aerdil posted:well its a perfect example of privilege and a complete lack of empathy. as soon as he notices people arent treating him overtly like an Other it must mean racism doesnt exist
he's right
littlegreenpills posted:maybe you should ask about your mother's interests and make an effort to engage with them and spend quality time together
fuck yeah.
roseweird posted:i've never known you to get so worked up
i occasionally post on a little site called tHE rHizzonE and i understand i have a reputation there as "high energy"
i wanted to comment on one thing you said roseweird, i believe that God technically only forbade that David make the temple, which is used as explanation for why he did not, and instead his son did. the temple was consistently treated as a holy house of God; when they performed their first ritual in the completed structure, God filled it in the form of holy smoke, as a symbol of his approval.
i wanted to also address the 'we have to wait for the messiah' thing, if that is true than the books of ezra and nehemiah and the entire second temple period should be regarded as 'illegitimate' zionist projects, since they all occurred after the prophecy of the messiah but before he arrived.
roseweird posted:you hardly need archaeological evidence to know that jerusalem existed among a large number of non-hebrew communities since the isolation of jerusalem among the nations, and hebrew disdain for the people they lived among, are constant biblical themes
no what i am saying is that the Biblical Hebrews in the (likely) time of David and Solomon were a polyglot community with a number of different belief systems and far from those systems being isolated, there was open communication and trade between different city centers with different local beliefs as well as open political struggle between the same cities. the people they "lived among" were themselves.
Agnus_Dei posted:Petrol posted:swampman posted:Petrol posted:You could very well say the same about the Vatican.
Jesus christ was a champion of peace and tolerance. So no you couldnt.
Ah yes. Because, Roman Catholicism is all about the New Testament
it is, actually.
Actually, it is not. It is about dogma.
Agnus_Dei posted:i think christian support for zionism mostly has to do with christians reading the old testament and sympathizing with the israelites.
You don't suppose a political position held by some Christians (and it is only some) might have more to do with, um, politics?? Just putting this out there, but I don't think most Christians even read the OT properly.
zionism is a purely secular white supremacist invention, if you're familiar with the torah think about what the messiah actually means ideologically:
http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm
The mashiach is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, because the Torah was written in terms that all people could understand, and the abstract concept of a distant, spiritual, future reward was beyond the comprehension of some people.
The word "mashiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. Unfortunately, this Christian concept has become so deeply ingrained in the English word "messiah" that this English word can no longer be used to refer to the Jewish concept. The word "mashiach" will be used throughout this page.
The law of the Jubilee will be reinstated.
Beyond that I don't want to make the effort to explain my thoughts on the Jubilee, modern christian concepts of salvation, sin, and debt against those concepts in antiquity. But really there's a lot wrong with your understanding of Judaism.
Crow posted:Actually the 'liberal' interpretations indeed tend to the most zionist ones. More strictly 'religious' jews, ie. Haredi, tend to reject zionism and even violently oppose the zionist project. Likewise, the secular jews abroad are much more susceptible to zionist propaganda and sympathies, while most conservative and ("Ultra")Orthodox are highly skeptical and routinely hostile. There is nothing in the 'Jewish essence' that is zionist, and if anything, the aggressively white-secular aspects of modern zionism points to a purely *opportunistic* reading of the old texts.
i don't have anything to say about most of the rest of this thread, but this is a nice thought (unironically) that sadly isn't accurate. in israel haredim avoid the IDF and protest noisily against israeli laws/activities they view as violating halakha, but their attitude towards zionism varies widely from group to group- the satmar especially loathe it, but the attitude of most of the various chasidic courts has been nuanced/finessed/whatever. Most groups outside of the satmar & neturei karta disagree with messianic ideals re: contemporary zionism on talmudic grounds (so-called "secular zionism" is something they're all opposed to), but aren't aggressively opposed to the state per se and will on occasion actively encourage immigration to israel. Sephardic haredim, e.g. Shas, are firmly zionist as a rule, as are the Munkacs haredim (though before the holocaust the munkacsers were firmly anti-zionist, i think). The comparatively moderate hasidic groups, which i think are still considered ultra-orthodox in the west (lubavitch, ger, bobov) are all relatively in favor of Israel, to the point of encouraging their members to join the IDF (but still abjuring secular zionist ideology). Modern Orthodoxy is almost 100% zionist. The satmar & neturei karta really fucking hate israel, but that's about it.
also, with the notable exception of the neturei karta & satmar, many of the leaders of the above groups (especially the sephardic haredim and the hasidim in general) really hate muslims & arabs. this shouldn't surprise you too much, i think.
roseweird posted:man i don't know what to say to someone who does not believe jewish settlement has religious roots.
and he spent a long time watching from his lonely 2fort tower
and when he knew for certain only pubbie groups could see him
he said all men will be gamers then until live shall free them
roseweird posted:you can say this, and you can also say the assyrians and chaldaeans were babylonians and the babylonians were akkadians and the akkadians were sumerians. but you'd be wrong. the biblical hebrews were part of a cultural milieu stretching from the nile delta and the red sea to asia minor and the euphrates. well okay, duh. do distinct ethnic and religious groups not exist and isolate themselves within their own environment? if david and solomon did not exist, or were not yet distinctly "hebrew" (i.e. were some distinct mixture of early iron age egyptian and semitic cultures but as yet lacked self-identity) or did not exercise the influence claimed for them, does the influence of their mythology in shaping jewish ethnicity mean nothing? i don't see how what you are saying contradicts what i am saying. are we just trying to see who sounds like they know what they're talking about more?
from what I understand this culture im describing is actually circumscribed pretty closely by archaeological finds, boring shit like potsherds and post holes dug up by israeli grad students, the sort of thing that establishes the peoples youre talking about in the history books rather than as narrative fiction. its not a bunch of mumbo jumbo where people arent defined lol. the original issue here was the idea of jerusalem as the regional center of political power of a unified community. as for the narrative power of the bible regarding Israel i talked aboiut it already up top and who was the intended audience for that story.
roseweird posted:to me, the only clear command and the only one that makes sense is god's message "do not build a temple to me, for i have not dwelled in any earthly house since i brought you out of egypt", issued in response to david's contemplation of building a temple. the lord has a simple and ideological reason that no temple should be built—he is not to be worshipped in the manner of an idol, i.e. an image of a god as an earthly ruler in a palace... in this case the image is a name, but it is still an idol. all the subsequent recorded prophesies are plainly equivocations, justifications, confusions... it is said that david cannot build the temple, not because the lord is ideologically opposed to the building of a temple to his name, as before, but because david has shed blood and is impure. so it will devolve to his son solomon. ... but solomon also is a killer, so this doesn't make sense. the books narrate their wars and political assassinations in nauseating detail. right, so solomon builds the temple anyway. not only this but david began amassing resources for solomon's temple in his own lifetime. perhaps the most likely explanation is that david was simply unable to build the temple in his lifetime, and this confusing story was compiled hundreds of years later, by people who weren't entirely sure who built their temple? this would hardly be unusual for the era, classical geography offers descriptions of numerous pagan temples with unclear or conflicting construction stories.
you are referring i think to 2 samuel 7:6-7 which does not actually forbid creating the temple but rather points out that god did not personally request it, that god was content with the tent. however, he approves the project. in 12-13 of the same chapter, god says that david's son shall build the temple, without giving a reason why.
later, we get two different reasons why. in 1 kings 5:17, solomon claims david could not build the temple until all of their enemies were dead. this is probably a more practical explanation, seeing as david was probably too preoccupied with war campaigns to engage in massive building projects, as solomon would do.
in 1 chronicles 22:8, which retells the stories of kings but with modifications, we instead have the argument that david could not build it because of his warrior past. while it is true solomon would kill people as well, he ultimately reigned in the peace that david built through his wars, so did not have quite the amount of blood on him. that's the reasoning of the chronicler, anyway.
interestingly, the whole idea of there being kings was rejected at first by the prophet samuel, in 1 samuel 8, under the pretense that god should be their king. samuel warns them about all the state force that will befall them as a result of having a king. but the people keep pestering him about it and he prays to god and god says 'yeah they suck and are rejecting me, but just give them a king anyway', so he does. his first choice is so bad, he anoints another while the first is still alive, causing a civil war.
and the word 'messiah' literally just means 'anointed', which refers to the practice of anointing kings with oil. so the messiah is literally a continuation of the davidic line restoring the israelite monarchy.