAUTION!!! I AM BEING CYNICAL" before the "controversial" sentence someones gonna take it personally. you read but don't understand.

["It's good you mentioned Neturai Karta because they seem to disagree with you about their message or that of the idiot Islamist Ahmadinezhad when they have gone to Tehran and fully endorsed hisposition and defended it."]
Neturei Karta are a cult that spins around Anti-Zionism with the emphasis on the word "anti".
They are more Anti-Zionists than Nazis were Anti-Semites. They are guided by their faith and brainwash from childhood in much the same manner Muslim terrorists are. The only difference is that they hate without the will to actually kill.
Those Karta clowns that went to Teheran have no idea who they are dealing with.
They are blind to the fact that the Iranian president wishes to exterminate Jews because they sympathise with his aim against the idea of a Jewish state.
They also went to meet Hamas leaders and later said remarks such as "only about occupation", "Hamas isn't against Jews" -This while the Hamas Covenant is clearly anti-semitic.

["Attributing this to nations, any nation, is absured and gets you no where. It is always people and groups with ideologies that act this way"]
The categorization was attributed to Iran for twice rising the same type of devil to power. How is this absurd? Germany is responsible for two world wars. I allow myself to categorize it as a trouble maker. And to tell you the truth, if there wasn't the Islamic factor in the world today I'd even risk myself to predict that Germany could be the initiator of WWIII I also categorize the whole nation of Islam as a trouble maker. Wheres your point that proves this attribution is absurd when regarding nations?

So you agree that it's alright to catagories groups but when it comes to nation you claim they are too broad for it thus making the catagorisation absurd. So where is your limit of [Group of people] VS [Nation]??? is 50 a group and 50 million a nation? Where is the line? The only absurd thing here seems to be your own logic.

["Indeed the Biblical; writers understood this much better than you. That is why they looked for footprints of Amalek, the idealized archetype of these mentalities, to explain the events."]
Why do you analyze considerations you can't be sure ever existed? Why do you attribute the "writers" intentions of designing and fabricating a story? As I've discussed about this above, it's quite possible to be based on real events.

Would it be fair enough to categorize you as Anti-Bible? (This is a simple yes or no question!)
I wish to know if you dismiss anything that's written in that book as utter-nonsense.

Ben,

I will address the book of Esther and Neturei Karta, but first I want to correct one major misunderstanding here.

Indeed I object to placing the blame on nations rather than groups. The issue is not numbers at all. Groups , the way I mean them, are identified with a set of ideas, goals and idologies. Nazis, islamists, communists, liberals.... all have identifiable agendas based on which they could be judged. A nation on the other hand is a much more complicated entity, identified by its history, land, common language and so on, not an agneda or ideology. So yes it is absurd to "blame" a nation for such things, while it is not necessarily so for a group with a specific ideology.
The events that take place on the level of nations are too complex to be targets of blaming games. Many causes from very different origins must come together until events take place on a national or international level.

I don't understand why you disagree. There are "groups" who push for violence. There are groups who are anti-semitic. There are groups who have a totalitarian agenda.... for complex and varied reasons such groups manage to get to power and commit crimes or wage wars. The blame goes on the perpetrators of those crimes, or those who fought for ideals that justify such crimes. To groups and individuals. Not to races, nations, countries, continents, or any other complex multifaceted ensembles of people.
Is this so hard to understand?
The reasons for WWI and II or for the rise of Nazis are varied and complicated. The same goes for the rise of islamism or communism. Why did Russia become communist? Or Germany Nazi? Iran an Islamic Republic or Afghanistan a Taliban state?
Your world seems to be quite simple, I almost envy you: "They" were/are troublemaker nations.

But who are "they" exactly, Ben?
Jews born for generations in Germany, where they also part of the troublemaker German "nation"? Why not? Tell me, if German generals in WWI were a bit smarter or luckier and Germany hadn't lost the war, if the bankers in the US central bank were a bit smarter so the markets wouldn't crash in America, if Soviet Russian backed communist parties in Germany didn't paralyze the Weimar republic, if , if ... maybe Germany would have been the good nation in your book now, and who knows, maybe Hungary would have become the evil nation? or maybe France? They had the Dreyfuss affair, remember? Maybe the government who would have come to power in Paris amidst the mess after a hypothetical defeat in WWI would have been a bloody racist one, like the one Lupen is striving for today, and then they would have been the ones to send the Jews to camps in say, Algeria. Since the Jews would have been blamed as a "nation" for everything that went wrong in France?
Are you really sure things wouldn't have evolved like that?

Who are "They", Ben?

How about Dissidents in Soviet Union? They were also part of the damned trouble maker "Red Commi Ruskis"? How about small landowners or farmers who were sent to Gulags? How about Iranian women who are beaten up by its Islamist regime. they are half of the "Iran" you consider as a trouble maker. (Or women in all Islamic countries for that matter?) How much of the blame goes to small childern who beg on the streets or wipe cars behind traffic lights? What is their role in this nation's second genocidal aims? how about the minorities? Dissidents? Atheists? Taxi drivers, how about them? What percentage of the blame goes to taxi drivers? What percentage to the milkmen? What about truck drivers?.... How about the cafe owners of Cuba? How much of the responsibilty for nearly beginning the third world war should we assigne to Cuban cafe owners?
Let's see the other side now: Nazi sympathisers in France or the United States are insignificant? they were/are French and American and so the good guys in WWII, right? After all they didn't belong to troublemaker "nations", so let's forget them. They are not our concern. They do not comprise the Wretchedness.... right? Poland was captured by the Germans, so Poland as a "nation" shouldn't be blamed with the Holocaust, despite all the cooperation the Nazis recieved by many of the people there, right?
.
.
.
Should I go on?

As for the Bible.
Calm down. What is the matter? What is this about anti-Bible? Where did I say it is all nonsense? Why do you presume if something is not historical that it is nonsense?
I am not anti-Bible. very much the reverse. I find it quite fascinating.

Bible has a lot of historically valid information, especially when compared with other documents of its genre. It also has a lot of legends and myths. Why is this so surprising to you?

There are two seperate issues here:
1) if the book is a work of fiction or a historically valid narration. 2) what are its origins.

The book of Esther is believed by the majority of scholars to be a work of fiction, written in a much later date. The best assumption is around 100 BC which puts it in Greek times.

As for its origins, the debate goes on.

The book has the usual style of stories like 1001 nights. It is filled with exaggerations. The dates don't match. Mordechai and Esther couldn't have been alive in the time of Ahashverosh (Xerxes, Khahsyarsha) if taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar!
There is NO account of such events in any historical document of the time, including historical sections of the Bible like Ezra and Nehemiah.
there is evidence though of strife with samaritans and other peoples of the region after the resettlement of JEws in and around Jerusalem, teh building fo teh temple and the construction of walss around the city that also involved local rulers so that could have been a possible historical background.
There is no record of a Vashti or an Esther, a Mordechai or a Haman in teh Perisn courts at all.
there is howvere all teh similarities between the names and thsoe of babylonian and Elmaite/sumerian gods. (Humman, vasht or mashti).
in Babylonian legends Ishtar and Marduk are also cousins. Hadassha is similar to a Babylonian word for "Bride" which was a title for Ishtar.
Can they all be coincidence? yes they can. But there is a very good probability that there is a babylonian link and basis to teh story, especially since other major jewish festivities are based on similar festivities in the region based on agricultural pagan celebrations.
See here as well.

The assumption that later books of the Bible are more historical is not correct. Esther, Daniel. Job and Jonah are all later books of the Bible and they are all works of fiction. One other example is the book of Ruth.
The most historical sections of the Bible are the books of Judges, Samuel and Kings.
the five books of Torah (and the book of Joshuah which belongs to the same group but has been treated seperately becuase in it Moses is dead) contain a lot of historical facts but are mixed with legends and myth and finction as the basis of the predominent worldview of Judaism than as historical documents.
the books of phrophets are from a different source and tradition usually and also contain a lot of historically valid informations though their concern is of course not history. The book fo Chronicles is also histoprical written probably by teh same author as Ezra and like it is more or less a historically valid book.

As for Bibilcal writers view of Amalekites, this is not reading into their "intentions". The role of Amalek in the Bible is well known. Ask your Rabbi. Amalek is the anti-thesis of Israel and also according to rabbinic thought is behind all attampts to annihilate the Jews.

See here too.

Neturei Karta,

well. I assume they know their own positions better than you. They also look like grown up people who know what they are doing: They have stated very clearly that they consider Zionists and Israel to be Amalek. This is very very clear. they are religious. The decree against Amalek in the Torah is also very clear:
"...you shall wipe out the memory of Amalek from beneath the heavens - Do not forget!" (deutronomy 25:17-18)
The order is to leave nothing of Amalek alive. (see here)
The neturei Karta know this very well yet they interview Hizbollah or the islamic republic and call Zionists and Israel as the manifestation of Amalek of our time. I can only assume that they know very well what that amounts to.
Ahmadinezhad and his regime also demand the annihilation of Zionists. offically they have nothing against Jews either!

"The only difference is that they hate without the will to actually kill."

You can say all you want to white wash this, but the Neturei karta are calling for extermination. You know, Julius Streicher didn't fire a singel weapon himself either. he published propaganda newspapers. yet he was as much a criminal as those who actually did the killings.

AIS,
Following your comment from March 28, 2006 04:02 PM:
["Groups , the way I mean them, are identified with a set of ideas, goals and idologies"]
When a decision maker (from either of us to a head of state) burden himself with too many obvious, insignificant, predictable and casual details: The bigger picture is missed.
Your line between nations and groups also gets blurred in certain situations and thats why I think it's problematic. You could argue that a number of people is a group when narrowing the sampled idea that they share, however, when you change the subject, they disperse from being a group. Consider this: During WWII, Nazis and Japanese formed a coalition and cooperated. Does this mean they share the same ideal? Of course they don't. Besides that Nazis saw Japanese as inferior since they aren't of pure 'Aryan Blood' -bluntly another group. But the point of view of the observer is what matters.
Being an American during that war, both Germans and Japanese form an 'Axis', a group, one front which against you'd fight. The diversion of division between Japan and Germany becomes secondary.
So in general you'd combine them into one super-group and say: 'These guys hate me'. At this point, the distinction between the two sub-groups isn't necessary.
Although it's possible, I don't wish giving more than one example and turning a complete paragraph into an examples backyard. The bigger picture is more important and the bottom line is that it really depends on your perspective whether a certain group, whether it's a nation or just 50 people can be attributed with catagorization.

Our two approaches to that matter aren't that different if you think about it.
I think the difference can be seen as your approach being from bottom to top and mine as top to bottom:
You burden yourself with the sub-categorization of groups and find that the possibilities of grouping people are endless, then you justifiably claim that since a nation includes within itself alot of groups, it wouldn't be fair to generalize it as a group.
I on the other hand first see the nation as a group and only then, only if necessary would harass myself with the issue of particular cases, individual people or outstanding groups within that certain nation.
In both approaches perspective plays an important role, even in your approach, even if you won't admit it. And my point stands that I can choose to see Germany as a trouble maker since it was the birthplace for the forces that led the world into two major global wars. If I was a German, I would justifiably see the Nazis as the trouble makers rather than all Germans but that won't change the reality, that my nation, as a German, was unfortunately the greenhouse for evil troublemakers two times too many!
From my own point of view, considering what the book of Ester says about Persia-Jews relations and also the latest remarks by the Iranian president, these were two times too much. Wretchedness in all its glory.
Does it strike you as coincidence that same type of trouble making arise twice in Iran and another twice in Germany? I think not.
"My world" isn't simple at all. I simplify it on purpose to see the bigger picture and then if necessary be distracted for the smaller and secondary issues. You on the other hand, can't seem to grasp the bigger picture although it's theoretically possible with your system, it seems to be too big for you. Here's an example for what I see as the problem with your grouping.
Lets say you're a politician running for parliament and your voters are consisted of 5 groups that are divided this way:
first group - 70% of voters
second group - 20% of voters
third group - 5% of voters
fourth group - 3% of voters
fifth group - 2% of voters
A smart politician would see the bigger picture for his interests and contribute less of his time and resources to the wishes of the fifth group compared to the attention he'd give to the first.
If he acts as obstinate and give equal attention to all groups, he wouldn't be managing his attention wisely.

["How about Dissidents..........assigne to Cuban cafe owners?"]
Theres a reason why you're being put to jail for killing someone in a road accident.
Of course any sane person would never intent on ending the life of another, would also be horrified by the thought and probobly bad weather could partially be blamed.
I bring this example to show that even when things are out of your control, you still hold some degree of responsibility just for being involved.
You gave alot of examples to the small citizens that "couldn't be" responsible for the actions of their evil regimes. That is basically true when examining the responsibility of individuals.
That is also your problem. You distract yourself with pointless irrelevant and obvious information and you can't see the bigger picture.

Those citizens are collectively responsible especially if they don't pressure their government or cause some sort of revolution. In Iran for example, they don't, and nothing changes. And maybe thats something Iranians forget. Maybe if they thought they have responsibility for the actions of even a few of their countryman who came to power, things would look different today. Your approach borders a degenerative disorder and this same approach is probably shared by many Iranians that evidently do nothing which is effective against their lunatic regime.
This is how Iranians that oppose this regime "have sinned". With the brainwash the other part was receptive to against Jews/West, yes, that makes them a potential danger so of course, even the beaten women among them (the receptive ones) are blamefully responsible.

AIS,
In regards to your comment from March 28, 2006 07:20 PM: (I will address the Neturei Karta issue in additional comment)

["Bible has a lot of historically valid information, especially when compared with other documents of its genre. It also has a lot of legends and myths. Why is this so surprising to you?"]
Not only that it's not surprising to me, I also stated that the bible is possibly consisted myths and some that had a connection to actual events in the first lines of my comment from: March 25, 2006 07:54 PM.
But of course, right now, you'd be saying anything to discredit me when it suits you. Thank you very much!

["The book of Esther is believed by the majority of scholars to be a work of fiction, written in a much later date. The best assumption is around 100 BC which puts it in Greek times."]
The funny thing is that every generation of 'scholars' think they got it right 'this time'.
At some point in history, the 'majority of 'scholars' were sure the earth was flat. So what?
My whole point in my previous comment which regarded that subject was that all the records you have of that period of the story that regard to that story are other stories.
You're 'effectively' attempting to solve a 2 variables equation without a second equation.
Being fed by same quality of sources to substantiate or disprove the "Book of Esther" will get you nowhere.
You have no videotapes and nothing recorded electronically.
Only the super-subjective reports of individuals that were super-subjected to degrition of quality because of the time that has passed.

["The book has the usual style of stories like 1001 nights. It is filled with exaggerations."]
Thats a subjective opinion brought up in your attempt to undermine the book. Don't mix it with factual reasons.

["The dates don't match. Mordechai and Esther couldn't have been alive in the time of Ahashverosh (Xerxes, Khahsyarsha) if taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar!"]
Now you're making a joke out of yourself.. Especially since you told me I lack the reading.
Well, I did mine. Apparently you didn't do yours.
There is no mention anywhere, ANYWHERE, that Esther was in captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. I dare you to find biblical references that say she was.
Mordechai on the other hand could very well have been since the exile of the Jews was 70 years before the time of the story. He could've been a kid for all that matters. Do you agree that as a nephew Esther would've been much younger than him? AIS, you seem to be so over possessed in discrediting that story that you lose youself in hollow statements.

["There is NO account of such events in any historical document of the time, including historical sections of the Bible like Ezra and Nehemiah. "]
Excuse me, that proves nothing. This sentence is pointless unless you mean to say that EVERY single one of the stories in the bible that hasn't got some account elsewhere is fabricated without connection to real events.

["There is no record of a Vashti or an Esther, a Mordechai or a Haman in teh Perisn courts at all."]
You have their record in the book of Esther and you seem to claim a Persian records would substantiate events. At the same time you fail to explain why you'd consider Persian records to be reliable. Some scholar you are..

["there is howvere all teh similarities between the names and thsoe of babylonian and Elmaite/sumerian gods. (Humman, vasht or mashti)."]
This proves nothing since it's not uncommon to find people named after deities in Pagan cultures and also in Judaism which has only one god, but his appendix to the names of many Jews is present: 'el' which means god in Hebrew exists in countless names.

["in Babylonian legends Ishtar and Marduk are also cousins. Hadassha is similar to a Babylonian word for "Bride" which was a title for Ishtar."]
'are also cousins' ?
You see, therein lies your mistake.. Mordechai and Esther were not (!) cousins. Do you wish that I behave just like you and exploit this opportunity to lecture you about reading? Only you never had a good reason to lecture me.. I do.

["especially since other major jewish festivities are based on similar festivities in the region based on agricultural pagan celebrations. "]
This is a fact and it has nothing in particular (that you can prove) to do with this specific story. -UNLESS you want to generalize the Jewish biblical stories in the same manner that you objected my generalization of nations. I smell something funny.. On top of that your whole assumption has no grounds because it's 100% "maybe", even you admit that.

["The assumption that later books of the Bible are more historical is not correct. Esther, Daniel. Job and Jonah are all later books of the Bible and they are all works of fiction. One other example is the book of Ruth. "]
Why are you so stubborn on arguing about something that I've already said:
1) Cannot be proven.
2) -hence a matter of opinion/belief.
Please read carefully, no matter how many inconsistencies you find (if there are any), they could just be a result of quality detrition from the period the stories were passed orally before they were written. Hence such inconsistencies suggest nothing of the actual existence of the events. You can't establish a factual conclusion whether the events took place or not just by looking at the inconsistencies.
From these also deriving that since you can't really prove anything regarding these stories, and because they were written much later and because of the detrition of time, you can't really tell whether (if there is a connection between the book of Esther and the babylonian tales)the babylonian stories came only after the story of Esther.
Unless you can find something of each that could be Carbon dated, I reject any claims of proof by using the scriptures themselves.
This is exactely why I'm not going to get into Daniel, Job, Jonah and Ruth. You claim they are 100% myth but you really can't tell. I never rejected the possibility, but as I said, it could be also parts myth and parts based on real events. Unless you have a time machine to go and find out, it'd be very arrogant of you to keep claiming you know if they were 100% myth.

["The book fo Chronicles is also histoprical written probably by teh same author as Ezra and like it is more or less a historically valid book."]
Please stop speculating just when it suits you. It turns a complete sentence into nonsense. Do you actually know this author personally? No one can be sure of these things.

["Ask your Rabbi"]
I had my time with the Rabbi thank you very much. I don't need your advise to ask him because I know exactly what Amalek are and I still don't agree with your casual analysis that attribute the writers of the story intents on fabricating it.

The Bible debate:

You approach is incorrect.
Here is your mistake:

"Why are you so stubborn on arguing about something that I've already said:
1) Cannot be proven.
2) -hence a matter of opinion/belief."

This is incorrect. Nothing can really be proven. The whole feature of science is to disprove, not to prove. Hnece if something is not proven, it does not follow that is a matter of opinion/belief.
The question is something else altogether:
Since you can't prove anything in the sense you mean(what is a prove? Maybe you should think about tah first. Proving is a bookkeeping affair, to arrange things that are equivalent to each other, so that if you accept one, the validity of others would follow. That is what proving is about. That is why it is never the issue for discovering the truth "out there". For that you make conjectures that are reasonable and look for evidence to "reject it". In the mean time, while they are not rejected, you start proving other statements that would follow "if" the initial claim was really "the truth", so that you equivalnce class can be increase in size. that would make applying your assumptions in different situations possible and it would provide more measures to reject the initial claims when the evidence is found. That's it.)
So the right question at any point is this: given the diffrenet evidnce which of the possible "conjectures" is more reliable. Which one is the more rational to adopt.
Now with this all you about the indterminacy of Esther becomes really irrelevant. Given the options it definitely more rational to reject the story of Esther as fiction that to accept it. the fact that neither can be 100% proven is completely irrelevant to thsi discussion.
I found this remark in the light of what I said especially amusing:
"["There is no record of a Vashti or an Esther, a Mordechai or a Haman in the Persian courts at all."]
You have their record in the book of Esther and you seem to claim a Persian records would substantiate events. At the same time you fail to explain why you'd consider Persian records to be reliable. Some scholar you are.."

you see Ben, we are debating the validity of the book of Esther in the first place! So the fact that the names arise in this book is of now help to us, don't you agree. One way the historicity of the book of Esther can be defended rationally is to find the same events, or something similar enough, retold in an independent source, a source without the whole pacakge of wordlview the Bible is written upon. It could be Persian or Greek for instance. This is common sense and ususla scientific and scholarly procedure and very rightly so. The fact that no other records has been found is very siginificant. If course if one is found tomorrow, then I will be willing to change my mind. that is also the feature of science and scholarly work, in conradistinctionto dogma, you change your view with the emergence of new evidence and results.
That's aslo why scholars in later generations sometimes change their positions. There is no reason for deriding it as you did. (That is why your words are becoming more and more reminiscent of the approach of religious belivers who want to protect their faith against outside inconvenient doubts. I'm sorry to say this.)

If you want to believe in it as historical, if it makes you feel better, Ben, go ahead. No one is stopping you. Just don't try to "excuse" it with such "arguments".

One more point:
You say:

"You see, therein lies your mistake.. Mordechai and Esther were not (!) cousins."

This is what the Bible says:
Esther Chapter 2:
5) In the fortress of Shushan lived a Jew by the name of Mordechai ben Jair ben Shimei ben Kish. a Benjaminite.
6) He had been exiled from Jerusalem with king Jeconiah of Judah whom Nebuchadnezzar of babylon had carried away.
7) He was had brought up Hadassah-that is, Esther- his uncle's daughter, for she had neither father nor mother....

I think cousin is an English word to denote one's uncle's daughter as well, last time I checked. :)
Anyway, your main argument was that Mordechai is older than Esther, like a father or uncle, since he had brought her up.

That's what you are basically saying, Right?:

"There is no mention anywhere, ANYWHERE, that Esther was in captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. I dare you to find biblical references that say she was.
Mordechai on the other hand could very well have been since the exile of the Jews was 70 years before the time of the story. He could've been a kid for all that matters. Do you agree that as a nephew Esther would've been much younger than him? "

OK. Mordechai is older. I agree. (I never said the opposite!) That seems to be what the Bible imples. And lets' assume as you do that he was the one who came along from Babylon. the problem is Ben, the story does NOT take place 70 years after the exile!

70 years after teh excile is when Babylon is captured by Cyrus II the Great, who among other things lets the Jews go to Jerusalem to build their Temple. Nebucahdnezzar died at around 605 BCE. Cyrus the great captured Jerusalem around 538 BCE a. He died around 530 BCE and succeded by his son Cambyses who captured Egypt in 525 BCE, but had to return because a priest had pretended to be his dead brother Smerdis, but dies on his way back in 521 BCE. Afterward Darius I the Great, an aramy general and a member of teh royal family, finally took the throne from the false priest. Anyway Darisu died around 486 BCE. That is when his son , the Ahashverosh of the book of Esther, came to the throne. I leave the math to you Ben.
(And assume that Esther was younger, as a duaghter of his. By all means!)

So you see Ben, you should do better than this. I'll teach you a better way (that has also been used by better read apologists now a days). It is more effective if you claimed that all the stuff about Nebuchadnezzar refers to Kish(!) and not to Mordechai. You have to twist and force read Esther 2:5 a bit. But when did a little twist here and there ever hurt a real religious apologist.

Anyway, try this one next time you get into such a debate instead. :)

Btw, the book of Ezra, says of the beginning of Ahashverosh reign that the Smaritans, "the people of the land undermined by the resolve of the people of Judah", write him a letter:
Ezra 4:6 "..wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.
Ezra 4:7: And in teh time of Artaxerxes (ie. his son), Bishlam, ... , wrote to King Artaxerxes of Persia, a letter written in Aramaic ...

That is why it is possible that these discords around Jerusalem and the samaritans might have bene the inspirations o the book of Esther.

AIS,
Following your comment about the bible debate from April 1, 2006 05:41 PM:

First of all I would like to apologise the honest mistake I had for the two heroes relation and the timing.
There are a few points of your argument I diagree with and will regard them ahead, but since they are mostly a matter of opinions they will only come second to the most important issue that holds this whole argument:
Your basis claim which sounds logical for 'inconsistencies' in the book leaned on the impossibility that Esther and Mordechai lived in the time of Ahashverush if they lived during the time of Nebuchadnezzar.
Only in your later comment you quoted the verses you rely on:
["This is what the Bible says:
Esther Chapter 2:
5) In the fortress of Shushan lived a Jew by the name of Mordechai ben Jair ben Shimei ben Kish. a Benjaminite.
6) He had been exiled from Jerusalem with king Jeconiah of Judah whom Nebuchadnezzar of babylon had carried away."]
You see AIS, the problem which now in your quotation appears (problem which I noticed only after you quoted) is that of the translation:
1) The Hebrew word "ben" means "son".
so the correct translation for this verse would be "In the fortress of Shushan lived a Jew by the name of Mordechai son [of] Jair son [of] Shimei son [of] Kish. a Benjaminite."
2) In the 6th verse the first word in your quote is "He" and thats an honest quotation to the English translated version.
When I opened the book of Esther for verification I immediately noticed that the word "He" (in Hebrew: "Hu") isn't present at all. The first word in this 6th verse in the Hebrew version of the book of Esther is: "Asher". The English translation of this word is: "which" or "that".
The connection between verses 5 and 6 is as follows:
"ben Kish a Benjaminite which was exiled from Jerusalem"

So you see, your whole argument is wrong.
In that matter at least, there is no inconsistency. The bible gives the whole genealogy of Mordechai back to the time of his forefather Kish which was exiled by Nebuchadnezzar.
Although you failed to find an inconsistency in this matter I'm sure you can succeed in finding one eventually.
As I've said from the begining, I'm sure the bible is full of inconsistencies and twisted facts (for your delight) but even if you find a few, it doesn't disprove the stories relation to possible true events.
Even the testimony of witnesses to a crime scene is sometime full of holes and it doesn't mean the crime never took place.

["It is more effective if you claimed that all the stuff about Nebuchadnezzar refers to Kish(!) and not to Mordechai. You have to twist and force read Esther 2:5 a bit. But when did a little twist here and there ever hurt a real religious apologist."]
I couldn't claim that before because in general I agree the bible isn't exactly a book of facts and you didn't have to do much to convince me of possible inconsistency which btw I relied on your claim before you quoted the verses.
Only when you directed me to these verses I saw the problem.
As I've shown above, theres no need to force read or twist the story.
The only twisted version of the story is the one in the translated languages.
The word "He" dramatically changes the whole meaning of the 2 verses.
The 'genius' which translated the 6th verse did a lousy job. No reading apologizing here. No sir.. I hope you see that because theres no possible way and no possible context or grammar that the word "Asher" could possibly mean "He".
So I have a question for you:
If theres clearly a difference between the translated versions and clearly a word which changes the whole subject of the sentence was put there while removing a word which was the correct one, why do you call whoever refers to that issue a "reading apologists"? You need a good reason to name them such.
What I see now is that your only reason for naming them such is that what they say isn't suitable for your thesis: that the book is a myth.

I'd like to regard other issues:
["This is incorrect. Nothing can really be proven. The whole feature of science is to disprove, not to prove"]
But this is not science! This is a story from the bible. You can't even turn it into science if you want because there are no surviving evidence other than subjective records!
Science deals with facts. You can't be scientifically sure of facts by reading such old subjective scriptures.

["One way the historicity of the book of Esther can be defended rationally is to find the same events, or something similar enough, retold in an independent source, a source without the whole pacakge of wordlview the Bible is written upon. It could be Persian or Greek for instance."]
The first problem with this part of your comment is that you don't consider that I think it wouldn't be a smart to bet your life on the historicity of bible.
The other problem is that assuming a possibility for the story to be based on real events, the claim that it's not mentioned in Persian records doesn't prove that it's not true and could easily be dismissed because the story itself doesn't flatter Persia very much. What king would like this to be recorded? And why do you think it should be recorded by the greeks? In that time there was no T.V or radio, you know that.. I'm sure that if such event happened in any country at those times, alot of it's own citizens wouldn't know about it.

["If you want to believe in it as historical, if it makes you feel better, Ben, go ahead. No one is stopping you. Just don't try to "excuse" it with such "arguments"."]
As it seems to me, because of the insane effort you invest in trying to disprove the story, that the only one trying to make excuses is you toward it's validity. As I've said.. This story doesn't flatter Persia to say the least.. So if it makes you feel better trying to disprove it, go ahead AIS, No one is stopping you and you can rely on misguided translations with words that haven't got even a remote (!) relation to the original words..
Although I don't agree that the bible is even close to factual accounts, you're attempt at totally discrediting any relation this story could possibly remotely have to real events is ridiculous because of the same reason the various details of the stories can't be treated as facts.

Ben,

Yes. The Hebrew original uses "asher", but attributing this to Kish instead of the original Mordechai about whom the Bible was talking is not the natural reading. The format of: "X son of Y son of...son of Z [of the tribe of T] did something" is very common in the Bible and in all cases the "X son of Y son of ...son of Z" part is one unite which serves as the full introduction of X. Furthermore it is to X that the consecutive verb refers (and not to Z).
Here, let's do an experiment. Here are a few of instances of the general formula. let's read them all to get the hang of this and then decide:

Numbers (b'midbar) 16: 1) Now Korah, son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, betook himself along with Dathan ... to rise up against Moses....
Joshua 7: 1) The Israelites however violated the proscription: Achan son of Carmi son of Zabdi son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took of that which was proscribed, and the LORD was incensed...
Joshua 17: 3) Now Zelophehad son of Hepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh- there were no sons for him, but only daughters
Judges (Shoftim) 10: 1) After Abimelech, Tola son of Puah son of Dodo, a man of Issachar, arose to deliver Israel and he lived in Shamir in the hill country of Ephraim 2) and he led Israel ....
Samuel 1 : 1) There was a man from Ramatam of the Zuphites, in the hill country of Ephraim, whose name was Elkanah son of Jeroham son of Elihu son of Tohu son of Zuph, an Ephraimite and for him were two wives, one named Hannah....
Esther 2 : 5) In the fortress Shushan lived a Jew by the name of Mordechai, son of Jair, son of Shimei, son of Kish, a Benjaminite, 6) who had been exiled from Jerusalem in the group....

No wonder that prior to modern historical discoveries that have set the kings in their correct historical order this verse has always been interpreted, during all the years and by all learned men of the faith, as referring to Mordechai (hence also the classic English translation I used last time). You had thought so too before all this, because that is the "popular" account you have heard since childhood. Where do you think that account came from and why was it the popular one?

The writer could have specifically mentioned Kish in the next verse to avoid confusion. That has been done in the Bible in many other places.

I think this debate has already become unnecessarily too technical. The main point is simple.

The historical confusion (or the possibility there of) is just one clue. There are many others. For instance the similarity of the Purim custom celebrations with similar festivities in this time of year in the region, especially ancient Babylonia and ancient and modern Persia. Or the unexpected easiness with which this feast was accepted, although it was decreed by a winner of sex contest and a vizier. This is highly improbable since there is no mention of Purim in the Mosaic law. (compare it with Hanuka which is up to this day frowned upon one way or the other by religious and rabbinic authorities). Much more probable is the possibility that the Jews were already celebrating this pagan feast many years before this book was finally written, perhaps to somehow bring the feast in the orthodox mainstream view of the Bible. (Christian did the same with Easter, Muslims with pilgrimage to Mecca). Then there is all the exaggerations (a feast lasting 6 months?!), the literary parallels of the story. All the similarities between the events and characters to those of Babylonian mythology upon which the corresponding Babylonian festivity was based, It is no surprise that the majority of scholars consider it a work of fiction written much later.

Yet for some reason I can't understand you want to accept this tale as historical fact and based on it make judgment over the condition and nature of an entire nation, millions of people, past and present, and you insist on this position despite all the odds.
You see, the burden of proof is on you, not me. I don't need to try to prove that this tale is a fiction. There are already enough doubts about it as any unbiased observer can see. YOU are the one who should prove its a fact despite all the problems.Since it is you who uses this claim as a basis for making derogatory assertions about entire nations.
Personally I find this obsession and insistence as a bit perverse.

Now to other related issues:

...I'm sure the bible is full of inconsistencies and twisted facts (for your delight)...

I have already said again and again that I find the Bible (Tanakh) a fascinating work, full of ingenious insights. Finding inconsistencies there is not a source of delight or chagrin. It is a side issue. Bible was never intended to be a book of historical documents, though it contains many examples of it.
So I wonder why you keep writing such remarks?

["This is incorrect. Nothing can really be proven. The whole feature of science is to disprove, not to prove"]
But this is not science! This is a story from the bible. You can't even turn it into science if you want because there are no surviving evidence other than subjective records!

Incorrect. I am talking about the study of such texts and tales , not of the story itself. This kind of rational, evidence based, historical and refutable study is a science. It is called Biblical Studies. There is nothing magical about a "science". It is simply the most rational, fault flexible, defendable ways of studying any subject as long as you can make refutable statements about it.

Science deals with facts. You can't be scientifically sure of facts by reading such old subjective scriptures.

Incorrect. Science deals with refutable theories, not just facts. The second comment about subjectivity of readings is thus irrelevant.

The other problem is that assuming a possibility for the story to be based on real events, the claim that it's not mentioned in Persian records doesn't prove that it's not true and could easily be dismissed because the story itself doesn't flatter Persia very much. What king would like this to be recorded? And why do you think it should be recorded by the Greeks?

Funny you should mention this. The Bible however seems disagrees :)

Esther 10 1) King Achashverosh imposed tribute on the main land and the islands. 2) All his mighty and powerful acts, and a full account of the greatness to which the king advanced Mordechai, are recorded in the Annals of the Kings of Media and Persia 3) For the Jew Mordechai ranked next to King Achashverosh...

No need to say there is no such accounts found.
Why the Greeks? Because they had written accounts of the Persian Empire, including Herodotus , "father of history" himself. The fight and killing of 70000 people in two days is not a minor issue given the populations of ancient times. One can only assume it should have been recorded somewhere important and at hand if it were true.
Actually the fact that the book ends with this remark is itself a hint of its shaky historical basis, for the authors to have needed to include this as if to answer doubts and allegations even in their own time.
(There is a similar case in the New Testament. Paul who many scholars believe was one of the main people responsible for introduction of most of the "christian" elements into a more or less political Jewish sect also keeps repeating in his apostles that he is telling the truth, also probably to respond to allegations to the contrary.)
Ironic.

Ben,

there is difference between Islam, Muslims and Islamism.

Muslims are people, human beings, individuals each different from the other. They are not a homogeneous crowd . Such coarse grained generalisations lead us nowhere. Many of them view Islam as a set of traditional rituals and really nothing more. (That's why they could still be decent human beings and not ideological Islamic fascists) This is important since Islam is "transferred by birth as well as conversion.

Islam is trickier. It is a religion. As a human cultural product it has various contradictory features, evolving and changing through history.
As I said before, it is violent to its core, and it demands absolute surrender from its followers. That is its inner logic, but here is the catch: we are not bound by it. So from afar you can ask, absolute surrender to what exactly? It is a historically changing phenomena, with a rigid and problematic inner logic.

Hating Jews is not an essential feature of Islam. This is neither correct in principle nor supported by facts of history. During the middle ages Jews lived in better conditions in Islamic lands than they did in Christian ones. In Spain, in Muslim Perisa and Egypt , in Ottoman empire, they lived in certain periods of times in relatively good conditions. (I am not denying discrimination, just showing that "hating Jews" was not an essential feature of Islam).
Jews are a problem in Islam, as in Christianity (and actually less so than in Christianity since it was not so directly linked to it).
That's because Islam acknowledges the Jewish version of history before its own emergence and then deviates from it. So Judaism is a potential threat to the foundations of Islamic claim to originality. But this is a different thing than "hating Jews as an essential feature". Such claims of originality need not be the main obsession of the majority of its adherers at any given time.

Finally Islamism is the notion, ideology and basis of action, that Islam is not just a set of normal moral codes or a historical product but the absolute truth and more importantly the (only correct) alternative to every other worldview and practice in the world today. Indeed I'd agree that this is taking the essential claims of Islam to its logical limit, so in a sense you can say signatures of Islamism are already present in Islam. But it is still an emergent phenomena from Islam and not identical to it. It is perhaps the only logically consistent interpretation of Islam, which is capable of functioning a fundamental (modern) ideology. But as I said again Islam in reality, for those of us who are outside of it and can study it in its real form (contrary to what it claims to be ) a contradictory human historical product with myriads of faults and shortcomings. So a logical consistent ideological rendering of it is not really the same thing as itself! (That is the fascinating paradox. Moreover to see this you have to be outside of it !)

Take your accusations of pedophilia. In Muhammad's time and culture it was probably not seen as a perversion. So in reality pedophilia need not be an essential feature of Islam in any sense, only a side issue that is carried on because it was present at its inception and got mixed into it. However for an Islamist (as well as a sexual pervert looking for excuses), the need for logical consistency + absolute faith in -non-historical and transcendental truth of Islam makes any action of its prophet not only legitimate, but the criterion for defining legitimacy itself
Still, the main problem is neither of these peripheral perversions but the dogmatic logical structure of the inner worldview.
The same goes for the attitude towards Jews. Since Islamism needs the originality and legitimacy of Islam, it needs it since it needs Islam to be a superior alternative to everything else, an alternative to reality, then the Jewish problem of Islam could be said to have mutated into an inevitable and essential Jewish hatred in Islamism. But I repeat again, this is an emergent phenomena and not the same as its source of emergence , though logically and even causally related to it.
There is still more subtlety. Although Jews in general are the quintessential "other" that can't be assigned a harmonious place within the Islamist ideological worldview and at the same time they continuously debunk its claims of originality and truth by simple "existing" as Jews, hence by being "the enemy", the preferred method to deal with them is still confinement and subjugation, not expulsion and extermination (which were the predominant Christian methods). In other words unless they rise to fight for their rights and freedoms and independence, they are not be a target of attention all the time, though they always can be used as targets of blame and aversion.

All this of course means that, IMHO, there is no hope for getting anything worthwhile out of Islam in the long run, yet Islam and Islamism should be treated differently.

In short: Islamism must be fought, crushed and destroyed. Islam must be defused to eventually metamorphose and be solved within the rest of humanity, and Muslims must be freed, inside their heads and outside of it.

Neturei Karta yet again

Look, I understand your main point: Jews can't be Jew haters the way say Islamists can, mainly because they themselves are Jews.
OK, there is some point in this. Yet reality and human nature are much more subtle than this relatively naive picture.
Judaism , this is a simple personal model if you like, functions among human society and norms the same way Goedel undecidable statements act within formal systems. It can't be categorized completely by outside categories from its own and yet among all the myths, pros and cons, negative and positive sides, shortsigtednesses and deep thoughts, along its volatile historical journey, it does contains after all a certain essential truth that can't be pinpointed easily, a vision about the human condition that can't perhaps be formalized in any other way.

So, if this picture contains any truth, one corollary would be that Jews comprise neither a religion nor a nation in the usual sense of the word.
Therefore belonging , from a national point, by birth for example, does not necessarily precludes one from being an against that main fuzzy feature that really demarks it, The same goes for the religious aspect, the cultural aspect etc.

Look at it this way. Being so hateful towards Israel in the case of Neturei Karta to actively collaborate and spiritually to support its fatal enemies is evidence for such deep perversion that , IMHO,it at least makes up for a big part of their lack of direct and hostile violent attacks on it.
You want to attribute this to immaturity. I see something more sinister, something that shares the essence of anti-semitism.

Lets approach it differently: (These are difficult grounds so bear with me)
What groups are considered as part of this long historical identity (Jews) at any given time ? The answer can and does change.
So think about this: A group is considered part of the Jews at some time. Maybe in the future and in retrospect it wouldn't be considered so anymore. In that case and in retrospect , could we assign the actions it undertakes against "the rest of" Jewry (of its time and "all of" Jewry of this future world) as "outside" antisemitic aggression? How out of line should it be to justify such a look?

Example: Christians were Jews at the beginning of the religion, comprising a Jewish sect. Now of course not any more for a long time. Do you agree that Christianity has been one of the major sources of antisemitism in human history?
Take Shaul of Tarsus for instance, He is usually known as St. Paul. In his time he was considered a Jew of course.
This is part of his second epistle to Thessalonians:
Thess 2: 14) For ye brethren became followers of the church of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews. 15) Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men. 16) Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: for wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

Of course what he meant by Jews back then were the Pharisees who comprised one of the movements, While after the destruction of the Temple and lal ter bloody wars up to Bar Kochba finally lead to Pharisees and Rabbis to be the Jews. Was Paul antisemitic? The same can be said of some of Jesus comments about Pharisees as well.

On the other side, for the too orthodox you have the Karaites for example who were the fundamentalists of their time and didn't accept the Talmud and Rabbinic way of continuation of the tradition. It is a known fact that at some times Karaites
were among some of the worst instigators of violence against "other" Jews by rallying local rulers and authorities. Karaities are no longer viewed as Jews. When you look back at them and regard them as a separate identity, weren't they part of the hostile "environment" the "Jews" found themselves in?
The same can even be said about Samaritans, after the "other Jews" returned from Babylonian exile with news ideas and even rituals.

As a though experiment, think of an imaginary future where Neturei Karta has become an outsider group. Would you then have regarded their actions now as hostile rhetorical antisemitism?

Food for thought.

AIS,
In regards to your comment from April 8, 2006 04:05 AM:

As you've brought up the examples from Numbers, Joshua, Judges and Samuel, I've checked them with my Hebrew bible and it seems the word 'Asher' or any equivalent which would attribute the continuation of the sentence to the forefather does not exist.
That makes the verse from the book of Esther unique to the examples from the other books and you can't throw it in the same pile.
The 2 verses from the book of Esther are connected with the word 'Asher' that in the context of the sentence can be translated into 'whom' in English and actually this is one of the direct translation from the dictionary.
Also I'd like to remind you there's (in the Hebrew version) no need to force read or twist. It's very clear the 6th verse refers to Kish. Actually, you have to force read it to say it refers to Mordechai. In the English version it's the opposite.
In the past people used tribal relation and forefathers mentioning to regard a persons identity and so the examples you presented are very common in the bible, but they also have nothing to do with the verses from the book of Esther we disscussed above because you must change them (in the Hebrew version) if you wish that they'll sound like something that can be compared to the last verse you quoted, the verse from the book of Esther.
From my point of view, the argument has become pointless because I may not be a biblical scholar but I do know my own language and the 6th verse of Esther chapter 2 refers to Kish. No doubt about it. I'd advise you to even not exclusively count on me. Go and ask a sample of say 3-5 Hebrew speaking people, maybe you can find them in your university or closest synagog. Maybe you can find them over the Internet.
I will give you that: In English it really sounds as if the 'He' refers to Mordechai and for that I trust your mistake was honest and not intentional. I just hope you can understand it and climb down from your tree. I don't even ask for your apologies.

["as referring to Mordechai (hence also the classic English translation I used last time). You had thought so too before all this, because that is the "popular" account you have heard since childhood. Where do you think that account came from and why was it the popular one?"]
Incorrect.
It's not the popular account I heard from childhood. The kiddie versions of the biblical stories here are very slim and don't refer to the details. Just to the main story.
Only when you brought up the verses did I see the grammar-context problem. Before that point I only relied on your words, counting on you to be balanced and fair. That was then. However I would admit, I never expected that the English version would be misleading, which in turn, made your misguided thesis 'possible' and in your words: 'popular'.

["The writer could have specifically mentioned Kish in the next verse to avoid confusion. That has been done in the Bible in many other places."]
This is ridiculous. Tell me you didn't expect the writer to put a notice at the end of the verse. You simply don't understand that the word "Asher" doesn't have an exact translation into English. Sure the dictionary might have one, but the meaning changes according to the structure of grammar that the rest of the sentence has: before and after the word.
The word 'Asher' binds the 6th verse with Kish rather than Mordechai, thus, turning your suggestion of clarification in the next verses by the writer: irrelevant!
Besides, this type of storytelling in the bible is very consistent: minimum information, multiple possibilities for translations etc.. (oh, and no assurances by Persian or Greek scriptures so I don't know why one'd expect them in the first place).

["Yet for some reason I can't understand you want to accept this tale as historical fact and based on it make judgment over the condition and nature of an entire nation"]
I always said that (any) biblical scriptures probably deviant from factual data and regarded the story as having only some connection to something that has happened. Therefore, I took only the most basic elements from the story:
1) Place: Persia
2) Plot: Ruler in power tried to annihilate Jews.
With all due respect to detrition of details/quality in time from the period the story was passed orally, these elements are so basic that I doubt they could've possibly changed.
So I said this: ["This fact that Iran produced such evil again is a testimony for wretchedness."]
Assume for a moment that the basic two elements of the story have some degree of relation to real events as I've suggested, don't you think It's sad from my point of view that the story (or) history repeats (or) fulfills itself and in the same part of the world?
If you twisted what I said and took it as if I'm blamming millions of Persian from the past and present as being absolutely responsible for what happened then and what is happening today, then you're wrong. I don't..

["You see, the burden of proof is on you, not me. I don't need to try to prove that this tale is a fiction."]
Not really.. :D
There is no burden since it's not possible to prove this without some evidence.
Thats why I said it's a matter of belief at some point.
I'm peaceful with my belief. I'm not religious but also not an atheist.
If you didn't see god, you can't tell he exists but you also can't tell he doesn't.
And the same goes for this story.
The fact that Persian/Greek scriptures don't support it does not DISprove it.
And the fact that you find some similarities between customs and festivals of other nations and the Purim just mean there was mutual influence between the different nations and has nothing to do with the book of esther. Even today you have cultural influence all over the world from the Hollywoodian movies and American sitcoms. So what?
On the other hand you say you don't need to prove this story is a fiction. -So why did you try so hard? If you notice, you tried very hard ever since the "wretchedness" statement and ever since I just answer your comments with quotations to make my best at keeping everything in context.
You expressed a great inner fear that this story is correct by trying very hard to discredit it (which is why I think finding inconssistences in it is your delight) without success: mind you the 'Asher'/'He' mistranslation which was your only source from the scriptures themselves. All of your other arguments were either assumptions or dependencies on other Scholars which didn't live at the time of the story of course and were themselves depending on things no one can prove..
In conclusion I have to say this:
If you were so confident the story is a complete myth, then right after my original comment you'd say something like: "I don't believe in this story".
That would've shown you were very confident and self assured. Instead you wrote a mile long comment with every single line attempting to discredit and disprove the story. So how can you come now and say that you: "don't need to try to prove that this tale is a fiction". The truth is that you can't prove it as fiction and I can't really prove it's a total fact so I didn't try..

A side note about the biblical studies as science argument:
I don't take these as science per se because they don't work with absolute numbers you can calculate like in math or measure like in geometry. Scholars of Biblical studies aren't even able to make experiments like biologists and physicists can. Scholars of the bible only have scriptures and reports that were written by other people. Until someone invents a time machine (note: I'm being cynical), these scholars are dealing with nothing that can resemble science.. imho.

["Funny you should mention this. The Bible however seems disagrees"]
Aside from what the book of Esther tells, the complete account is very subjective from the point of view of a (probably) Persian-Jewish story teller. As I've said, the story doesn't flatter Parsia so I ask you again: what kind of king would record such event? The bible may disagree.
I'd only argue for the legitimacy of very few most basic elements of the story like place and general plot.

You also claim that the Greeks should've recorded this story because: ["they had written accounts of the Persian Empire, including Herodotus , "father of history" himself. The fight and killing of 70000 people in two days is not a minor issue given the populations of ancient times."]
Greeks and Persians weren't exactely allies at these times, I'm sure you know and it makes sense that just for this reason the Greeks would love grabbing a story that demotes Persia. But the problem with all of your assumtions regarding this matter is that the Greeks would have to have someone inside the circle of the Persian king to really know the complete and full story.
The Jews did have that. The Greeks didn't.

Ben,

Just some points of clarification:

1- Asher: I know what asher means and I know the sentence in the original Hebrew (thank you very much):

"ish y'hudi haya b'Shushan habirah u'shmo Mordechai ben Yair ben Shim'i ben Kish ish y'mini asher haglah m'irushalayim 'im-hagola asher hagleta 'im Y'chaniah melech-Y'huda asher haglah N'vuchadnetsar melech Bavel."

And it sounds the same as in English. It is simply not true that in Hebrew the "asher" can only refer to Kish and not to Mordechai. Not at all. As I said and gave examples, actually the normal reading would attribute it to Mordechai (as all the sages before modern times did!) and yes, the other verses I gave didn't have , each had a different predicate sentence structure, but they all shared the (relevant) common attribute that the predicate referred to the name of the person himself and not his ancestor.

It is easy to show you wrong. for example the Talmud goes in detail and explains how Vashti , the queen of Achashverosh, is the granddaughter of Nebuchadnezzar. According to the Rabbis of the Talmud her father Belshatzar inherited the throne of Babylon from his father, Nebuchadnezzar and ruled briefly after his death.
The chronology of the three Babylonian kings is given in the Talmud as follows: Nebuchadnezzar reigned forty-five years, Evil-merodach twenty-three, and Belshazzar was monarch of Babylonia for two years, being killed at the beginning of the third year on the fatal night of the fall of Babylon (Meg. 11b). [Link]
(which passes well with Mordechai being teh exile, Esther his very young daughter and Vashti also the daughter of the last king of Babylon (according to the Rabbis, Belshazzar was not actaully the last king)

"R. Simeon b. Nahmani, when he came to lecture, began his lecture with the passage [Is. lv. 13]: ...Vashti the wicked, who was granddaughter of Nebuchadnezzar the wicked, who had burnt the house of God, shall rise Esther the upright...." (Tract. Megilla. Chapter 1. Page 23) [link]

"The king [ie. Achashverosh] was the stable boy of Vashti’s father King Nebuchadnezzar” (Megillah 12b, babylonian Talmud) [link]

(I leave the math again to you to see how old (and sexy) she would have been at the party, if we take the historical order and dates as well as your version of Kish being the exile from Jerusalem!!)

This of course only makes sense if the Talmud assumes Mordechai to have been the exile in Nebuchadnezzar's time. Esther is the young cousin of Mordechai, and Vashti is the granddaughter of Nebuchadnezzar who exiled the then young Moredechai.

SO contrary to your claim that the sentence in the original Hebrew can only be read as you did, the learned Rabbis of the Talmud didn't do that !
but it is more than that. The Rabbis were especially sensitive to the nuances of the Bible, the verbs used and so on. They were so sensitive that even a simple repetition of a verb meant something special to them. There are many examples. The separation of dairy and meat foods , not just in eating, but in cooking and keeping, is derived because the relevant sentence in the Torah had been repeated more than once. There are many more examples. I give you another example about Pesach which should be one of these days now. There was a whole debate about the number of cups of wine to drink at the Pesach Seder by the Rabbis. Each cup of wine corresponded to a verb in a related verse in the Bible. They couldn't decide whether the number of proper verbs were 4 or 5. So they chose 4, and set one aside for the prophet Elyahu (Elijah) to answer when he returned to usher in the Messiah.
Now these very meticulous learned people, in Bible, in Hebrew , and in Biblical Hebrew, didn't even consider your version of reading the verse (though it is logically possible to do so) because, unaware of the historical problem at their time, they didn't need an excuse to fix things up, and your version was just too artificial and unnatural to their ears (given their mastery over the Biblical style) to consider!
(note: I am not arguing that because they were Rabbis their interpretation is necessarily the correct one. I want to show that your claim that anyone Hebrew would read it the way you did is flat wrong! that's all.)

(I don't even understand why the "who, that..." is so different from starting a new sentence with "He". this one can also be understood as referring to Kish instead of Mordechai.)

2-So, for you the place and the plot are historically certain, other stuff (that are perhaps problematic to your insistence) could be myth or ornaments...

How exactly did you come up with only these two criteria? Only the place and the ruler?

OK, Ben. I gave you a more plausible location: the Levant itself which is mentioned in other books of the Bible itself. That would still be part of Persia (that is Empire). The same goes with a local satrap instead of King (of kings). Why do you insist so much on the name of the city and the king to be definitely true?

3-You say in every story of the Bible there is a historical core? How can you be so sure for such a claim?

And again, why do you totally reject the possibility that it is an attempt to bring a pagan rite inline with the rest of the monotheistic worldview of the scriptures, once it was clear that getting people to stop it was proved to be too difficult?
There precedents to this in the Bible. Take the story of Samson (Shimshon) for example. It is teh Monotheized rendering of sun worship legends. Beth Shemesh, Shimshon, Delaylah, the power in long hair (as an allegory to the rays of sun, that are finally cut down by night). Making him a Nazarite, who never cut their hairs, the writers could pass him and his story as one of the judges. (Who knows, maybe even the hair cut prohibition of the nazarites is a remnant of sun worship rituals? This is just a guess )
Why do you reject teh same possibilty for Esther?
ahhh.... but I am just repeating myself aren't I? The point just doesn't seem to go through.

As for wretchedness , again. I can give you ample examples of wretchedness in Iran during its history, like many other nations all around the world. I can give you the wretchedness against women, I can give you wretchedness against minorities as religiously unclean in certain periods when Shiitism was very dominant - it came by force you know of Turkish fanatic conquerors and mullahs they imported from (what is now modern) Syria and Lebanon a couple of centuries ago. ) Of conquests, hills of corpses of local people over and over again.....I am not upset to see the ugliness. What upsets me is baseless slanders based on myths. That's all.

I see. You wanted proof in other parts of the scripture now. I see. Very interesting. :)

I have already talked about science and what is and is not scientific. You evidently don't intend to understand it. So I leave it at that.

As you said this discussion is becoming pointless. Actually I have been speaking to people of the same mentality as yours since childhood, at school and university (I don't mean hizbollahi hardliners).... They were just the Islamic version, you are the Jewish one. I know the mentality. believe me, I know it back and forth. What is appropriate to your idea you keep. Everything else you discard or ignor.
You know I can basically prove anything this way.
No worries! :)

But we are just repeating this as I said before. Doesn't seem to make any sense of doing this again and again.
So I won't.

AIS,
You said you don't agree with force reading but it's force reading if you want 'Asher' to refer to Mordechai. It wouldn't be forced if there was a comma just before it but there isn't. Punctuation was added later and even then, no one put any before the Asher, it begins a new verse (which isn't like a new sentence).
The "son of" examples you gave are irrelevant to the 'Asher' debate. None of them even have the same structure (or equivalent word to Asher), only the "son of" relation and that doesn't prove/disprove any claims, mine or yours.

["SO contrary to your claim that the sentence in the original Hebrew can only be read as you did, the learned Rabbis of the Talmud didn't do that ! but it is more than that. The Rabbis were especially sensitive to the nuances of the Bible, the verbs used and so on. They were..........is flat wrong! that's all.)"]
AIS, religious decrees about separation of meat and milk (Kosher debates also of other foods), number of wine glasses in Pesach Seder, the order of the Seder itself and many other issues weren't just fixed by Talmud scholars and actually have differences between Jews of various origins. Especially between Ashkenaz and Sepharad Jews but you of course aren't aware of this because if you were, you would've never tried to claim of absolutism in the interpretations of the nuances in the Bible by learned Rabbis of the Talmud.
So by adding custom made punctuation you could force read the verse as refering to Mordechai as you want, the question is if you want to, but remember that even the writings of the Talmud were differently interpreted by Jews from different places in the world.
My reading of the verse is common sense, there's nothing flat wrong with it and I already told you to ask others. Only flat thing here is your superficial understanding of this matter I'm sorry to say.
Indeed the Rabbis might have never noticed a problem that isn't there and probably because they understood the chronology better than you, why don't you catch a learned one and present him with these ridiculous riddles of yours? Honestly, they might give you a better understanding of this matter and save you the trouble of googling time and again and bringing me explanations from "Online Jewish encyclopedia" that have very little to do with our debate and cause you to open new sub-debates that are irrelevant and useless.

["So, for you the place and the plot are historically certain, other stuff (that are perhaps problematic to your insistence) could be myth or ornaments..."]
Well, it seems that you don't really read my comments so maybe if I repeat it'll sink better:
I said it's a sure outcome of mixed myths with historical events, mutual cultural influence and quality detrition through the time before the stories were written, that you'll have nuances between the story as it's being told in the bible and the real even (if it happened) and yes, that would create ornaments as well, and not because they're problematic for me, but for the whole story and most of which would probably be the outcome of the storyteller himself.
You seem be very good at keeping your head in a squere position and make good use of the abundant studies about the subject that were done before you were born.. You're a great quoter -I'll give you that, But in the process you lose any objectivity and legitimacy because you never make your own analysis of the verses and stay satisfied with the studies that can if twisted support your theory.

"[You say in every story of the Bible there is a historical core? How can you be so sure for such a claim]"
Not true, I never said that. Scroll up and read my comments again.
I also didn't reject the pegan relation. Mutual influence is very logical to have happened between the nations that lived together.. I think I've said that before so it's a bit odd that you're still dancing around this issue.
As for Samson, when you find a certain metaphor like the hair, it doesn't precludes the story unless you force it as you do to fit it for your opinions.

["I have already talked about science and what is and is not scientific. You evidently don't intend to understand it. So I leave it at that."]
Strange, from my point of view it's you who don't intend to understand.. Biblical studies and history or literature for that matter are NOT hardcore science at the levels math, physics or other practical sciences are. You seem reluctant to admit that.
You can prove without a doubt that there is a force of gravity but can't prove that Mordechai wasn't blond. The only thing left is to speculate he was dark haired since you know he was native to the middle east, But the point stands that you'll never know for sure.
In biblical stories there are alot of myths mixed with stories based on real events and upon that the quality of the details/motives of the stories was rotted by time.
Founding a science on that would be equal to a house of cards. So I don't call these fields of research 'science'.

["I know the mentality. believe me, I know it back and forth. What is appropriate to your idea you keep. Everything else you discard or ignor."]
Excellent self portrayal.
Any bystander can see the many sub-arguments throughout our discussion you've left open to start new ones.
You also ignore the Asher sentence meaning and force read it into something else and you're only looking for 'scholars' reviews that support this specific idea of yours without even relating to the other.. well done, they say the camel can't see his own humps. No worries! ;)

You still didn't answer my question about the king documenting the story and I'd like to add another thought. Even if he did, with all the changes in governing/dynasty/new religion (i.e Islam) and Persia being practically crushed and grained time and again in wars and many fronts you'd kind of think new rulers with different idea of God and life would make the notes of the previous king/s "disappear" don't you think? Isn't that similar to dogs marking their territory? But it happens... Maybe thats a plausible explanation to your wondering of why on the one hand bible suggest the king has put the events to notes and on the other it wasn't found till this very day, btw, where are the remaining Achashverosh notes today? Are there any left? Are you going to answer that?

["But we are just repeating this as I said before. Doesn't seem to make any sense of doing this again and again. So I won't."]
Basically, I don't like arguing and repeating about something which is pointless either but since the start of this discussion it was only you that pushed into it so why do you weep now? If you can't finish what you started just say so. What's your point in all this? That you can find some mismatches in the bible? whether you'll succeed with the debate at hand about Esther or not, I can join you and find other mismatches and even compete with you since you're not very original and only use other studies.. I've never seen you find something for yourself. But all of this doesn't help you disprove the story happened, really AIS, we can find inconsistencies in the testimony of a murder witness so again, it doesn't prove the murder never happened although right now, you seem to me very similar to an attorney trying to defend a murderer by finding references to scholars that say the witness isn't reliable. If our witness is the bible and the bible is indeed mixed with many mythes than logically it isn't very reliable indeed, however, you can debate that a drunken man isn't a reliable witness to a crime scene and although he really isn't completely countable, deriving from this that anything he says is a myth would just be total biased. Are you being true to yourself? I'm not so sure. I don't rule out the various possibilities about the biblical stories, even the ones that were on our table during this discussion. You do, and thats narrow minded, superficial and mute.

["I have made a..........is the relevence?)"]
AIS, You never made a clear case simply because I had no claims as far as it goes for the absolutism of the validity especially of details (details that you tried to disprove), especially these that can rot. (mind you I insist the place and basic plot, the one you can sum in 4-10 words can't rot) I said that I believed the story was based on real events and I can't prove that no more than you can disprove and for that it's a matter of belief really. and not necessarily belief in the religion of that book but a belief that the basic documentation in the book is countable and especially when it goes for more later events.
Because of the impossibility to prove/disprove, today, whether a certain event happened at a distant point in history without solid evidence, your attempt to disprove the story is ridiculous even more when you use verses from the same book (Bible) to disprove one of the books thats in the bible (!) If you claim the validity of the book of Esther is in question, then who says the other books are true enough to help you make conclusions? But most hilarious and similar was your use of Talmud interpretations that were written more than 1500 years ago: so on the one hand you claim an event from about 2500 years ago never happened and on the other you claim validity to teachings of about 1500 years ago, seems to me you lost your consistency there.. O.o
The verse in debate can be easily edited to be read in more than one way with minor punctuations that could've been omitted in time but today they aren't there and thats a fact... If you want to force read it into something else thats your choice, sometimes there is a need to force read something with errors in it to find the meaning but I don't think it's the case here and so your version seems mistranslated.
Now, theres a need to clarify something. Trying to show you that with your own examples, things can be understood differently, that you arrogantly jump into conclusions and that you only refer to what you think supports your idea I might've seemed religious to you while I'm not even close to being one.
My root point was that you can't tell whether a story from 2500 years ago did or did not happen. Thats valid for anything, not just biblical research. I don't know if you're updated to the new findings of the new Judas gospel but from a strict historical point of view this poses many dilemmas to the validity of that gospel or the others.
If anyone argues about these issues and no matter from which side of the counter that would be a total waste of time because none of these historical events can be absolutely proved or disproved.
That turns any references you can make to a certain Talmud teachings or Persian documentation (if exists): useless.
And it also corresponds with my other point that fields such as biblical studies, history and also literature and arts: never were, are not and never will be real science.
One more thing: I didn't claim the book was historically valid. I said the plot in it probably has some connection to real event that has happend. The book is much wider than the basic plot, don't put words I never said in my mouth, it's wrong and not the only time you did it!
I can count more than 3-4 times (without being meticulous) where you put words I didn't say or mistook me for someone I'm not. That's insulting and also very transparant that you needed to use that as a ground for the reset of any given paragraph where you used that contemptible tactic in order to delegitimize me in the same way your friends in the Iranian regime delegitimize 'heretics' by telling their public their own version of who the 'heretics' are and what their intentions are.

So if you want to regard the book as a work of fiction it's your right and you don't need to make it clear again and again as if you're asking for my permission (you have it) and then later you complain, several times (!) that the discussion has become repetitive (after all that, the dominant thing that has become repetitive are your complaint that it has become repetitive.. am I being repetitive of a certain word?)

["You are arguing as a believer here. (you moreor less assume teh book is divinley inspired, eventhough you might not agree with the tradinioal orthodox view of its being in every letter, the direct word of God.)"]
AIS, 'as a believer' - You're doing it once again.. Besides that let me correct you in a few unfair assumptions you made about me and Orthodox Jews.
First of all, I NEVER assumed the book is divinely inspired so the 'more' in your sentence has no place.
Secondly, on the 'every word direct from god': I only disagree with you and not the Jewish orthodox aspect which you assume that this is their view, as if they take the book of Esther to be the words of God -They don't! Only the 5 books of the Torah are considered by Jewish orthodox view to be direct words of God.. Any other books in the bible, including the book of Esther are viewed as direct word of what you'd call....people...

["But I shall never understand, how it is possible to "adopt" a tradition ( any tradition Judaism, Islam, Chrsitianity, ect.) as a "religion", to "live by it" , or to have "faith" in it."]
Once you ridiculously told me, a secular with semi-atheist views to ask my Rabbi..which btw I don't have.. Should I tell you now to go and ask your Imam?
Seriously.. I don't know how to answer these philosophical questions of yours from a spiritual point of view-which answer, you suggest to ask for. Besides, if you ever find someone that can answer that, you already admitted you're biased by saying: ["I can't understand it. It is beyond me!"]
Ah.. And then you tried to demote the intellect of religious people by saying: ["(Though I find the study of the (group) psychology of people who evidently do this quite fascinating!)"]
Is the fact that you find it 'fascinating' supposed to suggest you're superior? (or at least consider yourself to be).. And if you are, how would an lower intellect can ever teach you anything?
yes I can see now you're a very honest person.. very honest when before droping that bomb of self contradiction, you attempt at softening the gound by using words such as "intellectually inspiring, ingenious and worthwhile" to describe the tradition of Talmud, Zohar etc.
You see, I don't fall for this, because I don't fully agree with the compliments you've just made and although I don't 'believe' in God, I also don't agree with the Atheist point of view! I think I've said that before but you make me repeat it to make a point you didn't understand or read when I first put it here.

AIS, You're trying to make a case against a scripture with other scriptures and interpretations that according to your root claim shouldn't have more validity than the original scripture you're trying to contradict (i.e examples from other biblical books) you bluntly ignore that so it doesn't interfere with your point and that makes you ultra biased..
I also know of this approach, it's apparent in Islam: on the one hand calling Jews people of the book and on the other sons of pigs and monkeys: now which scripture has more validity and by which would a Muslim follow? of course: the one that suits him best at any given moment.
The archives in memritv.org are full of videos of "Muslim scholars" trying to adopt only one view of their own bible from the two choices.. Guess which they prefer.
Indeed you're doing it in a much more sophisticated manner than they are but still, the basis remains the same.
So it's your choice whether to adopt at a given moment a certain verse that help you disprove the others but it pretty much backfires at you since you didn't prove the verse or interpretation you're using is true by itself in the first place.

You once more complaind about repetition but again you repeat the same thing you already said a few comments before so I'll answer you with the same answer. You said (for the second of third time):
["The burden of proof is on them. This is the only viable rational, critical conclusion."]
So I ask you again, if thats the case, why have you tried so hard to prove the story wrong? where is your confidence?
BTW, last time I asked that in regards to the same question of yours after my answer to it you didn't answer so I think it's you who keeps the loop going.. How do you expect brake the cycle of repetition in a discussion when you only regard whats convinient for you anyway..

AIS,
It's very easy to find similarities between anything and everything with a bit of imagination and you're doing it great. Your points of comparative interest in our discussion and the argument of the creationist in the video are too abstract and bluntly ignore the major differences between us.
The guy in the video object to conclusions that are based on proven science.
My objections were to your assumptions and theories which aren't based on any science and my same objections can be used to counter the claims of someone religious like this guy from that video. His objections are specialized for his own agenda. Mine are universal and general.

I don't understand why you call him fundamentalist because your scale of definition doesn't make sense to me: If he is fundamentalist to you, then what are people that are willing to kill for their religion? would you add a 'super' before the fundamentalist?

You said:
["I agree that you can't "disprove" a certain event, but again this is not about "proving" something as a fact"]
Why do you change your opinion now so deep into the discussion? You did try to disprove the book of Esther..

["Like the rest of science it is basically sophisticated and critically enhancing guesswork. "]
Yes, theres alot of guesswork in science but in all sciences in the end, the guesses are proven one way or the other and confirmed if they are true.
This is another way to show how biblical studies are so different than real science.. In biblical studies, You'd never be able to confirm any guess you did during the guesswork phase unless you find a hard evidence. And that is very rare. You should pounder on that.. I think you still regard this abstract and impractical field of study as real science..

You said:
["Maybe we who have seen religion at work and all its conssequences are more serious and sensitive to its follies even where it is not so obvious for someone who has lived in a free socity."]
I don't agree with the seperation you're doing between 'religious' vs 'free society'.
It's completely possible to form a religious AND free society. The U.S has proven that very well. Today it's less religious but if you consider a few dozens of years back in time the chunk of religious there was higher and the society was still free.
Maybe you're perception of religious people got biased because of the 'religious' people in your country.
The only problem is that Islam is not a real religion, hence, its followers aren't real religious people..
A very good article convinced me that Islam is in effect a cult. That makes its followers cultists in every aspect.
To read article click Here.
The article is probably biased but I must agree with alot of what it says and concludes. Most of it is common sense. In any case, today, Islam has already formed an accepted name of religion and so for the sake of politically correctness issue I guess it doesn't do much harm if you keep calling it a religion. No one can change its status today. But I'd like to ask you to keep in mind that there are crazy people in all religions and in a cult like Islam, when you combine it with born lunatics you get an explosive recipe.. Literally!
So with all the horrors that caused you to be more sensitive and serious about the 'follies' of religions in general, I'd advise you to make huge separation between Islam and everything else.

And now for your second comment,
I never said you're agnostic about god and was only refering to you as an Atheist - thats the word I used.
This isn't an insulting label and you shouldn't be disgusted of it to the point of clarifying that you're just a rational person.
I think it's very rational to not believe in god giving the fact that we've never seen him. But at the same breath I keep in mind that -oh well.. you never know..
Open mind.
So given the two options between believing in god or not, I really stand in the middle of things and can't decide without further data. You seem to have already made up your mind that there isn't and that makes you an atheist by definition so you really can't argue against that label. The guy from the video decided there is and so he's religious and he can't deny that.
Up to here it's very simple. On the other side I believe you both should come to my square and conclude like me that no one can really tell. You said before you're into logic and rational thinking so thats the most logical conclusion..

And about your last words:
["Well it does NOT. If you want to use god in any part of an explanation, why bother with taht explanantion in teh first place? just say god did it and it was his/her will. god is the notion to un explain anything! That's why all thsi talk of intelliginet design or seing the hand of god in fine tuning in big bang etc are such silly nonsenses. If you want god to be in the picture, why bother with all teh other complicated theories? he/she wanted it. simple! have you explained anything? of course not!
But nice try Ben."]
AIS, this is a question you should refer to someone religious and not to me..
Just in your first comment of these last two you said:
["No I dodn't mean this link yo accuse you of being with the religious side"]
If you really mean that why do you again for the 100th time ask me a rhetorical question that shouldn't be refered to me unless you assume I'm religious? I thought you said you're fed up with being repetitive.. I guess not.

AIS,
The very action of disproving a theory or a finding is the result of proving it wrong or proving the opposite as truth, so in essence Proving/Disproving is the same thing depending on which side of the discussion you are.
Your continuous seperation between 'dis' and 'proving' in science just seems so ridiculous so if you want to insist that science is about 'disproving' I can go with that, but by disproving you're actually using the proving mechanism no matter how you turn it, it always comes to that.
So it wouldn't be a mistake to say that you have to prove things in science, same as it wouldn't be a mistake to say that you have to DISprove.

You said:
["But teh argument is again basically teh same as yours when you say you have an opinion and I have one and since "unlike real(!) sciences" you can't prove by facts, so one is as good as the other. Don't you see you both are making the same wrong argument."]
I'm glad you brought up this point as it simplifies where you see the similarities and you can easily notice your mistake there:
Dr. Hovind EXPLICITLY say evolution is a lie and he firmly expresses his beliefs that God is a fact. He DOES NOT refer to the two different approaches to the argument as 'opinions' like you say that I did. (and I don't know where you got this idea that he does)
Following this, he bases his objections to evolution on biblical teachings and even quote here and there from the bible (something that wouldn't be valid in my own objections, as I said, book isn't a solid proof).
In a completely seperate front he does try to DISCREDIT the scientific findings with ALTERNATIVE theories that can or can't be disproved depending on how you look at them (top or bottom approach). But still, even here he doesn't regard that as an opinion.. he presents himself as the one with the role of 'bringing the truth' upon the 'lies in the text books'.
Our dear Dr tells you it's not a matter of opinion: he implies (bluntly!) that it's a FACT that evolution is false.

The fundamentalist issue stands in our discussion as well as a point of view.
I think you're wrong to tag Dr. Hovind as such. But it's possible depending on the scale that you use to create your proportions.
Personally, I think your scale is wrong and not balanced. What is balanced? I guesss it depends on what you have in the center. Then you can determine what is the extreme in each direction, but again, the extreme is only relevant to the center, and the center is what you'd call 'normal' and that'd also be your point of reference.
So when you call him a fundamentalist and assuming you're not, does that indicate you are normal, e.g the center of the scale?
But what if you're not? I guess you need an outsider who isn't subjective to your own views to tell you that.. But then his scale could be the extreme of yours.
So I keep that definition of fundamentalist to people that kill others for their beliefs.. And you still didn't answer me what YOU call them, where are they on your scale?

["Yes, but the reason why America was a free society was becaus ethey had deprived religion of the states power."]
As you said before 'true but irrelevant'. Why? Because that doesn't change the fact that religious serve in the institutions of the U.S and although alot of them have the power or the legitimacy to affect the presence of religion in the different aspects of the country, they choose not to, and when they do, it doesn't necessarily end freedom.
MY POINT IS: That it's not the law which seperates religion from country that keeps it free. What keeps the country free are the people including the religious among them. Because if they didn't strive for freedom, any law that keeps the country free would've been canceled by now.

Regarding Islam, if you basically agree with the cult thesis then you shouldn't really perceive the Christian religious at the same harmful level as Islam can get when it comes to the bear hug it does on countries where it rules.
Christianity, today, can't possibly be that bad. I can guarantee. So when regarding this religion, I think you should lower the sensitivity level and give it wider space for its (a)cute follies.

And a clarification about your last comment.
It replies as if I said being agnostic about God is open minded, but I clearly said the opposite: that THE believing in God IS the open mindness.
So I think we had a misunderstanding there.
Besides that your reply seems disoriented and makes little sense when I try to look for what we disagree about that pulled this comment.
If we do have differences there, I would like you to elaborate more clearly please so we can discuss them.

Ben,

1- You say disproving is just another way of proving (the negation of the claim)? Nice. But this has been extensively disputed. You see you can call what I call disproving "proving" and vice versa. The debate is not about words you use. The reality is that there are two distinct kind of ...things. What you call them is not the issue. There is a fundamental difference between the two kinds of cliams and approaches. There are certain seertions, conjectures, theories what have you that you can disprove (or "prove by disproving") and there is another class of assertiosn etc that you can't disprove (or "prove by proving" or what other words you want to use). You want to call it proving by disproving? fine.
I say the aim of scicne, what defines it, the only rational attitude towards the seeking of knowledge is by trying to "prove (their negattions) by disproving them". the other kind, to "prove by proving "positively say by induction or gathering evidence or presenting irrefutable facts etc etc etc.) is futile, and even dangerous.
Again.Popper has a complete section devoted to explaining away this sophistry. (See for example" Realism and the aim of science")

2- I was not talking about his positive statements in what he "knows" as fact (and that is fundamentalism). My point was the way he was arguing against evolution. He actually says "Evolution is a religion too, because if you trace it to its logical origin you get to big bang and its "metaphysical" claims on where the world came from which nobody can know as facts and is mere speculation, and so evolutionists, don't say you are talking science and I am talking religion. We are both talking religion here."
You also say we can't know these facts. SO its mere speculation and your theory is as good as mine.
And you are both wrong, in the same way.
Isaac Asimov once said something like this: Those who thought the earth was flat were wrong. tholse who thought the earth was spherical were also wrong (since it is more an elipsoid in shape), But those who think the second group were as wrong as the first are the most wrong of them all.

3-Fundamentalist was coined for chrsitians who took the Bible word for word literally as fact, including the creation story, flood and so on (including talking serpents and donkeys I guess!), because they wanted to return to the fundamentals of chrsitianity. I don't see what you are arguing against!? That is where the word came from.
then it was extended to their cousins in the Islamic side (Islam is basically a militarized Chrsitian heresy anyway).
What I call the killers? I don't know, killer fundamentalists? Ideological terrorists? Islamists? What does it matter?!!
4-yes the law in the US seperates the two and this comes from an areligious thinking, a liberal way of thinking. Not a religious one becuase religion (and christianity in partiicular) assumes it has the absolute truth in its possesion. If you already have the truth, then what is the point of a free society to debate and discuss? All teh modern liberal attitudes towards religion, which analyze the scripture and look for different meanings in it etc are the survival techniques of religions. they are absurd in essence, since the whole point of scripture was to reveal a hidden truth in the firts place. If this ione has to be discovered critically, so why the whole charade? The world was in front of use always, created by teh same God (or gods) allegedly?
Come on. The religious people , the smarter ones and the most honest and moral among them were FORCED gradually to give up to the reality out there. They try very hard eversince to deny that in words. that's it.
5- So you said belief in God is openmindedness. Now I am confused. I thought you said last time that my calling you a believer was unfair. So you rae not openminded deliberately, or what?
This is even worse? What is God? What purpose does this undefined (and undefinable) word serve in any explanation that provides understanding about the reality out there?
Why do you need to call openmindedness using such vague not so meaningful terms as "belive" and "God"?

AIS,

You basically say disproving separates itself from proving by different conjections, theories and by the negation process.
This idea is sadly misguided because the same conjections and theories aren't what you'd call 'different'. They are just the opposite for the same process of proving, and the same applies to the negation process.
The hierarchy of these two sister-oposites is very clear. Proving shall always be above the other.
I suggest you have a look where this expresses itself: Crime investigation or a courtroom for instance. You can't sentence someone without proving all the way to his/her criminal deed. Theres no disproving there and science is no different. Where it's sometimes a matter of life or death in both these fields (science or a courtroom) you must use the best of the two and in that case since they both are one and the same I'd prefer proving because it's more direct. In disproving you'll always have to ask the question in inverted direction and we're not playing trivia. Besides, what would happen in a crime investigation if the detectives were working by the disproving idea that you so much support? Would a suspect be considered as guilty until proven otherwise? (to disprove guilt)
No.. You see, your method isn't working very well, so in reality, (in enlightened countries) a suspect would be innocent until proven otherwise. Now you might call it to disprove his or hers innocence. But the disproving of innocence only comes as a secondary to the proving of the guilt.

It seems to me that using the disproving as a rational standpoint for scientific investigation would work, but you're scratching your left ear with your right hand this way.
If I tell you I can fly and we know that I must have wings in order to fly, how would you disprove that? You must prove that I don't have wings. That is the same process. any conviction (between proving and disproving) would only be the same but in a mirror view and not different, in other words, any deduction (or negation or whatever you want to call it) would always work on the basis of proving because you can't deduct without a reason, logic, premade result behind it that would be the proof.
What we're doing right now, each presenting his opinion on that matter is actually a proving process. We each focus more on our own point to be made, rather than disproving the other. You prove one thing and the others are automatically disproved. You disprove it and it tells you nothing about the others..

Regarding the creationist doctor from the video you said:
["He actually says "Evolution is a religion too, because if you trace it to its logical origin you get to big bang and its "metaphysical" claims on where the world came from which nobody can know as facts and is mere speculation, and so evolutionists, don't say you are talking science and I am talking religion. We are both talking religion here." You also say we can't know these facts. SO its mere speculation and your theory is as good as mine. "]

Well AIS, maybe you should clean your ears a bit or watch the video you posted again because this is completely false :)
I did say that the two theories (yours and mine) are just as good and that we speculate and that we can't tell facts, HOWEVER, that is not what the creationists say, especially when he calls evolution a lie, he says HIS theory is better (and even regards to it as truth!), he says evolution is NOT as good as his idea and beliefs.
I think at some point you lost the fair perspective in all of this and thats a warning sign. IF we argue about an issue, I want to spend the time and words on that issue and not for defending myself from your false accusations whether you 'mistakenly' perceive me as religious at one time, creationist at another, or just find imaginary parallels between a misguided priest and myself.

btw, Isaac Asimov quote was ironic since you tried before to defend the stance of biblical studies as real science.

I would call the doctor from the video a conservative or even orthodox (and whats wrong with tagging him plain and simple as religious?) but fundamentalist is too extreme. Thats what I'm arguing about because there are people much further on the scale than he is and I don't understand why you put him on the edge of it.
Did you hear him say he belives there was a talking donkey? Did he say anything about it? If he did or would in another video, then I'd agree you could call him a fundamentalist.

You said:
["4-yes the law in the US seperates the two and this comes from an areligious thinking, a liberal way of thinking. Not a religious one becuase....."]
Still, the law that separates religion from state in the U.S isn't even half responsible for that country staying free.
If the people you call 'fundamentalists' in the U.S (whom btw have quite a big representation in the governing of it), if the majority of them didn't want the separation to exist it wouldn't be there! Must I give you examples? Look what happened in Iran, a country where most people object freedom, most people are religious savages and true Muslim fundamentalists. Iranians overturned the secular ruler in favor of a theocratic regime.
And look what happened in the Palestinian authority once the citizens were granted with the right to vote, again, you got a theocratic regime. In the U.S, If the religious wanted to turn the country into a theocracy or even not go that far and only cancel the law that seperate religion and state they would have much easier job (than revolutionists in Iran had) since they have wide audience that support them and they are already within the governing institutions and positions of power. And look at this marvel, the U.S stays free and that seperation law stays solid and bold!
That is because freedom must come from within the people (something the Iranians don't have) and the Americans have that. Maybe it's because of education, or maybe the little options you have when living in a country of immigrants (and I talk with first hand experience) where you have no choice but to accept the others even when their actions disturb your belief system or values.

You said:
["5- So you said belief in God is openmindedness. Now I am confused. I thought you said last time that my calling you a believer was unfair. So you rae not openminded deliberately, or what?"]
AIS, I said calling me a believer was unfair because I'm not and that would be like me calling you something you're not, lets say an Irish man.. Now that would be a mistake so its forgiven once, but if I keep calling you that, it would become a nuisance now wouldn't it?
In addition, coming from you, a tag of a 'believer' is an insult because you mock (any) religion and practice bias criticism of it.
Anyway, in my comment from May 16, 2006 10:18 AM I said beliving in God is open minded becuase we never saw him. That is all and it's very logical. Do you read all my comment or just select what suits you?
There's nothing vague about that definition. I can use my previous example: What if I told you I can fly and you've never seen my flying before? so rational thinking suggests I can't. But open mindness would be leaving the path to accepting the possibility that I really can fly, even if you didn't see me do it.