Are you a Zionist

[Bthoth]

I think you have the idea of idolatry wrong. Or maybe that according to the tanakh God disproves of it.

No.... the mislead do not observe the pursuit as idolatry.

Here is a script of tanakh: 3 “Son of man, these leaders have set up idols[a] in their hearts. They have embraced things that will make them fall into sin. Why should I listen to their requests? 4 Tell them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: The people of Israel have set up idols in their hearts and fallen into sin, and then they go to a prophet asking for a message

Bible Gateway passage: Ezekiel 14:1-48:29 - New Living Translation

The Idolatry of Israel’s Leaders - Then some of the leaders of Israel visited me, and while they were sitting with me, this message came to me from the LORD: “Son of man, these leaders have set up idols in their hearts. They have embraced things that will make them fall into sin. Why should I...

www.biblegateway.com

My point is, that apartheid, oppression, murder and cruelty are the sin. And to be over a location is exactly what should NOT be occurring.

God promised the patriarchs the land

There is the biggest lie of the whole mess. Moses, was born and raised in EGYPT, during his LIFETIME (exodus), that whole region was egypts NEW KINGDOM............. The Amarna Tablets are exact evidence that the pharaoh ruled that region. But the mislead have no idea.

and he commanded that they take it away through violence, genociding the canaanites to acquire it.

Re-read what you wrote. And claiming god said it.

There are verses in the bible where the writer expresses their longing for zion.

The writers........... NOT A god!

They had to revere the holy of holies, which was where the tabernacle was, which had power.

The holy of holies is 'the name' of god, not a place! The name of god (knowledge) is where the power is. Not a stupid hole in a wall (box).

Knowledge enables power...........NEVER has a holy holy spot ever done a darn thing for mankind or god. Them places are for religious leaders to have control of a population.

Something else that god permitted which seems quite like idolatry was bowing before a serpent on a pole statue in order for the israelites to get healed from snake poison.

Learning such horrid ignorance, is from religious leadership................. no such thing as a magic stick.

I get why you think what the poster said expressed idolatry, but it isnt against what god permits in the tanakh.

Yes it is.

It is actually encouraged.

No, it is not. You and I did not have a conversations with any god to ask him if the scribes and pharisee have lied to us. It requires thinking and reading to realize just how bad it is.

In fact, in the bible, stuff like idolatry and god being the only true god is more complicated than most people lead us to believe.

I agree. Some think of idolatry as having a statue and taking to it. I get it.

Read for yourself:

2 “Son of man, are you ready to judge Jerusalem? Are you ready to judge this city of murderers? Publicly denounce her detestable sins, 3 and give her this message from the Sovereign Lord: O city of murderers, doomed and damned—city of idols,[a] filthy and foul— 4 you are guilty because of the blood you have shed.

And some claim that was a past, but yet, here we are in the present and exactly the same.

 

[Samael_Khan]

No.... the mislead do not observe the pursuit as idolatry.

Here is a script of tanakh: 3 “Son of man, these leaders have set up idols[a] in their hearts. They have embraced things that will make them fall into sin. Why should I listen to their requests? 4 Tell them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: The people of Israel have set up idols in their hearts and fallen into sin, and then they go to a prophet asking for a message

Bible Gateway passage: Ezekiel 14:1-48:29 - New Living Translation

The Idolatry of Israel’s Leaders - Then some of the leaders of Israel visited me, and while they were sitting with me, this message came to me from the LORD: “Son of man, these leaders have set up idols in their hearts. They have embraced things that will make them fall into sin. Why should I...

www.biblegateway.com

My point is, that apartheid, oppression, murder and cruelty are the sin. And to be over a location is exactly what should NOT be occurring.

There is the biggest lie of the whole mess. Moses, was born and raised in EGYPT, during his LIFETIME (exodus), that whole region was egypts NEW KINGDOM............. The Amarna Tablets are exact evidence that the pharaoh ruled that region. But the mislead have no idea.

Re-read what you wrote. And claiming god said it.

The writers........... NOT A god!

The holy of holies is 'the name' of god, not a place! The name of god (knowledge) is where the power is. Not a stupid hole in a wall (box).

Knowledge enables power...........NEVER has a holy holy spot ever done a darn thing for mankind or god. Them places are for religious leaders to have control of a population.

Learning such horrid ignorance, is from religious leadership................. no such thing as a magic stick.

Yes it is.



No, it is not. You and I did not have a conversations with any god to ask him if the scribes and pharisee have lied to us. It requires thinking and reading to realize just how bad it is.

I agree. Some think of idolatry as having a statue and taking to it. I get it.

Read for yourself:

2 “Son of man, are you ready to judge Jerusalem? Are you ready to judge this city of murderers? Publicly denounce her detestable sins, 3 and give her this message from the Sovereign Lord: O city of murderers, doomed and damned—city of idols,[a] filthy and foul— 4 you are guilty because of the blood you have shed.

And some claim that was a past, but yet, here we are in the present and exactly the same.

I just want to clear up that i do not believe that the Tanakh or the Bible is true or that any real god us related to it. Because you mentioned concepts such as idolatry and oppression and quoted the bible, i am pointing out what the book actually says.

Oppression and cruelty are sanctioned by God in the bible. Just look up Phineas and how he killed someone who brought a Midianite woman in the camp. Read up on the laws and who is deserving of death. Look at the battles that led up to the conquering of the promised land.

Anyway, you seem to have an odd outlook. Me I think the whole bible is written by men to support their beliefs and build a foundation belief system for a civilisation. I dont think a god had anything to do with it. And I dont agree with the methods of the old testament and I dont like its god. But i dont get why you pick certain verses and ignore the context of all the books. I am not sure how you are even coming to your conclusions about the bible. Do you accept certain parts of the book and not otherz or something? What is your viewpoint of the book so that I can understand where you are coming from.

 

[Ebionite]

Oppression and cruelty are sanctioned by God in the bible. Just look up Phineas and how he killed someone who brought a Midianite woman in the camp.

What you're actually doing is interpreting the text according your prejudice. The Midianites led the Israelites into idolatry following Balaam's incantation.

 

[Samael_Khan]

What you're actually doing is interpreting the text according your prejudice. The Midianites led the Israelites into idolatry following Balaam's incantation.

Yes, and I am a person who appreciates freedom of religion. Which is why I dont like the idea of a book saying that killing a person for worshipping idols and for having sex with a woman is righteous. I regard that as suppression of freedom.

But there is a context to why I replied in such a way too. If it was discussing the lore of the bible, keeping it within its own context, i would reply that it is to keep Israel pure in worship. In the above I am replying to a poster who seems to be ok with certain passages of the bible but to me seems to be ignoring other parts.

 

[Ebionite]

Yes, and I am a person who appreciates freedom of religion. Which is why I dont like the idea of a book saying that killing a person for worshipping idols and for having sex with a woman is righteous. I regard that as suppression of freedom.

Criminals don't like the suppression of their freedom, either.

 

[Bthoth]

I just want to clear up that i do not believe that the Tanakh or the Bible is true or that any real god us related to it. Because you mentioned concepts such as idolatry and oppression and quoted the bible, i am pointing out what the book actually says.

When did you point out, what 'the book actually says'?

Oppression and cruelty are sanctioned by God in the bible.

I do not catch that but I am aware that the mitzvah do have some cruel suggestions.

Just look up Phineas and how he killed someone who brought a Midianite woman in the camp. Read up on the laws and who is deserving of death. Look at the battles that led up to the conquering of the promised land.

No such thing as 'promised land'. That story line is by scribes/pharisee that incorrectly described the region to fit a narrative.

Anyway, you seem to have an odd outlook.

Thank you, i am not the most conforming person of beliefs and the nonsense of a god choosing a tribe over another.

Me I think the whole bible is written by men to support their beliefs and build a foundation belief system for a civilisation.

Where is the 'civilized' in such a lie-zation?

I dont think a god had anything to do with it. And I dont agree with the methods of the old testament and I dont like its god.

OK. I enjoy the idea of keeping the commandments, can enable civilization to actually be civil.

But i dont get why you pick certain verses and ignore the context of all the books.

I don't, i observe what is good and ignore the rude additions. That claim that you made comes from others making such a suggestion trying to discredit what i am stating.

I am not sure how you are even coming to your conclusions about the bible.

I have read the whole thing in a few different interpretations, inside and out a few times over. I look for the solid wisdom and ignore the additions and religious interpretations.

Do you accept certain parts of the book and not otherz or something?

Yes. That is exactly what I have evolved to. Understanding that there is solid wisdom in the dialogue and a bunch of added rubbish.

What is your viewpoint of the book so that I can understand where you are coming from.

Understanding that there is solid wisdom in the dialogue and a bunch of added rubbish.

All religions are man made. All writing is man made.
In fact, man created the 'gods' a whole bunch of them. But that does not mean, every line of theology is garbage. It just means, i am capable to skip the idea that a 'god said so'. Or that a god chose an anointed son or chosen one tribe over the rest of mankind or gave a specific group a promised land or requires people to worship, tithe, kiss the hand of the pope.

The item that most never consider is prophecy as a natural part of natures conscious life. Deja Vu is a phenomena that most every one of us has experienced during some point in our life. Nothing magical about it, nothing special of the person, no god talking and telling a person what to do. Just a vision and/or experience of seeing something. It's a part of the conscious or even subconscious experience but just of and within NATURE.


I keep my feet flat on the ground but still open to learn from many different discipline of science, philosophy and religious points of view.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Criminals don't like the suppression of their freedom, either.

So you disagree with freedom of religion and freedom of association?

 

[Samael_Khan]

When did you point out, what 'the book actually says'?


I do not catch that but I am aware that the mitzvah do have some cruel suggestions.

No such thing as 'promised land'. That story line is by scribes/pharisee that incorrectly described the region to fit a narrative.

Thank you, i am not the most conforming person of beliefs and the nonsense of a god choosing a tribe over another.

Where is the 'civilized' in such a lie-zation?

OK. I enjoy the idea of keeping the commandments, can enable civilization to actually be civil.

I don't, i observe what is good and ignore the rude additions. That claim that you made comes from others making such a suggestion trying to discredit what i am stating.

I have read the whole thing in a few different interpretations, inside and out a few times over. I look for the solid wisdom and ignore the additions and religious interpretations.

Yes. That is exactly what I have evolved to. Understanding that there is solid wisdom in the dialogue and a bunch of added rubbish.

Understanding that there is solid wisdom in the dialogue and a bunch of added rubbish.

All religions are man made. All writing is man made.
In fact, man created the 'gods' a whole bunch of them. But that does not mean, every line of theology is garbage. It just means, i am capable to skip the idea that a 'god said so'. Or that a god chose an anointed son or chosen one tribe over the rest of mankind or gave a specific group a promised land or requires people to worship, tithe, kiss the hand of the pope.

The item that most never consider is prophecy as a natural part of natures conscious life. Deja Vu is a phenomena that most every one of us has experienced during some point in our life. Nothing magical about it, nothing special of the person, no god talking and telling a person what to do. Just a vision and/or experience of seeing something. It's a part of the conscious or even subconscious experience but just of and within NATURE.


I keep my feet flat on the ground but still open to learn from many different discipline of science, philosophy and religious points of view.

I think I get where you are coming from. You are using critical thinking and your morality to determine and your own spiritual experience to determine which parts of the book you respect. And I respect that. I especially resonate with your outlook about experience being very important. I have come to learn this from my brief study of Hinduism. From what I have read they arent dogmatic on doctrine because they understand that each person has their own experience and should be free to believe what they actually believe.

 

[Bthoth]

I think I get where you are coming from. You are using critical thinking and your morality to determine and your own spiritual experience to determine which parts of the book you respect. And I respect that. I especially resonate with your outlook about experience being very important. I have come to learn this from my brief study of Hinduism. From what I have read they arent dogmatic on doctrine because they understand that each person has their own experience and should be free to believe what they actually believe.

I trust that people can be good without a central authority. i find that the exodus from egypt was about that scope. The child Moses, was born and raised in egypt, per the story. Lived in the house of pharaoh per the story. That would mean he learned from the libraries of egypt. With that education capability, was exposed to a central authority (scribes, pharaoh and royal lines) where a cast system and division of populations was a part of the culture. During that rearing perhaps realizing that people are equally capable to be good, know love and with knowledge can know the rules of civility as naturally as any other. And as recorded in egyptian archaeology a schism from thebes to a monotheism did occur (an exodus) did happen but not as torah/bible claimed.

My point is a person divided from a central authority of the religious plethora of gods, to a set of commandments (personal responsibility) and a migration north. Akenatan did leave the old model and created a monotheism, during the very period migrated north, opened up Amarna and the New Kingdom of egypt was the levant (aka promised land).

What bugs me about the divide in palestine, is realizing that the migrants into palestine, were zionist and arabs that both had/have their sites on that stupid hill, the mount. And i prefer focusing on the good of monotheism and the capability of both having their belief systems but fighting over that stupid hill must end before a real bad event occurs. 10/7 was horrible but it was not a blind sided hate as published but an ongoing argument fueled by the constant attacks on the al aqsa (the mount). The idolatry is and can be identified and in a true sense, has reoccurred many times over but for some reason the denial and bias in this modern era is ugly.

 

[Ebionite]

So you disagree with freedom of religion and freedom of association?

Phineas didn't kill them because of their religion or who they were associating with.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Phineas didn't kill them because of their religion or who they were associating with.

Numbers 25:1-9

"While Israel was staying in ****tim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, 2 who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate the sacrificial meal and bowed down before these gods. 3 So Israel yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor. And the Lord’s anger burned against them.

4 The Lord said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the Lord, so that the Lord’s fierce anger may turn away from Israel.”

5 So Moses said to Israel’s judges, “Each of you must put to death those of your people who have yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor.”

6 Then an Israelite man brought into the camp a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 8 and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear into both of them, right through the Israelite man and into the woman’s stomach. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9 but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000."

Basically they were killed for having sex with moabite women outside of marriage and for experiencing Moabite religion. The God of the Israelites is against freedom of association and freedom of religion.

 

[Ebionite]

Basically they were killed for having sex with moabite women outside of marriage and for experiencing Moabite religion.

No, sacrificing to other deities was unlawful for the Israelites, it wasn't just about belief.

 

[Samael_Khan]

No, sacrificing to other deities was unlawful for the Israelites, it wasn't just about belief.

Being able to worship other deities which includes sacrificing is also a part of freedom of religion.

 

[Ebionite]

Being able to worship other deities which includes sacrificing is also a part of freedom of religion.

The Israelites had agreed not to do that. Using the the religious metaphor of Judaism, your argument is that the rules regarding who you can have sex with apply equally to both married and unmarried women.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I trust that people can be good without a central authority. i find that the exodus from egypt was about that scope. The child Moses, was born and raised in egypt, per the story. Lived in the house of pharaoh per the story. That would mean he learned from the libraries of egypt. With that education capability, was exposed to a central authority (scribes, pharaoh and royal lines) where a cast system and division of populations was a part of the culture. During that rearing perhaps realizing that people are equally capable to be good, know love and with knowledge can know the rules of civility as naturally as any other. And as recorded in egyptian archaeology a schism from thebes to a monotheism did occur (an exodus) did happen but not as torah/bible claimed.

My point is a person divided from a central authority of the religious plethora of gods, to a set of commandments (personal responsibility) and a migration north. Akenatan did leave the old model and created a monotheism, during the very period migrated north, opened up Amarna and the New Kingdom of egypt was the levant (aka promised land).

What bugs me about the divide in palestine, is realizing that the migrants into palestine, were zionist and arabs that both had/have their sites on that stupid hill, the mount. And i prefer focusing on the good of monotheism and the capability of both having their belief systems but fighting over that stupid hill must end before a real bad event occurs. 10/7 was horrible but it was not a blind sided hate as published but an ongoing argument fueled by the constant attacks on the al aqsa (the mount). The idolatry is and can be identified and in a true sense, has reoccurred many times over but for some reason the denial and bias in this modern era is ugly.

Your take on Moses is interesting and I think pretty plausible. I tend to think that his monotheism is a descendent of Atenism.

My issue with the monotheistic religions isnt the monotheism itself but their exclusivism. I believe that even in the most benign exclusivist religions, the belief that one has exclusive access to truth leads to a whole lot of evils; ie dangerous cults, dangerous organisations and dangerous states. This is partially behind what is happening in Palestine. I dont know if it is specifically the mount that is the issue on the zionist side, but with all the problems happening to muslims in the world, muslims mostly only focus on what is happening in palestine, and I think it is because of Al Aqsa.

 

[Samael_Khan]

The Israelites had agreed not to do that. Using the the religious metaphor of Judaism, your argument is that the rules regarding who you can have sex with apply equally to both married and unmarried women.

Nope, my argument isnt the same. Because I dont think a married person should be killed for having sex with someone they agreed not to have sex with.

 

[Ebionite]

Nope, my argument isnt the same. Because I dont think a married person should be killed for having sex with someone they agreed not to have sex with.

Your opinion about the penalty for adultery is irrelevant.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Your opinion about the penalty for adultery is irrelevant.

My opinion about the penalty for adultery is totally relevant here because you are misrepresenting my argument.

 

[Ebionite]

My opinion about the penalty for adultery is totally relevant here because you are misrepresenting my argument.

That's a non sequitur, and I'm not misrepresenting anything. I said that I was using the religious metaphor of Judaism to describe your argument, which is appropriate for the context of Phineas.

 

[Samael_Khan]

That's a non sequitur, and I'm not misrepresenting anything. I said that I was using the religious metaphor of Judaism to describe your argument, which is appropriate for the context of Phineas.

My argument isn't that there shouldn't be consequences though. My problem is the nature of the consequences. That is why I initially mentioned oppression and cruelty in one of my earlier statements.