Christian Fundamentalist Terrorist in Oslo

[radarmark]

See, Quakers are not one unified group any more than practitioners of Judaism. Starting with those trying to breed a Red Heifer and the assassin of Rabin I could create a similar rant.

We tend to let individuals and individual monthly meetings find their own way.

That being said, I do not agree with any of the events you list. We share our Meeting House with the Jewwish Community here in Yellow Springs and have several groups active in both.

We are all flawed in one way or another.

Pax et amor vincunt omnia radarmark

 

[bananabrain]

See, Quakers are not one unified group any more than practitioners of Judaism.

now that's a good response and i appreciate it - i always assumed there was some kind of unifying ideology, but you're saying there isn't? so what are the limits of quakerhood?

Starting with those trying to breed a Red Heifer and the assassin of Rabin I could create a similar rant.

with respect, that is "whataboutery" and does not actually address the issue raised, but just to address the inapplicability of the comparison:

1. there is nothing inherently wrong with trying to breed a red heifer in accordance with the halakhah. what i assume you are referring to is the fact that it is the "temple mount faithful" group that are attempting it. this group is, however, a fringe group of only a few hundred members and their methods, aims and ideology are widely condemned, even by ultra-orthodox groups, who hold that one must not try and hurry up the messianic age and that there is a considerable spiritual penalty for doing so, quite apart from the danger inherent in trying to push it in the physical world.

2. the assassin of rabin claimed halakhic sanction from extreme national-religious rabbis, who afterwards more or less disowned him. the idea that his activities could be covered by the religious rubric of "din rodef" has been utterly discredited by all credible authorities.

both of these examples, however, are examples of clerical fascists acting within the context of a clerical-fascist sub-culture which exists within a liberal democracy which has tried, convicted and imprisoned yigal amir for his actions. the temple mount faithful group have not infringed any law - civil or religious - by breeding cows and, unless their methods involve violence, however unpleasant their views this is covered under free speech provisions.

however, *neither* of these - people or groups - have received financial support or facilities from organisations who would claim to oppose clerical fascism, unlike the examples i have given. their support is drawn solely from people who share their views. i cannot imagine that you would support *any* of the aims of the groups that i highlight.

We tend to let individuals and individual monthly meetings find their own way.

ok - and suppose their "own way" leads them into conflict with your most deeply felt beliefs (which i cannot imagine the likes of hizb-ut-tahrir do not) what do you do? just bend over and let them continue? would these groups be welcome in your facilities in yellow springs? let me ask you this: does the jewish group in yellow springs actually know about the activities of the friends house in london? the rowntree foundation? why don't you ask them what they think? i think you might be surprised at their reaction.

We are all flawed in one way or another.

i'm sorry, but that's really rather a limp excuse. i mean, really? is that all it is to you? can you not see a difference in "flaw" between those that call for the violent death or enslavement of all who oppose them and those who merely differ on minor points of theology and lifestyle? i can assure you that you have far more in common in terms of your value system with the (presumably) reform or conservative group that uses your facilities than you do with hbt or ismail patel, or they do with yigal amir and the temple mount faithful - those are the guys that actually might have something in common with hbt and ismail patel. it is a matter of value systems, not shared heritage. why would you lump in jews whose values you share with jews whose values you don't share? why would people with value systems like your support people whose only options for you are to submit, convert or die? i simply do not understand this.

i apologise for my vehemence; i hope it does not put you off from responding. i would really like to understand what is going on here.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Lunitik]

from my perspective, it is far more likely that the "proofs" relating to jesus have been retrofitted to make it look like they relate to the Torah prophecies. that is certainly a possibility that one should consider.

Of course, this is perfectly expected as a reply from a Jew - and I don't mean any disrespect by this. Thing is, what proofs are there that Judaism is legitimate? I do not wish to attack your ancestors in any way, but I am not aware of anything really that points to a clear line of succession or that clearly defines it as the way. For me, the very communications with God are purely delusional or allegorical. They cannot be genuine because in my encounters with God it is not possible that there is a personality there. God is the creator of our personalities - he has fashioned each for a role - but what need has God for communication in this mediocre way? Language is not of God, because no language is perfect enough to be called Godly.

let's not get sucked into false dichotomies, shall we? i think you're on a somewhat slippery slope if you are intending to argue that normative rabbinic judaism (as you term "pharisaism") has resulted in little in the way of spiritual achievement; the evidence is against you.

Can you point to some Rabbinic Jews that have attained, just for the purpose of discussion? The whole system is about laws, and no person which is obsessed with laws can attain. They separate automatically and attainment is about oneness, about encountering the I AM. Nothing else can be called attainment, and it seems to me every Jew that has attained has contributed to the Torah. There has been many millions of Jews, perhaps hundreds of billions in the course of human history, to be able to count a dozen or so in total is pathetic. This is a case of flowers blooming despite the gardener, not because of him.

indeed, the only way it does survive in the way i believe you mean is within the host community; the poorest decision of the essenes and the other esoteric / eschatological qumran-style sects as described by, for example, josephus, was to split off from the main community and seclude themselves in groups where their ascetic practices gradually removed any chance that they might become sustainable. later mystical groups remained within the community and thus kept their feet on the ground through marriage and the everyday round of community life.

I agree, history is filled with spiritual people that have allowed their spirituality to be an egotistic plight. They have decided that instead of worldly gains, it is better to be complete in the spiritual world. Spiritual attainment cannot happen when you attach to any extreme. Spiritual attainment is exactly the discovery of the core of reality. I AM is not qualified, it is not "I AM GOOD" or "I AM EVIL" or even "I AM LAW ABIDING", it is simply I AM. This is the single most beautiful thing Judaism has offered, and for me the most fundamental aspect of religion.

hmmm. even the essenes married, although they had a typically gnostic attitude to sex. it would have been (and remains) highly odd for an observant jewish male to remain unmarried at the age of thirty. it would seem far more likely to us that he did have a wife that was edited out of the gospels (i.e. mary magdalene, as the popular "debunkers" would have us believe) or, say, died, or simply remained at home with the kids.

They are known to have been strictly celibate and totally against marriage or sex. This is, I believe, the nature of Peter and Paul's arguments about celibacy - one has decided this is a must because it is accepted by the Essenes, the other wants a true community around Christ and thus knows the dangers of this statement. It is entirely consistent with Essene practice to remain unmarried, I think that saying Mary is his wife is rather insulting - and I am not a Jew or Christian, but this would certainly diminish his respectability within Essene circles.

hmmm. i'm not sure you understand what the core of judaism is, then. hasidism in the way you understand it dates back only to 1700 and the ba'al shem tob, whereas classical kabbalistic thought is embedded in mainstream rabbinic figures from the tannaim (C1st) through to the golden age of spain (e.g. nahmanides, rashba, abulafia) through to the safed circles of the C15th and the messianic scandals of the C17th. this comment exhibits a certain ignorance of the history of jewish mysticism, so i would suggest you read some gershom scholem at the very least to start.

Then I must apologize, I know little, and neither am I particularly interested in the specifics. I am aware that the mystic branches of Judaism have stemmed from the very name of God. I comprehend the nature of this, so human names and particulars thereof are not at all relevant to the discussion. If you are Jew, I would certainly recommend diving as deeply into whatever branch of this you prefer, but for me, I already know so it is only a case of delving deeper into that.

on the contrary, it is pretty clear that jesus as reported was abundantly familiar with halakhah (jewish law) even if he went out of his way to make a point by publicly breaking it (as per healing that guy's arm or picking corn on the sabbath, not washing before meals) or by pointing out halakhic contradictions or hypocritical behaviour; as i have pointed out a number of times, his interpretation of the law of met mitzvah (a person who dies unattended outside a city) as followed by the "good samaritan" is correct, compared to the actions of the supposedly more knowledgeable jews in the story. it seems to me that jesus is a very jewish figure in the prophetic tradition, as much in his transgressions against jewish law and in his revolutionary opinions on social justice. both are very much in keeping with the spirit of normative rabbinic judaism, as you would know if you were familiar with the doings of his rabbinic contemporaries as reported in the mishnah.

Again, this really shows parts of his mystic background. He knows, as do all mystics, that the body of religion is irrelevant. Certainly, the very decision to partake in a particular mystic path stems from the religious background of the individual, this is why there are many mystic paths. It is hinted that Jesus might have been expertly familiar with the texts very early in life, but this only means that he has more quickly transcended them. Now his whole message is love, and importantly he explains what exactly the nature of "I AM" is, all of existence is founded on love, and he says God is love. The Jew can easily figure this out I think in Genesis, but the Torah has not as far as I know directly said it.

the issue of the management of the Temple cult was a matter of much debate and heartache for the normative rabbinic community as well and rather better documented. if jesus objected to the way in which the financial management of sacrifice-purchase was made, he undoubtedly had good reasons which were shared by much of the rabbinic community, although his tactics would probably not have been approved of.

Indeed, I do not understand how his tactics are accepted by Christians, either. He is said to be completely free from sin, despite his actions in that temple. It boggles my mind.

i quite agree - except that "materialistic" isn't really what i'd call it; we don't discount the material, indeed, we hold that the physical is not to be merely transcended but transformed; the world too can be perfected and this is part of our task.

This is curious, the world is already exactly perfect. The positive cannot be known without its negative to qualify it. If there is no remnant of sadness, how can we know happiness? If happiness is the constant, it is no longer happy, it is now the norm. By and by, when you start removing the negative, you make the positive that much harder to attain in a realizable proportion. This is the natural paradox of manifest reality, to be known it is always dual, there is something which highlights that which is sought, there is an intrinsic contrast and balance to everything. You cannot strive for richness without knowing poor, you cannot strive for fullness if you do not know hunger. This, for me, is perhaps the worst thing Judaism has brought to the world, it has said that we must overcome everything that is bad, which means we are constantly fighting against the reality. You cannot be content if you are always struggling to change things, yet ultimate spiritual attainment is a state of complete contentment.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

I have been thinking about this for a while, and I have decided yes, this Oslo guy is a Christian terrorist.

 

[Lunitik]

So, for me, poverty is exactly caused by creating fear of it. You create greedy people because they fear poverty, they want to be as far from it as possible and things become disproportionate. By striving for goodness, you create evilness because there will those that do not accept the inherent repression of striving to be good. You create starvation similarly by those which fear hunger, there are one third of the world in either extreme - essentially there is a situation where the fat are eating exactly what the starving needed to live. To bring it back to the topic of this thread, this man has believed that if you spread Christianity more aggressively, it will result in a better world - a world of Christians.

This is all related to fear, and the religious organizations foster this fear, redirect it towards their own motives. The Christian hates the Muslim because these organizations have been competing for converts for 1500 years. If they are allowed to communicate without hostility as an undercurrent, how can the establishment maintain control? They will realize things are essentially exactly the same in their texts, they will realize that Muhammad was correct, but once this happens, they will turn back to Christ and know the beauty of so many of his statements. This will be disastrous for the organizations, but it is easy to create hostility - just say the other group is a threat, and both are doing it! Islam is saying Western culture is Dijjal (anti-Christ or devil's prophet) while Christians merely point as Muslim terrorism. Meanwhile, the Muslim leaders are jailing people for out of marriage sex. They are forcing families to essentially sell their daughter to another family - haggling for the best deal. They are so obsessed with sex that they mask it in money, they so fear sex that the West is the enemy exactly because sex is free there. It is also the case that all over the world, Christians are creating terrorist units under racist banners. Each and every skinhead or aryan brother or klan member is required to be protestant and many are quite militant. It is strange situation, Islam fears sex becoming widespread out of marriage, so it points at free sex countries as evil. Christians ignore their own militants but points at Arab ones. They are both doing the same sorts of things and it is all about fear.

No organization can control a united people, it is not possible - there are 300 million Americans and only around 1,000 rulers in this country. It would not be difficult if the whole country decided to get rid of government so it goes about dividing the people. Now the people cling to a particular group so government cannot even be thought to be removed. All nations are like this, I am not saying this should be pursued, but you have to understand their method in order to avoid it. They create in you a feeling of superiority and the other group must then be inferior. It is impossible that we see we are all humans because we go on choosing subgroups and clinging to something less than the whole.

What is the fundamental fear we all have? It is obvious, it is death. Always these groups threaten something after death, and present an alternative which appeals to greed. Face this directly, become comfortable with the inevitability of it, and you cannot be controlled. If you do not align to whatever story you prefer for after death, you can come together with the living and rejoice in this place simply in your gift of existing. We can work together to make it as joyful as possible while we are here, and crime and exploitation will go away automatically. When there is contentment, there is no reason to do anything against another. I have talked to murderers and the worst criminals and they are good people pushed into a corner, they had to do what they have done because it was either their life or the other. This is the current situation, we create such desperation by our own striving for material gains. It is such a poisonous system, so poisonous that people actually think that the answer is more poisoning. If we kill for a cause, we further a murderous cause, but at at least something we believed in will continue when we are gone.

I do not speak of a situation where we are striving to remove the negative, it is simply that we give absolute freedom for all to rejoice as they will. Humans are essentially children mostly today, if you tell them not to do something, they will be curious why they shouldn't. They do it merely for the thrill of disobeying, not even because it is enjoyable. You create a situation where obsession arises and then you punish them for acting on it. This is quite backwards, but we do not see it.

 

[bananabrain]

Thing is, what proofs are there that Judaism is legitimate?

well, the question would be, whose legitimacy are we talking about? christianity and islam, you see, rely at least in part upon judaism being assumed to be some-sort-of-true-at-one-time-for-some-people-maybe-even-still, whereas judaism never required this of christianity or islam. judaism stands on its own. from our perspective the Torah is addressed to *us*, not to everyone. the only people judaism needs to be legitimate for is *us*; we do not require the validation of anyone else. this is one reason we do not seek conversion. as for our own satisfaction, the Text itself and the results of following its Way has ensured our survival for the last 3,000-odd years; generally, that suffices for us as far as legitimacy is concerned. strictly speaking, we shouldn't really have survived. yet here we are.

do not wish to attack your ancestors in any way, but I am not aware of anything really that points to a clear line of succession or that clearly defines it as the way.

that's fair enough - you are not familiar with anything other than the Written Torah; without the Oral Torah you are missing about 80-90% of what is going on. "the clear line of succession" you speak of, well, the closest thing we have is the "chain of tradition" as set out in the mishnah of the "sayings of the fathers":

Moshe received the Torah from Sinai,
And he transmitted it to Yehoshua,
And Yehoshua to the Elders
And the Elders to the Prophets
And the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly.

you can see the rest here:

Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Tractate Avot/Chapter 1 - Wikisource

we have a clear line of transmission of these teachings from the great assembly to the zugot, the (C1st) tannaim, the amoraim, the saboraim, the geonim and hence to the great rishonim and aharonim. generally speaking, this stuff is pretty well documented. as for it being "the way" - what other way is there for jews? there have been sects that have split off throughout jewish history, but normative rabbinic judaism descends through the tanna r. yohanan ben zakkai who established the first synagogue and yeshiva at yavneh after the destruction of the 2nd Temple. sadducees, essenes, christians, karaites and so on notwithstanding, judaism has continued from then in a fairly well defined manner.

For me, the very communications with G!D are purely delusional or allegorical. They cannot be genuine because in my encounters with G!D it is not possible that there is a personality there.

well, you're entitled to your opinion, of course, but couldn't we say the same about your assertions about jesus?

G!D Is the Creator of our personalities [and] has fashioned each for a role - but what need Has G!D for communication in this mediocre way?

you are correct - G!D doesn't Need it, but we do. and for G!D to Speak with us, human communication must be used.

Can you point to some Rabbinic Jews that have attained, just for the purpose of discussion?

could you be more precise about what you're looking for? you might like to learn about, say:

rabbi akiva and the "four who ascended to paradise"
r. shimon bar yohai and his disciples, the traditional author of the zohar
sa'adiah gaon
r. isaac the blind
r. abraham abulafia
nahmanides
r. moshe de leon
r. azriel of gerona
the C13th "hasidei ashkenaz"
bahya ibn paquda
r. yosef karo
r. yehuda ha-levi
r. hayyim vital
r. isaac luria, the ARIZA"L
r. moshe cordovero

of course, you will be unlikely to be familiar with their work and why should you?

The whole system is about laws, and no person which is obsessed with laws can attain.

laws are simply another way of describing spiritual discipline, which i cannot imagine you are suggesting is a barrier to mystical experience. is not the renunciation of the world demanded by the buddhist path simply another law?

They separate automatically and attainment is about oneness, about encountering the I AM.

i'm afraid you are simply projecting your own preconceptions onto a system you clearly don't understand.

Nothing else can be called attainment

that seems to me a quite egotistical statement. we have a saying that the world stands on three things, on Torah, on the service of the Divine and on deeds of lovingkindness. similarly, check micah 6:8 - "what does G!D Require of you? To act justly, to love mercy and to walk in humility with your G!D" - i would say that these things are some form of attainment, wouldn't you?

There has been many millions of Jews, perhaps hundreds of billions in the course of human history, to be able to count a dozen or so in total is pathetic.

are you suggesting that quantity is somehow a measure of mystical attainment?

Spiritual attainment is exactly the discovery of the core of reality.

which we would argue cannot be done without staying in touch with the *whole* of reality. for your soul to rise, your feet must touch the ground.

They are known to have been strictly celibate and totally against marriage or sex.

er... i don't think so.

I think that saying Mary is his wife is rather insulting - and I am not a Jew or Christian, but this would certainly diminish his respectability within Essene circles.

well, we would say that without a wife, he could hardly be called an exemplary man.

I am aware that the mystic branches of Judaism have stemmed from the very name of God. I comprehend the nature of this, so human names and particulars thereof are not at all relevant to the discussion.

hmm. are you aware that we consider the Torah itself to be one long Divine Name?

He knows, as do all mystics, that the body of religion is irrelevant.

from G!D's point of view, perhaps, but it is hard to attain such a point of view and still remain human - or, certainly remain alive.

It is hinted that Jesus might have been expertly familiar with the texts very early in life, but this only means that he has more quickly transcended them.

yes, but where's the evidence of this supposed to be from?

Now his whole message is love, and importantly he explains what exactly the nature of "I AM" is, all of existence is founded on love, and he says God is love.

well, G!D Is by definition Everything - so, then, both love and not-love. check isaiah 45:7 -

I Form light and Create darkness: I Make peace[completeness] and Create evil: I G!D, Do/Make all these things.

restricting G!D to good and love and just the lovely pink things of life was what sent gnosticism, zoroastrianism and christianity off down the road of "devil" and "hell" and all that stuff; for us, these things are what we make them.

The Jew can easily figure this out I think in Genesis

for us, the ma'aseh bereisheeth is about becoming truly human (as opposed to angelic).

This is curious, the world is already exactly perfect.

really? i still have to work for a living and protect myself from those who would harm me.

The positive cannot be known without its negative to qualify it.

understanding the necessity for evil does not relieve us from the obligation to oppose it.

happiness is the constant, it is no longer happy, it is now the norm.

that's precisely what bothers me about statements like "G!D Is love". just because something's a "miracle" doesn't mean it has to be a nice miracle. just ask the egyptians.

This, for me, is perhaps the worst thing Judaism has brought to the world, it has said that we must overcome everything that is bad, which means we are constantly fighting against the reality.

really? i hardly think that someone can call themselves a G!Dly person if they are not prepared to fight evil and work for the good of society. i simply don't see the point of the sort of mysticism you describe. we have a story about this in the Talmud (Yoma 69b), which i can see summarised here:

Torah on the Web - Virtual Beit Midrash - rav08

Once, the Sages managed to imprison the yetzer ha-ra' (evil inclination). Three days later, however, they searched for a freshly-laid egg and could not find one in the entire Land of Israel. The Sages realised that if they would not free the yetzer ha-ra at once, the world would be destroyed.

similarly in the midrashic literature:

On the first five days of creation G!D Beheld the Divine Works and "Saw that they were good,"while on the sixth day "G!D Saw ALL that had been Created and behold, it was VERY good"(genesis 1:31)

"'Very good' (tov me'od) - this refers to the yetzer ha-ra, for without it, one would not build a house, marry, beget children, or engage in business." (Bereishit Rabba 9:7)

similarly, in another talmudic passage (Berakhoth 54a):

"The Commandment to "love HaShem your G!D with your WHOLE heart (be-KHOL levavkha)" (Deuteronomy 6:5) refers to "your two inclinations - the good inclination and the evil inclination."

You cannot be content if you are always struggling to change things, yet ultimate spiritual attainment is a state of complete contentment.

well, our prophets are not known for their contentment but for their passion for the good of society.

this man has believed that if you spread Christianity more aggressively, it will result in a better world - a world of Christians.

This is all related to fear, and the religious organizations foster this fear, redirect it towards their own motives. The Christian hates the Muslim because these organizations have been competing for converts for 1500 years.

we figured this out 2,000 years ago, which was why we banned proselytising.

What is the fundamental fear we all have? It is obvious, it is death. Always these groups threaten something after death, and present an alternative which appeals to greed.

do you know what judaism teaches about what happens after we die?

well - neither do we, at least not for sure. it's not like anyone's ever come back to tell us.

Humans are essentially children mostly today, if you tell them not to do something, they will be curious why they shouldn't. They do it merely for the thrill of disobeying, not even because it is enjoyable.

yet a child that never learns to disobey will never trust its own judgement and will never become a true adult or a true human - this is at least one of the lessons of the garden of eden story for us.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Lunitik]

well, the question would be, whose legitimacy are we talking about? christianity and islam, you see, rely at least in part upon judaism being assumed to be some-sort-of-true-at-one-time-for-some-people-maybe-even-still, whereas judaism never required this of christianity or islam. judaism stands on its own. from our perspective the Torah is addressed to *us*, not to everyone. the only people judaism needs to be legitimate for is *us*; we do not require the validation of anyone else. this is one reason we do not seek conversion. as for our own satisfaction, the Text itself and the results of following its Way has ensured our survival for the last 3,000-odd years; generally, that suffices for us as far as legitimacy is concerned. strictly speaking, we shouldn't really have survived. yet here we are.

This is sort of my point, if Judaism is false, where can Islam and Christianity stand? They are automatically irrelevant if you prove that Judaism is entirely fabricated, do you agree? 4/7 people on this earth require Judaism to be legitimate for their whole religious system to stand so no one will question. It is just accepted, but why? What is the proof of any of it?

laws are simply another way of describing spiritual discipline, which i cannot imagine you are suggesting is a barrier to mystical experience. is not the renunciation of the world demanded by the buddhist path simply another law?

That is exactly what I am saying, you must come to a situation where the discipline is recognized as irrelevant before anything can happen. Is the discipline accomplishing anything at all, or is it just ritual?

that seems to me a quite egotistical statement. we have a saying that the world stands on three things, on Torah, on the service of the Divine and on deeds of lovingkindness. similarly, check micah 6:8 - "what does G!D Require of you? To act justly, to love mercy and to walk in humility with your G!D" - i would say that these things are some form of attainment, wouldn't you?

No, they are nothing but a request, perhaps as much as an obligation.

are you suggesting that quantity is somehow a measure of mystical attainment?

I am suggesting that if there are few flowers, it is erroneous to praise the farmer for the few that have occurred. It is more correct to say that these flowers have arisen despite the farmer, not because of him.

which we would argue cannot be done without staying in touch with the *whole* of reality. for your soul to rise, your feet must touch the ground.

Indeed, or to say it another way, as far as you wish to reach to the stars, your roots must reach into the earth. We are in complete agreement here, and this is the very notion I have alluded to with "I AM".

well, we would say that without a wife, he could hardly be called an exemplary man.

Jews have killed him because he was treasonous, I do not think that the Jews considered him exemplary at all.

hmm. are you aware that we consider the Torah itself to be one long Divine Name?

Are you aware that you have just sullied the only beautiful thing I can say about Judaism?

from G!D's point of view, perhaps, but it is hard to attain such a point of view and still remain human - or, certainly remain alive.

Indeed, you must die, the "I" must die completely.

well, G!D Is by definition Everything - so, then, both love and not-love. check isaiah 45:7

I would suggest discussing this with the Christians and Muslims, I am fully aware of this truth

restricting G!D to good and love and just the lovely pink things of life was what sent gnosticism, zoroastrianism and christianity off down the road of "devil" and "hell" and all that stuff; for us, these things are what we make them.

This, also, we agree on. It seems that while you have taken away my previous acknowledgement of beauty, you have added more to replace. Thank you.

for us, the ma'aseh bereisheeth is about becoming truly human (as opposed to angelic).

Yes, but how can you become fully human when you are repressing aspects of your humanity? Perhaps this is not something the Jews are doing, but then I am not sure why most Jews always seem depressed. Depression and obsession are always hallmarks of repression.

understanding the necessity for evil does not relieve us from the obligation to oppose it.

It is only that opposing it creates a struggle, a battle with an unbeatable enemy. If you got rid of evil, it simply is not possible that existence can happen. Duality rests on the negative as well as the positive aspects, if God is the whole, then both are the creation of God. You are saying God is imperfect if you try to fix his creation.

really? i hardly think that someone can call themselves a G!Dly person if they are not prepared to fight evil and work for the good of society. i simply don't see the point of the sort of mysticism you describe.

The point is to bring yourself to a situation of contentment.

prophets are not known for their contentment but for their passion for the good of society.

This is why I have said before I do not feel they are enlightened people at all.

yet a child that never learns to disobey will never trust its own judgement and will never become a true adult or a true human - this is at least one of the lessons of the garden of eden story for us.

Again, you have created a need for the Child to judge, to sort into right and wrong. In creating a pattern of prescribed judgments, you silence the intuition within the Child. Do you think this is a true human? I say a true human is one that is total in enjoyment during life, that deeply appreciates every second they are given in this place, I see few such people and those I do come across are usually chastised by those around them.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

really? i hardly think that someone can call themselves a G!Dly person if they are not prepared to fight evil and work for the good of society. i simply don't see the point of the sort of mysticism you describe. we have a story about this in the Talmud (Yoma 69b), which i can see summarised here:

Hi, bananabrain. I want you to know that I appreciate a lot of what you write about Judaism. It is a beutiful religion and I will learn more about it some day.
I do however shiver at the word 'evil'. Would you please define it for this context, only for my state of mind.

It is only that opposing it creates a struggle, a battle with an unbeatable enemy. If you got rid of evil, it simply is not possible that existence can happen. Duality rests on the negative as well as the positive aspects, if God is the whole, then both are the creation of God. You are saying God is imperfect if you try to fix his creation.

Lunitik, I'm having trouble following your definition of dualism. At first it seemed as you opposed all dualism, that all is one and that all is good. Bat later it seems as though some things are separate and I know you believe some things to be not-good, like organized religion.
Would you please enlighten me to your meaning

 

[Lunitik]

Lunitik, I'm having trouble following your definition of dualism. At first it seemed as you opposed all dualism, that all is one and that all is good. Bat later it seems as though some things are separate and I know you believe some things to be not-good, like organized religion.
Would you please enlighten me to your meaning

Ultimate reality is a oneness, in manifest or gross reality duality is necessary merely to experience this plane. I oppose nothing, for all is perfect as it is already. It is because of the oneness of the ultimate that always the manifest seeks a balance. This is a paradox of reality, it seems that if we create a better situation we are improving things. In reality, the better we make a given situation, there must be the opposite elsewhere. To create a truly just world, we must create worse situations for some, there cannot be a situation where there are billionaires because it ensures poverty is rampant elsewhere. This is for me where religion so far has gone awry.

Where there is confusion is that I must use this language, create of a mind that insists of segregation, so it is difficult to point to a situation where it is invalid to segregate. To make a point, I must approximate concepts through these words. If it helps, you can think of my negative statements as unskillfulness, and the positive as skillfulness. What is the skill? It is the ability to be in tune with the natural order, how conscious your actions seem towards oneness.

I hope this is helpful

 

[bananabrain]

This is sort of my point, if Judaism is false, where can Islam and Christianity stand? They are automatically irrelevant if you prove that Judaism is entirely fabricated, do you agree?

absolutely not on both counts. firstly, large numbers of christians and muslims *already* think judaism is either mistaken, corrupted, false or just superseded and this merely focuses on just how right their subsequent "dispensation" or revelation is because it comes to either correct former errors or to change the rules going forward; this was the original aim of the "higher critics" from the C19th. if your aim is to debunk both, debunking judaism will not assist you - besides, this course of action is already well-trodden since the time of the enlightenment and the generally anti-religious such as the modern-day "gnu atheists", most of whom would be quite unforgiving about your own position as well, so i don't think this really helps.

secondly - and this is more where i sit, regardless of the truth or falsehood of judaism, christianity and islam can both be powerful and beautiful expressions of human love for G!D, the world and our society, provided they see themselves as *part* of the human and cosmic system, not as the replacement for it and the sole custodians of Truth. it is *irrelevant* whether judaism is true or false - both christianity and islam can potentially provide great support for the good, the wise, the beautiful and the sustainable.

4/7 people on this earth require Judaism to be legitimate for their whole religious system to stand so no one will question.

clearly, this statement is not supported by the evidence; i suggest for a start you take a look at the occasionally risible but still powerful book "god is not great" by christopher hitchens, or dawkins' "god delusion"; judaism has been roundly identified by thinkers since voltaire as the source of all they hate about religion.

It is just accepted, but why? What is the proof of any of it?

it's not "just" accepted. as for the proof, if proof is the way you think (and it is not of much interest to me) i have already pointed out to you why jews hold fast to the "paths of the tree of life" of Torah; it is the source of our survival and the sustainability of our culture in an unremittingly hostile world. as a well-known liturgical song has it: "because we sustain the Sabbath, so the Sabbath will sustain us". think about it, yaar; you can keep Shabbath on a desert island, you can take it with you wherever you go; Shabbat is our "portable homeland". not for nothing are we the sole surviving diaspora culture of the ancient world; it's not just our bloody-mindedness or our sense of humour. i don't know from proof, but i do know that judaism is where i come from and it will never leave me. it's in my blood and my bone; what i do is more or less (in its own way) as my ancestors have done throughout the generations and centuries and our reward is that we have endured, prospered and even returned to our ancient homeland against all odds. and *you* want proof? you can take it or leave it; it is of no particular importance - all that we are interested in is that you do right with your time on earth.

That is exactly what I am saying, you must come to a situation where the discipline is recognized as irrelevant before anything can happen. Is the discipline accomplishing anything at all, or is it just ritual?

well, speaking as one who keeps the discipline, i can see that it *can* be just ritual (and indeed many see it that way) but it can also be far, far deeper. i would agree (i think) personally that without the esoteric doctrines that run through the core of judaism and pervade every observance, the layers of tradition and observance sometimes fail to justify their weight - what we call the "yoke of the mitzvot", yet there are still many who observe them and find meaningfulness and fulfilment in the intellectual, emotional and even OCD aspects of judaism; as we say, Torah has 70 faces.

No, they are nothing but a request, perhaps as much as an obligation.

i'm afraid you misunderstand the point; to fulfil this request would involve the attainment of some major goals for human society.

I am suggesting that if there are few flowers, it is erroneous to praise the farmer for the few that have occurred. It is more correct to say that these flowers have arisen despite the farmer, not because of him.

that's somewhat of a tendentious analysis. the point of a farm is not to grow flowers. you can't eat flowers. you could of course exist on the proceeds of selling your flowers providing you have animals and plants to subsist on as well, but nobody would praise the farmer at all for not providing any food, no matter how beautiful his flowers. it strikes me that you are picking the point of maslow's pyramid as the most important and, indeed it may well be, but it cannot exist without the supporting layers. if you will forgive the military analogy, just as it takes 20 people in logistics to support one soldier in the field, it takes 20 yak farmers to support one lama. presumably you see yourself as a flower or, perhaps fertiliser and that is all very well, but if you're on the internet having this conversation, then i doubt you're a hunter-gatherer. it strikes me that this is the mysticism of the gentleman of independent means. i'm not sure gurdjieff's pupils ever needed to earn a living.

Indeed, or to say it another way, as far as you wish to reach to the stars, your roots must reach into the earth. We are in complete agreement here, and this is the very notion I have alluded to with "I AM".

well, i suggest the roots bit deserves a bit more respect!

Jews have killed him because he was treasonous, I do not think that the Jews considered him exemplary at all.

gee whiz - jews didn't kill the bloke at all! crucifixion is not a halakhic penalty - this was the summary justice of the roman military; the sanhedrin described in the gospels would not have been legitimate, nor, if it were, did it follow anything like the correct procedure to prosecute a capital case. the guy was fitted up and tried illegally; there's nothing jewish about that.

Are you aware that you have just sullied the only beautiful thing I can say about Judaism?

without Torah there is no judaism and, frankly, you don't seem to understand the first thing about us.

Indeed, you must die, the "I" must die completely.

and what on earth is the *point* of such a doctrine? no wonder the essenes, like all mystical ascetic groups, failed to survive - their failure is built into this point of view. how irrelevant to human life! how irrelevant to the planet! how egotistical the focus on the importance of removing the ego!

Yes, but how can you become fully human when you are repressing aspects of your humanity?

hang on - a minute ago you were saying that the "i" had to die completely and that the flowers were the most important thing on the farm - this makes absolutely no sense. for it to make sense, you have to have an approach that embraces *all* humanity; the mysticism you describe is inhuman in its lack of consideration for normal life.

Perhaps this is not something the Jews are doing, but then I am not sure why most Jews always seem depressed. Depression and obsession are always hallmarks of repression.

goodness gracious, do i seem depressed? withdrawn? i don't think you know a lot of jews, or if you do, they must be american media jews, who are always neurotic and going on about their analysts while they eat their bagels. i think you're confusing larry david and woody allen with real life. you talk about hasids, but have you ever seen them partying? have you ever met a sephardi jew or one from the east? have you ever been to an iraqi or ethiopian or persian jewish wedding? sure, we've been repressed, but have you ever heard the music? ever joined a sabbath meal?

It is only that opposing it creates a struggle, a battle with an unbeatable enemy.

sorry to quote lord of the rings at you, but:

a) even the smallest person can change the course of history.
b) no, we cannot prevail against sauron, but we will meet him in battle nevertheless.
c) all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.

If you got rid of evil, it simply is not possible that existence can happen. Duality rests on the negative as well as the positive aspects, if G!D is the whole, then both are the creation of G!D. You are saying G!D is imperfect if you try to fix his creation.

in kabbalah the idea of tzimtzum is what enables a space for the universe to exist in which evil can be possible; G!D Withdraws, as it were, into Ein-Sof, leaving room for possibility, causality and outcomes, despite the fact that they are not really real. G!D Created the possibility for imperfection and, thus, repair as a praiseworthy act. it's only the cosmos that is imperfect - that is what gives us room to act, otherwise if everything was perfection what would be the point in human existence? we might as well kill ourselves. if G!D Is Perfect - what is the point of humans? if we are to move towards "perfection", how are we to do so whilst ignoring the evident and manifest imperfection of the universe?

The point is to bring yourself to a situation of contentment.

how selfish and self-satisfied? and not feed the hungry, clothe the naked, fight injustice?

This is why I have said before I do not feel they are enlightened people at all.

well, if that's enlightenment for you, you can stick it up your bum. there's a famous story hasidic story you should hear about the vilna gaon, the great lithuanian scholar-genius and his hasidic opponent, the dubner maggid:

The Vilna Gaon asked the Dubner Maggid to tell him what the Maggid believed were his faults. The Dubner Maggid eventually said, "You are the most pious man of our age. You study night and day, retired from the world, surrounded by the words of your books, the Holy Ark, the faces of devout scholars. You have reached high holiness. How have you achieved it? Go down in the market place, Gaon, with the rest of the Jews. Endure their work, their strains, their distractions. Mingle in the world, hear the scepticism and irreligion they hear, take the blows they take. Submit to the ordinary trials of the ordinary Jew. Let us see then if you will remain the Vilna Gaon!" The story ends with the report that "the Gaon broke down and wept."

Again, you have created a need for the Child to judge, to sort into right and wrong.

for feck's sake, do you actually have kids? what the hell kind of world is it where we don't know right from wrong? what sort of humans does that imply? this is at heart of how we understand the garden of eden story.

In creating a pattern of prescribed judgments, you silence the intuition within the Child.

who says it's "prescribed" - it's the KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL - the ABILITY to LEARN and MAKE judgements for yourself and others.

Do you think this is a true human?

do you think that a true human is one with no judgement? ask an evolutionary scholar - what creature will survive, one that understands that waving grass may be the wind - or may be a waiting predator?

I say a true human is one that is total in enjoyment during life, that deeply appreciates every second they are given in this place, I see few such people and those I do come across are usually chastised by those around them.

then, again, you have not understood Torah - mindfulness and enjoyment, although related, are not entirely the same thing.

This is a paradox of reality, it seems that if we create a better situation we are improving things. In reality, the better we make a given situation, there must be the opposite elsewhere.

have you ever come across systems thinking? religion, at its best, includes these concepts. it is built into judaism. imagine if we all had total awareness of the consequences of our actions. now consider what technology is bringing to our awareness... we will not preserve the world and sustain human society without these things; religion must support these ends, not hope for the end of the world.

To create a truly just world, we must create worse situations for some, there cannot be a situation where there are billionaires because it ensures poverty is rampant elsewhere. This is for me where religion so far has gone awry.

i think you're confusing money with reality. money isn't real, it's only a promise of what could be. if a billionaire acts (look at bill gates' foundation, for example, or warren buffett giving away his fortune) that cannot be a bad thing - if he chooses to act for good; again, it is the choice that is important, as well as the consequence.

I do however shiver at the word 'evil'. Would you please define it for this context, only for my state of mind.

evil is the absence of good - the absence of an effective moral standard which determines consequent action. to see someone hurt - and not to intervene. to have the opportunity to do good - and not to do so. to put your own convenience above someone else's pain. to profit by the suffering of others - all these things are evil. they need not exist. they do not exist except by our action or inaction. you need humans for evil.


b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Dream]

This thread's a keeper.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Mainstream inprisoned Inmates World-wide
don't concentrate on either Ethics,
morality or scriptural mandates.

For me, this means they are missing their most substantial teachings.

Yet nonetheless criminals have a common trait ---anti-social socio-pathic behavior(s).

Has anyone read the "manifestos" of the Drug cartels of Asia, Mexico, Colombia, Russia, or Sicily? They'd make for great table-talk or even a great date movie.

 

[Saltmeister]

let's not get sucked into false dichotomies, shall we? i think you're on a somewhat slippery slope if you are intending to argue that normative rabbinic judaism (as you term "pharisaism") has resulted in little in the way of spiritual achievement; the evidence is against you.

Not at all. I think Pharisaism has become a very insightful and thoughtful tradition and thought system. There were some thoughtful people in the Second Temple period as well. My fingers are getting tired and lazy. I don't want to keep typing rabbinic Judaism all the time, otherwise my fingers will start stuttering ...... r'bbi'n.c.. j'dai'..m....

I had to make my arguments suit the other person. If I was talking to you it would be different. Lunitik saw the kabbalah as superior to the segment of Pharisaism dealing with earthly and social matters. I found it rather hard to explain the value I saw in this "earthly spirituality" of Pharisaism. It's mainly because I don't know much about it. I like what I have read, but couldn't explain why. The best I could do was talk about why mysticism/enlightenment were over-rated or dangerous.

ummm.... opinion is divided as to when this happened. some say it refers to the public revealing of the zohar in the C13th, some say it happened with the kabbalistic explosion of the C15th, some say it is more recent. however, all of this refers to events within the jewish community.

I was thinking about Hasidic Judaism when I wrote that. Dozens of miracle workers came out of nowhere.

It was a time when other Judaism-related things were happening as well -- the Shabbateans, Frankists, Enlightenment. I seem to be getting hints that the Freemasons and Illuminati came from the Shabbatean movement. I remember reading somewhere that something happened to "rabbinic Judaism" at this point. Did rabbis become less important?

it would have been (and remains) highly odd for an observant jewish male to remain unmarried at the age of thirty. it would seem far more likely to us that he did have a wife that was edited out of the gospels (i.e. mary magdalene, as the popular "debunkers" would have us believe) or, say, died, or simply remained at home with the kids.

He could have been gay or had a girlfriend -- ok maybe you're right -- he was married. Promiscuity and fornication wouldn't have been a good thing. The more I read about the Second Temple world, the less I care. Maybe Dan Brown has a point!!!!

except that judaism isn't monolithic either. judaism also does not proselytise and the reason for this is that you don't have to be jewish to share in the perfecting of the world.

This has to do with a discussion we had two years ago and now that I know I bit more, I wanted to discuss that "default Noahide" and "official Noahide" thing -- how contemporary Christian ideology/theology may be changed so that Christians can progress closer to "official Noahide" status. It has to do with who has a place in the "world to come." I was going to post something in the thread islamicway (the member) started in the Judaism forum. Unfortunately I keep getting distracted by other discussions here.

blimey. i certainly wouldn't see it like that. if you're talking about zekhariah 8:23, that for us is about learning and leadership, not authority. i certainly wouldn't go to current rabbinic leadership and make them an offer like that!

The thing about Christianity is that it started with Jews, so it must end with the Jews. The Jews who started it (the Nazarenes), of course, are not the same Jews that have survived (in substantial numbers) into the modern era (Pharisees, if you don't mind the term). The Nazarenes seemed to have disappeared some time in the fourth century.

Some years before the destruction of the Second Temple, as well as the Jerusalem Church, James the Just and a number of other church leaders gave the Apostolic Decree, which is similar to the Seven Noahide Laws. The four omitted commandments were implied (common sense) and mentioned elsewhere in the NT.

Imagine that we are in the same situation as 2,000 years ago, but instead of James the Just/Jerusalem Church giving the Apostolic Decree, it's the rabbis giving the Seven Noahide Laws. Christianity simply took off without the Jerusalem Church and disregarded their heritage. I think that was quite rude.

It's like a covenant, and it needs to be renewed...... I thought this would be good for reconciliation between Jews and Christians. I think it would be good to get all 2 billion Christians striving for this goal.

i certainly don't see that as a future worth having.

I originally had no interest in the December 2012 end of the world scenario, but then I heard about the "Anglo-Saxon Conspiracy." Basically, World War 3 is being staged. A bunch of Illuminati cabals in a place called "the City of London" are scheming to manipulate world events for some secret agenda. 9/11, the global financial crisis, SARS, swine flu, Islamophobia, banning of minarets and Islamic veil are part of the conspiracy.

These cabals have been doing this for some time because 2012 is supposed to be the end of the present Mayan cycle. They expect something to happen at the end of next year. They believe a solar flare and other natural disasters will kill half of the people in this world. However, it is believed by others (who are against these cabals) that it is because this is the beginning of a new age where we (humans) will become more powerful than before. I don't believe there will be any serious natural disasters, but I do think there might be a very serious political upheaval.

These Illuminati cabals are working for supernatural agents whose aim is to create fear among the world population to prevent people from transitioning to an angelic state. By manipulating world events, starting wars and triggering political upheavals, the cabals will keep the world population in a state of constant fear. This is how the supernatural agents they serve receive their power. Fear makes them stronger. Those who realise what is happening will resist. The rest will allow themselves to be manipulated.

Some time after I came across this interesting conspiracy theory, Victor starts the "Present Age Passing Away" thread in the Belief and Spirituality forum. I found his experiences to be quite interesting, that he predicted 9/11 and/or some other dates -- that "something" would happen. He says that "something" will happen again at the end of 2012 that will catch the whole world's attention.

At the time I was reading about the Second Temple world (as I have been for about two years) and I wondered how this fit into a more "Abrahamic" scenario. Could the end of 2012 be the beginning of an apocalypse? Could it signal the imminent beginning of the messianic age?

I wondered how we might stop these cabals from achieving their aims. If we couldn't stop them, we could resist, but how would we resist? What kind of resistance would it be? Political dissidence? Civil disobedience? Withdrawal from society? I thought about what role I had to play in this.

The greatest form of resistance would come from religion itself. I don't mean "armed resistance" but "mutinous resistance." It is where we refuse to be part of the conspiracy. Religious people are the ones most likely to refuse to be part of it due to their conscience or loyalty to keeping the most sacred and holiest aspects of their traditions. They would not allow themselves to be manipulated politically, socially, economically or financially.

Those who refuse to be part of the conspiracy will be the ones who survive to the next age. They don't have to survive alone, but could get help from like-minded people and form communities where people co-operate and work together in their resistance against the conspiring cabals.

This is where I got the idea of eventual integration of Jews, Christians, Muslims and others. I admire how Jews have survived the hardship of the last 2,000 years and I am thinking that if the apocalypse is imminent, people need to be like the Jews!!! The rampant individualism of today's society has made us complacent. In case something does happen, we need to get together and form communities where we share energy and resources. Look out for people in need. Help them so that one day they can help you. Fill your wallets with extra money in case someone asks!!! Don't spend it all on David Jones!!!

It may be a false alarm. What if nothing happens in 2012? What if Victor's predictions were wrong? Even if nothing happens, at least we made the effort to strive for something more noble. Whether it is integration or charity/hospitality (tzedakah), it would be a worthy goal. It is better than being slaves of capitalism, consumerism and hedonism. It's almost like a kind of idolatry. Life now is so good, yet somehow it isn't enough.

You guys may have noticed I've been speaking of Illuminatis recently ..... what if they're real?

 

[radarmark]

Salty,
The Illuminatus Trilogy is my favorite modern book. Let me know where this "City of London" conspiracy theory is hosted. I used to spin some wild ones myself, but when the Oklahoma City bombing came down and I realized I had argued gargage that was very similar to that coming out of McVey's mouth, I was shaken. My nephew (a mere 55 now) called me up and we vowed never ever to get into that kind of mental masturbation again (excuse my language).

That is one of the reasons why I am such a diehard pubic skeptic. But I do love to follow them (conspiracy theories).

Pax et amor vincunt omnia, radarmark

 

[SoulFood]

Yet, a politically right-wing Christian Fundamentalist committed a terrorist act that is more typical of America.

I have serious doubts about this person being a "Christian"

How can you take Christ out of Christian and then still lay claim to it?

 

[Saltmeister]

I have serious doubts about this person being a "Christian"

How can you take Christ out of Christian and then still lay claim to it?

he is whatever he claims to be, but I also say he's a heretic

 

[Dream]

The thing about Christianity is that it started with Jews, so it must end with the Jews. The Jews who started it (the Nazarenes), of course, are not the same Jews that have survived (in substantial numbers) into the modern era (Pharisees, if you don't mind the term). The Nazarenes seemed to have disappeared some time in the fourth century.

Saltmeister, I realize we're off topic but I don't think that things are like that. Its like making France responsible for America's national deficit.

Imagine that we are in the same situation as 2,000 years ago, but instead of James the Just/Jerusalem Church giving the Apostolic Decree, it's the rabbis giving the Seven Noahide Laws. Christianity simply took off without the Jerusalem Church and disregarded their heritage. I think that was quite rude.

This is simplification and some guesswork. There's a lot of guessing in there.

It's like a covenant, and it needs to be renewed...... I thought this would be good for reconciliation between Jews and Christians. I think it would be good to get all 2 billion Christians striving for this goal.

There are some problems with that kind of arrangement. First, its bad for anyone to think of themselves as everybody's uncle, which is similar to looking for converts. I'm also not fond of your 'Official noahide' term. To me that sounds like butt kissing. I don't understand what you mean by reconciliation.

 

[bananabrain]

Not at all. I think Pharisaism has become a very insightful and thoughtful tradition and thought system. There were some thoughtful people in the Second Temple period as well. My fingers are getting tired and lazy. I don't want to keep typing rabbinic Judaism all the time, otherwise my fingers will start stuttering ...... r'bbi'n.c.. j'dai'..m....

to be fair, i think i was addressing the argument; i think i lost track of who was saying what, so no biggie.

I had to make my arguments suit the other person. If I was talking to you it would be different.

hehe. well, that's the trouble with public forums - it's not just the speakers involved, but the lurkers!

was thinking about Hasidic Judaism when I wrote that. Dozens of miracle workers came out of nowhere. It was a time when other Judaism-related things were happening as well -- the Shabbateans, Frankists, Enlightenment.

here i think i would suggest that you read up on the history; scholem's monumental history of shabbetai tsvi, as well as the subsidiary histories of frankism and the donmeh, will be of use. basically, the post-lurianic period was this massive explosion of popular mysticism which more or less scared quite a lot of the mainstream rabbis, especially when everyone started selling their belongings and heading for israel because they thought the messiah had arrived.

I seem to be getting hints that the Freemasons and Illuminati came from the Shabbatean movement.

goodness! - well, as far as i understand it, the popularisers of magic and "cabala" in the christian world such as cornelius agrippa and pico della mirandola were quite anti-clerical, as well as likely to come into contact with the ructions of renaissance europe, but although they learned a great deal from the rabbis, they a) got a great deal wrong b) changed a lot and c) had entirely different priorities. there is certainly evidence of kabbalistic influence on masonry, but that's a subject i don't know a great deal about; this becomes far more important within what becomes known as the "western mystery tradition", which becomes its own thing very very fast at this period as far as i can tell, so you get a rash of rosicrucian groups springing up all over the place in the C16th-C17th and masonry in the C18th-C19th, it all gets brought together eventually by the likes of the stella matutina and golden dawn into "occultism", "hermetic magic" and "ceremonial magic", by which time the "qabalah" starts to include all sorts of weird non-jewish stuff like tarot, john dee's "enochian" script and chessboards and egyptian "god-forms" - this is where you get the likes of mcgregor mathers rediscovering the kabbalistic classics in the early C20th.

however, if there's one group i've never come across, in all my wide reading on the subject from a jewish point of view, it is the illuminati. i don't really know much about it other than what is in that dan brown book, which is probably bollocks if it's as poorly researched as the stuff in his other ones. frankism was very much an individualist, ecstatic, antinomian movement, i would say jacob frank is the closest figure we have to an aleister crowley. i wouldn't say he was about science at all, or about world domination - he would have been 100% at home in some compound in the back of beyond in C21st america with plenty of willing female disciples and a well-stocked gun room. i have never heard any hint of kabbalistic connection to the illuminati - indeed, if they were an anti-clerical group, i can't imagine them being keen on jewish mysticism.

masonry, on the other hand, i can see having a great deal in common with kabbalah, a sort of "mysticism for tradesmen" as terry pratchett so mordantly put it. masons tend it seems to me to be a highly law-abiding bunch, not like the sabbateans at all; the only similarity i can see is in the secrecy and the entryism - although i don't consider masonic entryism to have a problematic agenda, although sabbateanism certainly did.

I remember reading somewhere that something happened to "rabbinic Judaism" at this point. Did rabbis become less important?

well, prophetic inspiration and popular mystics became very powerful very fast without having to spend years becoming halakhic figureheads; whereas the normal sort of kabbalistic celebrity would be someone like the maharal (rabbi loew, the fabled creator of the golem of prague) he would normally be widely published and credible as well, we still have a lot of the maharal's books and indeed i know several families that claim descent from him. the final straw, for a lot of the mainstream rabbis, was kabbalists starting to overrule regular halakhic practice rather than staying within the system; they'd take it from the ari, but not from the likes of nathan of gaza. once the wheels started coming off sabbateanism, the backlash set in and popular mysticism became discredited, in the ashkenazi world at least; in the sephardic world, this never happened, apart from in the balkans. so kabbalah, really, went underground once more, to become an elite pursuit, except for the sudden emergence of hasidism in the early C18th, which pretty caused huge ructions and intercommunal strife. then you have the enlightenment hitting at the same time and picking up antinomian strains from sabbateanism, anticlericalism and scientism from the contemporary political and philosophical context and disaffection with the reassertion of rabbinic power.

I wanted to discuss that "default Noahide" and "official Noahide" thing -- how contemporary Christian ideology/theology may be changed so that Christians can progress closer to "official Noahide" status. It has to do with who has a place in the "world to come." I was going to post something in the thread islamicway (the member) started in the Judaism forum.

please do go ahead and start a separate thread.

The thing about Christianity is that it started with Jews, so it must end with the Jews.

i'm not so sure i fancy being dragged into the end bit!

The Jews who started it (the Nazarenes), of course, are not the same Jews that have survived (in substantial numbers) into the modern era (Pharisees, if you don't mind the term). The Nazarenes seemed to have disappeared some time in the fourth century.

was this not because a) paul won the original takeover battle for the forming church and b) the co-option of christianity by rome? that's certainly when it went tits-up as far as we were concerned; christianity stopped being a sect of heretical jews and started being a horribly religious version of the already horribly powerful roman empire.

Christianity simply took off without the Jerusalem Church and disregarded their heritage. I think that was quite rude.

sounds like paul to me.

It's like a covenant, and it needs to be renewed...... I thought this would be good for reconciliation between Jews and Christians. I think it would be good to get all 2 billion Christians striving for this goal.

blimey - expect the jewish reaction to be somewhere between bemusement and exasperation.

I originally had no interest in the December 2012 end of the world scenario, but then I heard about the "Anglo-Saxon Conspiracy." Basically, World War 3 is being staged. A bunch of Illuminati cabals in a place called "the City of London" are scheming to manipulate world events for some secret agenda. 9/11, the global financial crisis, SARS, swine flu, Islamophobia, banning of minarets and Islamic veil are part of the conspiracy.

i think i would refer you to umberto eco's famous quote from "foucault's pendulum":

The lunatic, on the other hand, doesn’t concern himself at all with logic; he works by short circuits. For him, everything proves everything else. The lunatic is all idée fixe, and whatever he comes across confirms his lunacy. You can tell him by the liberties he takes with common sense, by his flashes of inspiration, and by the fact that sooner or later he brings up the Templars.”

certainly this happened with breivik and i myself prefer to concern myself with things that i actually know to be the case.

I admire how Jews have survived the hardship of the last 2,000 years and I am thinking that if the apocalypse is imminent, people need to be like the Jews!!!

well, this actually is the conclusion that the dalai lama came to when the chinese decided to bring about the apocalypse of traditional tibetan society - do read roger kamenetz's "the jew in the lotus" for more. however, he was thinking about the future, not frantically preparing for the end and i would suggest that you don't get too obsessive about apocalyptic scenarios - better to come up with ways of avoiding the end of the world through sustainable living, green energy and the improvement of society.

radarmark - i would very much like to hear your response to my earlier rant; i hope i have not put you off doing so.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Saltmeister]

Let me know where this "City of London" conspiracy theory is hosted.

The conspirators are unlikely to be centred in one location or to all be found in that same location. They would have agents spread around the whole world. Bombing the "City of London" would not stop it. The "City of London" may just have been one of the places where one of the meetings took place.

Nothing will stop the conspiracy. Not even violence can stop it, unless you killed 90 percent of the country's population, but even then, there might be a few agents left to continue the conspiracy. Everyone else is just a pawn unlucky enough to be manipulated into serving the conspiracy.

It's a bit like Joss Whedon's Dollhouse. The Dollhouse shown in the TV series is not the only "Dollhouse." There are many "Dollhouses" around the world where humans are programmed as agents to perform particular missions.

......or......it may also be a bit like what O'Brien says in Nineteen-Eighty-Four:

There are thought criminals who maintain the resistance is not real. Believe me Winston, it is very real. Perhaps you're not familiar with how it operates. Perhaps you imagine a huge network of conspirators prepared to commit any atrocity to immobilise and weaken the order of our society.

The reality is infinitely more subtle. If Goldenstein himself fell into the hands of the thought police, he could not give them a list of his agents. Such a list does not exist. They are not an organisation in the sense we know. Nothing holds it together but an idea.

There is no possibility of change in their lifetime. In the face of the thought police, they cannot act collectively. Individually they cheat, forge, blackmail, corrupt children, spread disease and prostitution in the name of spreading knowledge from generation to generation until in a thousands years......

I used to spin some wild ones myself, but when the Oklahoma City bombing came down and I realized I had argued garbage that was very similar to that coming out of McVey's mouth, I was shaken. My nephew (a mere 55 now) called me up and we vowed never ever to get into that kind of mental masturbation again (excuse my language).

I think a more mild description would be "mental gymnastics." -- and yeah I would have to do a fair amount of gymnastics to justify this one. Basically, the reason why we can't find any conclusive evidence of a conspiracy is because the conspirators are so good at hiding it.

That is one of the reasons why I am such a diehard pubic skeptic. But I do love to follow them (conspiracy theories).

I hope you were entertained.