Why the Elite Wants You to Think Judaism is Evil

Originally posted by eMachine
reply to post by indigothefish

 

Well, personally, I think there are a couple possible reasons for the "superiority" and "one true religion" stuff... one possibility is that it is defensive, because the Jews were persecuted by various empires (Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc.) over the course of history. In order to preserve their religion, they had to conceal their beliefs from the authorities of the time, but they also had to try to keep Jews from turning away from it.

Nothing quite so heroic.

Basically, the power of priests is directly relative to the people who adhere to that faith. So if a priest wants to hold onto his power, there's gotta be strict penalties for converting to another religion; in Judaism's case (and later, Islam's) that penalty was death. Kinda takes the wind out of a potential convert's sails, doesn't it?

And for the record, none of these empires actually persecuted Jews, with two notes; One, it's possible that the Israelites who fled Egypt were actually adherents of Aten monotheism, and thus were indeed fleeing persecution... not terribly likely in the time frame, especially given the lack of any evidence for even a scrap of the Exodus story. Second, the Romans DID persecute Jews - after the Empire became christian, which put pretty much everyone who wasn't part of the emperor's particular christian sect into mortal peril.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Basically, the power of priests is directly relative to the people who adhere to that faith. So if a priest wants to hold onto his power, there's gotta be strict penalties for converting to another religion; in Judaism's case (and later, Islam's) that penalty was death. Kinda takes the wind out of a potential convert's sails, doesn't it?

In theory, you're correct. However imo, this is complete nonsense. Unless the 'priest' (to continue your hypothetical situation) has the potential convert physically enslaved, they really have no control. A person who would 'convert' from one religion to another is certainly the kind of person who can be bullied by such psychological oppression. The real challenge for the 'priest' is one who actually believes in a higher authority, rather than the doctrine/dogma of an assumed authority. That person will either abscond or demand death.

And for the record, none of these empires actually persecuted Jews, with two notes; One, it's possible that the Israelites who fled Egypt were actually adherents of Aten monotheism, and thus were indeed fleeing persecution... not terribly likely in the time frame, especially given the lack of any evidence for even a scrap of the Exodus story. Second, the Romans DID persecute Jews - after the Empire became christian, which put pretty much everyone who wasn't part of the emperor's particular christian sect into mortal peril.

Empires always persecute those who do not believe The Empire to be their ultimate authority. This is the topic. It happens to come from a Jewish woman who believes 'her people' were persecuted in history for this reason. I have my own questions about the dogma of modern Judaism and its roots, but it does seem like there have been Jewish mystics/sages who found the philosophy of anarcho-communism at the heart of the Kabbalah. And it does seem like that topic has been pushed to the sideline by those with an authoritarian agenda both within the Jewish community and outside of it.

Perhaps I should've put this thread in the Philosophy board, but it IS about Conspiracies in Religion, including our modern ideological world-view supported by those in any authority position today.

Thanks for contributing.

Originally posted by Lawgiver
how can so many people around the world believe in one messiah from so many variations of the bible? cause there's truth which can't be masked by interpretations or various editions.

Sadly, truth is masked by interpretations and various editions of all the new trash bibles out there right now, over 233 of them. Its a real mess and doesn't seem to be getting any better.

As for the originals, no one in the last 1,800 years have held or even seen the "original" new testament books, and as for the old testament writings....good luck, they have never been found. All we have are copies of these originals preserved in the form of the King James Bible. Even the dead sea scrolls were copies of copies.

reply to post by eMachine

This woman by no means represents the Jewish community, she may be Jewish, but she comes off as a radical leftist/reformer who thus has long taken off the yoke of heaven.

I have my own questions about the dogma of modern Judaism and its roots

The dogma of modern Judaism, and its roots? That is an oxymoron. Judaism, is orthodox. Unlike Islam and Christianity, Judaism has not been splintered by schisms. Judaism, unlike the two former religions, has been orthodox, and traditional, since their dispersion 2000 years ago. Only with the haskalah, did a different group arise that completely deviated from Talmudic, and traditional Judaism - which dates back to the 300 BCE (becoming what it is in its 'modern form' by the sages of the great assembly).

Reform Judaism, and Conservative Judaism, and or Neo-chassific, or any of these assimilating Jewish traditional thought with modern values, is NOT Judaism, and deserves to be treated as an entirely different religion.

Orthodox Judaism, is real Judaism. If you want to see modern 'dogma' of Judaism, you can find that in Chassidut; great teachers like Rebbe Nachman, Chofetz Chaim, Abraham Isaac Kook, Lubavitcher Rebbe etc...

but it does seem like there have been Jewish mystics/sages who found the philosophy of anarcho-communism at the heart of the Kabbalah

Huh? Read Eugene Narret, or Paul Eidelberg, or Eliyahu Benamozegh

Anarcho-communism is at the very opposite end of the Torahs concept of government, and thus the kabbalah. The Torah advocates a REPRESENTATIONAL government, as in the advice Yitro (jethro) gives to moses. This is a DE-centralized system of government, that emphasises community above national. The national has its own responsibilities, but the torah INSURES the indivudal rights of all people; to property, etc.

Now GNOSTICISM, that is definitely the inspiratoon behind these ideas; platos republic being more directly relevant than anything in the kabbalah. Marx hated Judaism and even his own father (thus the very concept of a patriachy). His communism was paganism.

And it does seem like that topic has been pushed to the sideline by those with an authoritarian agenda both within the Jewish community and outside of it

Oh please. The Jews involved in the illuminati are puppets, being played by much more powerful GENTILE illuminates from big time noble houses like the capetian dynasty for instance. Some Jews just love money, and are willing to sell their own brothers to their enemies. They are undoubtedly evil peopkle; Rorthschilds, etcf. But they arent Jewish, and they have never represented traditional Jewish values. They dont even wear Yalmulke, or abide by any of the laws of the Shulchan Aruch.

They are not Jews. Real Jews who stood for real Jewish values, like the late Rabbi Meir Kahane are obvioudly hated and libeled by the pagan liberal Jewish establishment and eventually asassinated when they become too much of a problem.

But nonetheless, the Jews will win their state, with a Torah government, and a leader and government which abides by the torah, as opposed to liberal left nonsense that has ruled the country, obviously through illuminati werstern interests in Britan and America.

reply to post by dontreally

I don't recall saying that she represents all Jews. I actually expect the majority does not agree with her.

But wow!

I seem to have the ultimate authority on Judaism gracing my thread with his/her presence. Thank you for this honor. I don't think you realize what an excellent example you have just made.

Luckily, the very few (self-described, not to be confused with real) Jews I have the pleasure of knowing are not so critical and intolerant of others, so your comments have no impact on how I feel about the religion or the people. I'll definitely look into the topics/folks you've mentioned. So, thank you for giving me more to research.

(By the way, Marxist philosophy is not the same as anarcho-communism. You could check out Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, or Wayne Price. Anarcho-communists give Marxists a rash. lol)

Edited to add:

What you describe does actually come off a bit schismatic...

Originally posted by eMachine
In theory, you're correct. However imo, this is complete nonsense. Unless the 'priest' (to continue your hypothetical situation) has the potential convert physically enslaved, they really have no control. A person who would 'convert' from one religion to another is certainly the kind of person who can be bullied by such psychological oppression. The real challenge for the 'priest' is one who actually believes in a higher authority, rather than the doctrine/dogma of an assumed authority. That person will either abscond or demand death.

There's no need for physical enslavement. Fear is a great motivator. Fear of hell, fear of death, fear of being a pariah, even simple fear of being wrong. If you are taught to fear something, then that something will have a power over you. whether this is being taught that yellow-and-black flying bugs hurt you if you mess with htem, or if it's being taught that not believing this or that doctrine guarantees eternal torment in a lake of fire doesn't matter. it's the fear that matters.

To relate back to slavery, look at the past, American slavery. Lots of enslaved Africans had quite a bit of freedom of movement; they could visit neighbors, go to the market for their owners, conduct errands, all sorts of things. They had ample time and opportunity to haul ass for the hills. Why didn't they? Because they'd seen what happened to those slaves who had tried and gotten caught. Their owners didn't need to shackle them in the cabins every night. All it took was cutting off the feet of Cletus when he made a break for it, and the rest of the field hands would never try, themselves.

Empires always persecute those who do not believe The Empire to be their ultimate authority. This is the topic. It happens to come from a Jewish woman who believes 'her people' were persecuted in history for this reason.

She's factually wrong. The "persecutions" in history had next to nothing to do with religion. The most famous "persecution," the one where the Romans destroyed the second temple, was in response to several clerics fomenting separatist riots in Iudaea, which had resulted in quite a few dead people. When then it was an effort to destroy the political power of those priests in that province, rather than an assault on Judaism (if Rome wanted to assault Jews in this time frame, it would have been a massive civil war; pretty much the whole southeast of the empire was Jewish)

See, polytheist societies are, by their nature very tolerant of other religions. After all, if I have a god for every day of the week, how can I say your god or gods is invalid? if I've accepted multiple gods as my "reality," then one more, or ten more, or twenty thousand more aren't going to threaten my worldview at all. 'Course, once you throw politics into the mess, or when you have competing strains of monotheism (Roman persecution of Christians was the latter, Sol Invictus / the Divine Personage vs. Christ) that you get conflict.

I have my own questions about the dogma of modern Judaism and its roots, but it does seem like there have been Jewish mystics/sages who found the philosophy of anarcho-communism at the heart of the Kabbalah. And it does seem like that topic has been pushed to the sideline by those with an authoritarian agenda both within the Jewish community and outside of it.

What I'm seeing from kabbalah is that people read into it exactly whatever they wanted it to say anyway. Which actually does make par for the course as far as mysticism goes (Read The Divine Pymander or Everburning Lights of Trithemius for two examples)

reply to post by eMachine


He's not Jewish. He's, as he puts it, "A gentile with a deep appreciation for Judaism." Take that as you will.

reply to post by eMachine


Whats schimatic? About 3000 years of undiluted Torah - minus christianity and the Sabbatean heresy in 1666, which was exposed for what it was, a desire to inject gnostic thought into Judaism, as it is in Christianity and Islam. Reform Judaism occurred very very late in the life of Judaism (even Rabbinic judaism), and was simply the result of uneducated, or easily swayed by the majority type Jews. Also, 1700 years of a galut(exile) mentality makes you very wanting in gentile respect. This led to assimilation and rejection of actual Jewish values by a vast majority of European Jews.

You can believe what you want. Any honest onlooker - and im not Jewish - can see that there is only one traditional brand of Judaism which has not departed from the incredibly long tradition of the Rabbinic sages down to hillel, Shammai and the men of the great Assembly; and ultimately back to the biblical prophets and moses himself. This is simple history.

I didnt mean to come off as rude, i just think your assumption about anarcho-communism was very ill formed. The Torah portion "Yitro", Jethro completely contradicts that presumption.

17 But Moses' father-in-law said to him, "The thing you are doing is not right; 18 you will surely wear yourself out, and these people as well. For the task is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone. 19 Now listen to me. I will give you counsel, and God be with you! You represent the people before God: you bring the disputes before God, 20 and enjoin upon them the laws and the teachings, and make known to them the way they are to go and the practices they are to follow. 21 You shall also seek out from among all the people capable men who fear God, trustworthy men who spurn ill-gotten gain. Set these over them as chiefs of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, and 22 let them judge the people at all times. Have them bring every major dispute to you, but let them decide every minor dispute themselves. Make it easier for yourself by letting them share the burden with you. 23 If you do this — and God so commands you — you will be able to bear up; and all these people too will go home unwearied."

24 Moses heeded his father-in-law and did just as he had said. 25 Moses chose capable men out of all Israel, and appointed them heads over the people — chiefs of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens; 26 and they judged the people at all times: the difficult matters they would bring to Moses, and all the minor matters they would decide themselves. 2

This describes a representational government; minimal control and power in the hands of the sovereign and cental authority, ie; as the president of the united states is given by the constitution, but his power being limited to just major affairs. Personal, indivudual matters are the concern of each family, and not the state. Also, the Torah speaks over and over again about mans inherent right to property, land - and possessions, which no government can encroach upon. Each family has his own inheritance, and each person promised his own intrinsic G-d given worth.. This systems emphasizes a community, a sort-of communistic type idea, but without a tyrannical government granted the authority to expand.

Recent kabbalists and Torah scholars have noted the template provided here by Jethro - a gentile sage (kabbalistically, the gentile refers to the work of the outer world, while the Jew, as priest, and prime caretaker of thespiritual world. Thus it is apt thet Moshe is informed of this by Jethro - the symbol of the outer, informing the symbol of the inner) of how to fairly govern a society.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

(if Rome wanted to assault Jews in this time frame, it would have been a massive civil war; pretty much the whole southeast of the empire was Jewish)

Hadrian ransacked 985 Judean towns and killed around 600,000 Judeans, absolutely decimating the Jewish community in Israel.

See, polytheist societies are, by their nature very tolerant of other religions. After all, if I have a god for every day of the week, how can I say your god or gods is invalid? if I've accepted multiple gods as my "reality," then one more, or ten more, or twenty thousand more aren't going to threaten my worldview at all. 'Course, once you throw politics into the mess, or when you have competing strains of monotheism (Roman persecution of Christians was the latter, Sol Invictus / the Divine Personage vs. Christ) that you get conflict.

I dont recall the Romans being very tolerant of Christians..or Jews. And they were polytheistic in the most intrinsic sense of the word.

Not to mention traditional polytheistic cultures had an insatiable lust for empire. Israel is limited by G-d himself in the Torah to "from the nile, to the euphrates". That is the largest Israel as a nation, will ever get. Also, the main issue with polytheism is the distinction between power. Is G-d the one G-d and thus of all, and thus omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent,.. If so, than he is the only power. El in Hebrew, power (this phenomena also exists in English as the suffix al or le) can mean 'god'. Hence Mich'el, Gavri'el, Sam'el etc. When one attributes power, and consciously engages in a specific form of worship of that power, he denies the complete sovereignty of G-d. This is why its stritly forbidden to 'represent' G-d with any image. As G-d emphasize "you saw no form". G-d has no form, and thus man should recognize that by not partitioning His singular power into innumeralbe powers, as it is in Hinduism or tibettan buddhism.

What I'm seeing from kabbalah is that people read into it exactly whatever they wanted it to say anyway. Which actually does make par for the course as far as mysticism goes

Anyone who has actually studied Kabbalah, knows how ridiculous that is.

You cannot partially study kabbalah. You cannot base any assertion on insufficient knowlege. That is not logical. Neither can one truly know anything about Kabbalah without a thorough knowledge of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
There's no need for physical enslavement. Fear is a great motivator.

Yes, this paragraph (not quoting it all) is absolutely correct for those who give an authority enough power over them to cause that fear. On the other hand, I think some slaves might've accepted their slavemaster's authority over their actions, but had an understanding that physical slavery doesn't extend inward to their mind and/or spirit. It's really hard for me to imagine what I would do in such a situation, but perhaps I would be able to come to such an inner understanding, in order to stay and protect my family or (as in many cases families were separated) other perhaps more vulnerable slaves.

She's factually wrong. The "persecutions" in history had next to nothing to do with religion.

I think she's attributing the persecution to anarcho-communist philosophy moreso than religion, although she does seem to believe it played a significant role in the 'spiritual philosophy' (for lack of a better term) of the ancient Hebrews.

It does boil down to her personal mystical perspective of things, which is inspired by her study of religious texts and the work of some Jewish sages. I am fascinated by her videos because she always seems to have unique views and I enjoy the exercise of getting my mind around them.

Thanks for your input. I would like to continue, but lack of sleep is impeding my ability to verbalize.

Originally posted by dontreally
Hadrian ransacked 985 Judean towns and killed around 600,000 Judeans, absolutely decimating the Jewish community in Israel.

Primarily due to Simon Bar Kosiba being appointed Messiah and leading a bloody rebellion against Roman rule. Rome didn't tend to respond well to that sort of thing.

Besides, according to your standards, they weren't "real Jews" anyway since they were a messianic movement and thus deviated from the one true absolute unquestionable authority that you, as a Gentile, have to the right to determine

I dont recall the Romans being very tolerant of Christians..or Jews. And they were polytheistic in the most intrinsic sense of the word.

In fact they were not particularly polytheistic by the "empire" stage. Rome itself was worshiped during the late Republic, and when the Emperor became Rome, the Emperor became the supreme deity. The old gods such as mars and Pluto functioned basically like saints do in modern Catholicism. Further, barring the frequent rebellions in Iudaea, Judaism did pretty well in the empire, spreading through the whole of it, though never achieving the importance of, say, Mithraism or the Isis cult.

By the time Christians popped up, Rome was solidly monotheist. It had no tolerance for Christians because the Christians denied the divinity of the emperor - and were thus committing both blasphemy and sedition.

Bad combo when you're up against the people who nailed your god to a cross, really.

Not to mention traditional polytheistic cultures had an insatiable lust for empire. Israel is limited by G-d himself in the Torah to "from the nile, to the euphrates". That is the largest Israel as a nation, will ever get.

Not that it ever neared that size, and not as if these guys didn't constantly try to empire-build. Seriously, read the damn book, the ancient Jews were always out wiping out this or that people and taking their stuff. And then getting beat over the head by people with bigger sticks. It's not that they lacked any lust for empire, it's just that they were spectacularly bad at achieving such a goal.

Also, the main issue with polytheism is the distinction between power. Is G-d the one G-d and thus of all, and thus omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent,.. If so, than he is the only power.

Y'know, throwing out a lot of "thus" and "hence" and omniblahddy doesn't give you a strong argument; it just makes you sound like Billy Graham having a mild seizure.

Monotheism, as a religious system, has a lot of problems.

You have one god, who encompasses everything. Okay. That means he's all about giggling babies, AND he's all about those babies catching ebola and dying horribly. That means he's all about a wonderful day at the beach, and he's also all about someone jumping to their deaths from an overpass. In addition to being the ultimate force of good, this god must by definition also be the ultimate force of evil.

What you end up is a vague and contradictory mess of a deity, who's requires an entire school of philosophy - theodicy - just to explain why it - despite being supposedly benevolent and omni-everything - still lets your wife get raped and murdered.

All this ends up with a god who might as well not exist, due to its own random pointlessness. What good is it to have faith in a god who's just as likely to bless as curse you, and most likely to just be completely indifferent? It becomes having faith just for the sake of having faith; the deity is superfluous.

And this is all without actually delving into the specifics of any given religion.

Is polytheism superior? Hard to tell, with so few extant polytheist systems. Vudoun seems to be enjoying itself, and I don't know if a billion Hindus can all be wrong. I figure if you must have religion, polytheism fills the same needs as monotheism, without all the contradictory baggage and special pleading that monotheism demands.

El in Hebrew, power (this phenomena also exists in English as the suffix al or le) can mean 'god'. Hence Mich'el, Gavri'el, Sam'el etc. When one attributes power, and consciously engages in a specific form of worship of that power, he denies the complete sovereignty of G-d. This is why its stritly forbidden to 'represent' G-d with any image. As G-d emphasize "you saw no form". G-d has no form, and thus man should recognize that by not partitioning His singular power into innumeralbe powers, as it is in Hinduism or tibettan buddhism.

"My religion says your religion is wrong, thus proving my religion is right!" Doesn't work that way. All of them can say this about all the others; it resolves absolutely nothing.

For instance, every religious experience I have had points towards the "power," as you term it, very definitely being partitioned, and only as related to each other as you are to me. I, of course, cannot prove this experience to you, so you will call me wrong, perhaps claim I'm lying. I of course know better on both counts, so where do we end up?

Anyone who has actually studied Kabbalah, knows how ridiculous that is.

You cannot partially study kabbalah. You cannot base any assertion on insufficient knowlege. That is not logical. Neither can one truly know anything about Kabbalah without a thorough knowledge of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic.

You realize that so long as you insist on there being one absolute right angle, you're not going to actually understand one damn bit of what you're studying, right? It's not a one-size-fits-all exercise you're undertaking, and there's no test at the end. People study it and come out with different results. That's the point.

You remind me of people who read alchemical texts as if they were a cookbook.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
You realize that so long as you insist on there being one absolute right angle, you're not going to actually understand one damn bit of what you're studying, right? It's not a one-size-fits-all exercise you're undertaking, and there's no test at the end. People study it and come out with different results. That's the point.

You remind me of people who read alchemical texts as if they were a cookbook.

Looking at things from various angles is fun. For instance, this all becomes really hilarious if you think of these matters in terms of ancient astronaut theory.

We do seem to focus primarily on the last few thousand years, our 'known history', while there is supposedly physical scientific evidence that we humans have existed in our current form for something like 200,000 years. That's a very long time to be whacking eachother with clubs... I'm inclined to wonder if civilization has not risen and fallen several times.

There was an interesting History Channel program called 'Life After People' where they explored the hypothetical situation of humans just disappearing from the planet (however unlikely that seems) and I think they concluded that after a few hundred years there would be almost no trace of our modern human civilization.

It's not incredibly relevant to the topic of this thread, I'm just pondering how narrowly we tend to view things.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

they weren't "real Jews" anyway since they were a messianic movement and thus deviated from the one true absolute unquestionable authority that you, as a Gentile, have to the right to determine

Maybe you should read up on the Bar Khoba fiasco. He was endorsed by the rabbinic leadership - Rabbi Akiba. Additionally, he actually fit the criteria of a messiah. Not a dionysian creature born of a virgin birth, with supernatural powers. But a great leader, normal like any other human, whose power lied in his leadership abilities and prowess in Torah.

Thus you see that the ACTUAL conception of Messiah is not so 'mystical' as people think. Yes, this man is to be of great spiritual stature, but he will be a normal human being.

Further, barring the frequent rebellions in Iudaea, Judaism did pretty well in the empire, spreading through the whole of it, though never achieving the importance of, say, Mithraism or the Isis cult.

Why not call it Iudaism? Also, Hadrian appropriated an unbelievable 40% of Romes Legions to deal with the tiny province of Judea. Pretty unbelievable.

As for them not being too pagan. Hadrian was referred to as the most "greek" of Roman emperors. He actually murdered his lover antiochus in the nile to simulate the murder of osiris; deifying his gay lover and turning him into a god for the masses.

By the time Christians popped up, Rome was solidly monotheist. It had no tolerance for Christians because the Christians denied the divinity of the emperor - and were thus committing both blasphemy and sedition.

The ancient Egyptians also regarded the Pharoah as god incarnate. Same with the babylonians. Even despite this, local cults and traditions still abounded in the ancient roman empire up until Christianities great conquests in the 9th -12th centuries.

Not that it ever neared that size

It was that size during Solomons reign. From the nile to the river Euphrates, Israel had many vassal states that paid tribute to them. But yes, the 'official' size of Israel was from Goshen - east of the nile, to northern lebanon (also ancient Israel) all of syria, all of Jordan, and the northern portion of Saudia Arabia.

In addition to being the ultimate force of good, this god must by definition also be the ultimate force of evil.

I get what youre saying. Have you read 'answer to job' that shoddy attempt by jung to make YHVH to be some pagan dualistic god? Well, no. If you had read the Torah, you would know that G-d prescribes a human RESPONSE to the nature of life. yes, G-d also creates evil.

Heres the verse from Isaiah describing G-ds relationship to good and evil. The kabbalists explain that isaiahs choice of words describe kabbalistically, the origin of both good and evil.

I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the Lord, do all these things

When one 'forms' something, he forms it from a previous substance. Thus, G-d 'forms' light, because he IS light. Darkness however is the absence of light, and therefore the apparent absence of G-ds presence. G-d creates the concept of lack, of darkness in order to show the VALUE of light, and of prosperity. And again, he CREATES disaster - borei, the word used in this verse is from 'bara' to create, and its source is in the world of Breyah - human thought.

What good is it to have faith in a god who's just as likely to bless as curse you,

He blesses, when you make an effort to do good, sincerely, and honestly, and he condemns, and 'curses' when one does the opposite. Thats pretty just to me.

The reason why people like you, who completely cast off the impression of G-d, seemingly live lives without much turmoil, is because G-d treats everyone in accordance, and relative to his situation. If one doesnt believe in G-d, and puts his stock into chance, and randomness, G-d will allow the world to work in just that way for that person . This doesnt mean that justice doesnt exist. No. The materialist is rewarded for his good according to material terms, whereas the spiritual person is rewarded in spiritual terms. Each is dealt his reward and punishment according to his own personal reality. If he denies the fact that evil has consequences, and 'represses' that with a voracious disbelief, than G-d will 'repress' his response until he dies, loses consciousness, and enters his true world, as he is as a person. This is where G-d deals with that person, again, on his own terms. This is what is called 'hell'. Conversely, a Good person may lead a difficult life laden with obstacles and suffering. When he dies, all his effort and grace in overcoming those times and all his patience, trust, and faith in G-d will be rewarded. The true 'pleasure' those actions brought to G-d, to the affirmation of the unity between one and his source, will be a source of great enjoyment in the next world. Thus, the spiritual - the bakground, is revealed in his next world. His true self is made known to him and he basks in the light and joy of union with G-d.

contradictory baggage and special pleading that monotheism demands.

What contradictory baggage? G-d is a paradox. That is the basis of the Kabbalah, and indeed of even the Hebrew language. Look at how some letters are pronounced in different ways. a bet can be a vet, a gimel a jimel, a Waw, a Vav, or a "Oo" sound, a Pey, phey.

At the very heart of Judaism is the paradox of G-d. Of YHVH and Elohim. Two different modes of existence which transcend the framework of human logic.

Ive studied a bit of hiduism. and excuse me, its irrationality is much more obvious than in Kabbalah or Judaism.

You realize that so long as you insist on there being one absolute right angle, you're not going to actually understand one damn bit of what you're studying, right? It's not a one-size-fits-all exercise you're undertaking, and there's no test at the end. People study it and come out with different results. That's the point.

Kabbalah, is not alchemy. What kind of kabbalistic books are you even reading? Mcgregor Mathers? Crowley? Samael aun Weor?

Kabbalah is not some irrational alchemy. If one doesnt have a full grasp of hebrew, and hasnt explored the remarkable philosophical relationships between concepts - through numerical correspondences, than one doesnt fully appreciate Kabbalah.

Yayin - wine, is 70 in Gematria. This is the same as Sod - secret. Wine is the secret in grapes. And likewise, one cannot just make a cursory study of kabbalah if he seeks to understand it. just as wine takes time to make, so to does the secret wisdom in Torah, and Hebrew, take time to understand.

To clarify:

Kabbalah is the Tree of Life; and Alchemy is Daath, the Tree of Knowledge.

Originally posted by dontreally
Maybe you should read up on the Bar Khoba fiasco. He was endorsed by the rabbinic leadership - Rabbi Akiba. Additionally, he actually fit the criteria of a messiah. Not a dionysian creature born of a virgin birth, with supernatural powers. But a great leader, normal like any other human, whose power lied in his leadership abilities and prowess in Torah.

Thus you see that the ACTUAL conception of Messiah is not so 'mystical' as people think. Yes, this man is to be of great spiritual stature, but he will be a normal human being.

So the ACTUAL conception of Messiah is "a guy the Rabbis appoint to lead us into a massive asskicking"? I can't imagine the competition was that fierce.

Why not call it Iudaism? Also, Hadrian appropriated an unbelievable 40% of Romes Legions to deal with the tiny province of Judea. Pretty unbelievable.

'Cause I happily let the practicioners of a religion name the religion, while I let the rulers of a territory name the territory. Thus "Muslim" rather than "Mahometan," and "The United States" rather than "Occupied Dakota"

And no. Hadrian actually sent six legions; that's 17% of the total available to him at the time. Know why? Two reasons

First Rome's response to any rebellion was overwhelming force; If Iudaea managed to successfully break away from the empire, it would have undoubtedly inspired more rebellions around the empire. Hadrian was also no doubt gunning for an overwhelming victory to restore his dignitas; remember, he had failed to quell the Pictish uprisings in Caledonia a decade before. Sending sixty thousand men to obliterate the nuisance not only scored Hadrian the victory, but it sent a clear message to everyone in the empire who wanted to rise in revolt; "We will destroy you."

Second, the province happen to be in the vicinity of the major trade routes crossroads between Africa, southern Asia, and Europe. It was geographically valuable, for that reason; if the revolt had succeeded, there would have been a hostile kingdom squatting on the land connection between the northern and southern halves of the empire. Strategically and economically, there's no way Rome could have allowed the revolt to succeed.

As for them not being too pagan. Hadrian was referred to as the most "greek" of Roman emperors.

Yep, he was a philhellenist. This doesn't mean that hewas off sacrificing goats to Zeus; it means that he was an admirer of Greek culture, music,a architecture, and philosophy. He was straight-up part of the Emperor cult.

He actually murdered his lover antiochus in the nile to simulate the murder of osiris; deifying his gay lover and turning him into a god for the masses.

Antinous did in fact drown in the Nile, and may have been Hadrian's lover. He was deified by Hadrian, and became associated with both Osiris and Bacchus. Not sure where you get the notion that he was intentionally murdered by Hadrian, much less for any sort of religious reasons. I suspect that's likely a bestialization concocted by later Christian writers.

The ancient Egyptians also regarded the Pharoah as god incarnate. Same with the babylonians. Even despite this, local cults and traditions still abounded in the ancient roman empire up until Christianities great conquests in the 9th -12th centuries.

Yup. 'Course, that was several thousand years before either Rome or Christianity.

It was that size during Solomons reign. From the nile to the river Euphrates, Israel had many vassal states that paid tribute to them. But yes, the 'official' size of Israel was from Goshen - east of the nile, to northern lebanon (also ancient Israel) all of syria, all of Jordan, and the northern portion of Saudia Arabia.

Unfortunately for the sake of your argument, this is one of the places where the Bible and reality diverge. For starters, there is zero hard evidence of Solomon's reign. There's some circumstantial evidence of a Hebrew king in the area in the supposed timeframe, but nothing at all even remotely on scale with what the Bible is talking about, and that circumstantial evidence is strongly debated. Second, there is no historical evidence of the Hebrew kings having any vassals other than their fellow Hebrews.

You've got to remember that, above all else, the Bible is a book written by the Hebrews about how gosh-darned awesome and magnificent Hebrews are. It's sort of like how the Han Dynasty of China wrote "historical records" of how they ruled the entirety of the earth, rather than just a substantial chunk of what is today Northwestern China.

No Jewish state ever touched the Nile, and even at the greatest extent of the Kingdom of Israel, it only just touched the headwaters of the Euphrates at the far northern end of the kingdom.

I get what youre saying. Have you read 'answer to job' that shoddy attempt by jung to make YHVH to be some pagan dualistic god? Well, no. If you had read the Torah, you would know that G-d prescribes a human RESPONSE to the nature of life. yes, G-d also creates evil.

I'm going to trim the rest of this section down for space. I don't think that YHWH is a dualistic god - though one could easily be constructed from the thing. No, I regard the god to simply be a muddled and confused mess that ultimately has less reason to be revered than a block of cheddar. There's far too much internal conflict in the concept to be a stable basis of faith; which is why, I think, agnosticism and atheism are much more prevalent in the Abrahamic faiths than in, say, the traditional religions of Africa.

He blesses, when you make an effort to do good, sincerely, and honestly, and he condemns, and 'curses' when one does the opposite. Thats pretty just to me.

Again; babies dying of ebola.

The reason why people like you, who completely cast off the impression of G-d, seemingly live lives without much turmoil, is because G-d treats everyone in accordance, and relative to his situation. If one doesnt believe in G-d, and puts his stock into chance, and randomness, G-d will allow the world to work in just that way for that person . This doesnt mean that justice doesnt exist. No. The materialist is rewarded for his good according to material terms, whereas the spiritual person is rewarded in spiritual terms. Each is dealt his reward and punishment according to his own personal reality. If he denies the fact that evil has consequences, and 'represses' that with a voracious disbelief, than G-d will 'repress' his response until he dies, loses consciousness, and enters his true world, as he is as a person. This is where G-d deals with that person, again, on his own terms. This is what is called 'hell'. Conversely, a Good person may lead a difficult life laden with obstacles and suffering. When he dies, all his effort and grace in overcoming those times and all his patience, trust, and faith in G-d will be rewarded. The true 'pleasure' those actions brought to G-d, to the affirmation of the unity between one and his source, will be a source of great enjoyment in the next world. Thus, the spiritual - the bakground, is revealed in his next world. His true self is made known to him and he basks in the light and joy of union with G-d.

All this wall o' text says is that your deity is not worth worshiping; If I help someone out one day, odds are simply that they'll return the favor at a later date. That's not your god at work, it's cooperative behavior. Similarly, if I hit someone in the face, I can expect them to be against me and seek to do me harm in some fashion; again, not god at work, just humans responding exactly as you'd expect. If god doesn't care if you believe in him, and whatever happens is going to happen regardless of god, what's the use of god?

What contradictory baggage? G-d is a paradox.

Answered your own question.

That is the basis of the Kabbalah,

Which is why I pointed out to you that different people get different answers from it.

and indeed of even the Hebrew language. Look at how some letters are pronounced in different ways. a bet can be a vet, a gimel a jimel, a Waw, a Vav, or a "Oo" sound, a Pey, phey.

A trait shared by all its Afro-Asiatic relatives. Most languages have some variation on this of course.

At the very heart of Judaism is the paradox of G-d. Of YHVH and Elohim. Two different modes of existence which transcend the framework of human logic.

Alternately, two distinct gods who had separate cults in ancient history, which were merged for reasons of political unity with YHWH's cult coming out dominant.

Ive studied a bit of hiduism. and excuse me, its irrationality is much more obvious than in Kabbalah or Judaism.

I imagine there's some Hindus who would say the same thing, only in reverse. You really don't see the silliness of arguing that your god is a paradox, and then calling someone elsee's faith "irrational," do you?

Kabbalah, is not alchemy.

No, but alchemy is in large part kabbalah. My point was that you're simply scraping the surface, and considering yourself learned. You have the preachiness of a fresh convert, as well as the lack of knowledge that comes with that state.

Kabbalah is not some irrational alchemy. If one doesnt have a full grasp of hebrew, and hasnt explored the remarkable philosophical relationships between concepts - through numerical correspondences, than one doesnt fully appreciate Kabbalah.

You still don't realize how silly it looks when you say stuff like this, huh?

Yayin - wine, is 70 in Gematria. This is the same as Sod - secret. Wine is the secret in grapes. And likewise, one cannot just make a cursory study of kabbalah if he seeks to understand it. just as wine takes time to make, so to does the secret wisdom in Torah, and Hebrew, take time to understand.

edit on 27-1-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

Sure. Time which I'm almost certain you haven't even come close to devoting yet. Notice that most of the really learned Kabbalists are these gnarly old dudes with big ol' beards, rather than thirty-somethings arguing on the internet?

By the by, your argument stands against you - you argue that one cannot fully understand or even speak of kabbalah without putting in intensive study. The same could hold true for all the religions and faith systems you've been crap-talking in all your posts. Unless you speak Sumerian and have deep and intimate knowledge of the rituals conducted for Marduk, you can't say diddly about what the Sumerians thought, right?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Alternately, two distinct gods who had separate cults in ancient history, which were merged for reasons of political unity with YHWH's cult coming out dominant.

You seem to have answers for everything.

Elohim which means 'powers' has the same gematria as HaTeVa - nature. The Powers referred to are the collective phenomena of natural reality. Thus, it shares the same numerical value with the word for nature.. Coincidence? Is meaning being 'forced' here? Or is this a perfectly valid relationship? 86 is also the gematria of Kli YHVH. Remember how i said YHVH is the higher, transcendant name of G-d? Well, he uses this lower name, Elohim, as a vessel - like a body to a soul.. Kli YHVH - "vessel of YHVH" = 86 in gematria. Also coincidence?

The letters of the name Elohim can be arranged to spell, Mah Eleh? "what are these?". This is the natural reaction people have to the phenomena of nature. We see, but are naturally wondering what they are. This is why man deified the forces of nature. It can also be arranged to spell "Aleihem" - "to them".When G-d decided to create the world, he first had to diminish himself in order for there to be a finite reality. G-d created the concept of "another" with the name Elohim (known as the name of contraction), and so made inherent in this name its purpose; that it be "to them" or "for them".

My point was that you're simply scraping the surface, and considering yourself learned. You have the preachiness of a fresh convert, as well as the lack of knowledge that comes with that state.

What do you mean, barely scratch the surface? Ive been studying Torah for 10 years.

Whats relevant to me, i talk about. You, havent studied kabbalah; meaningfully atleast. Do you read Hebrew? Answer this question and dont avoid it like you always do. I know it harms your argument and your ability to manipulate the conversation, which is obviously your sole concern. Judaism, and thus kabbalah, is my area of study. I dedicate four hours of my time to it a day. Obviously something you yourself dont do.

So dont pretend to have a knowledge of a subject you clearly dont have.

I am preachy, because I love Torah. I was preach ten years ago, and i will be preachy till the day i die.

Notice that most of the really learned Kabbalists are these gnarly old dudes with big ol' beards, rather than thirty-somethings arguing on the internet?

Did i call myself a kabbalist? Granted, im not a scholar - yet. Even despite that, i know enough to talk about this with some as ignorant as yourself. Put in 4-6 hours daily for 6-7 years and see how much you can accomplish. Read Rashi, Ramban, Midrash Rabbah, Mishna Torah - works i have studied, among many other works, and than tell me im not allowed to speak about Judaism. Im not talking to a Jew, here. Im speaking to a big mouthed gentile who thinks he can criticize my ability to talk about this subject when he himself has nowhere near my level of education.

Originally posted by dontreally
You seem to have answers for everything.

I endeavor to please

Elohim which means 'powers' has the same gematria as HaTeVa - nature. The Powers referred to are the collective phenomena of natural reality. Thus, it shares the same numerical value with the word for nature.. Coincidence? Is meaning being 'forced' here? Or is this a perfectly valid relationship? 86 is also the gematria of Kli YHVH. Remember how i said YHVH is the higher, transcendant name of G-d? Well, he uses this lower name, Elohim, as a vessel - like a body to a soul.. Kli YHVH - "vessel of YHVH" = 86 in gematria. Also coincidence?

No, coincidence would be kind of amazing. What you're looking at is a linguistic numeral system devised by a particular religion to mirror the beliefs and outlooks of that religion. Really, you might as well be pointing out all the symbolic cross-references in the tarot system as proof that tarot divination is meaningful. Of course ypu get these results; it was designed that way.

As for Elohim, might want to look up the two terms, "Elohist" and "Jahwist" and the different takes on god shown in each.

The letters of the name Elohim can be arranged to spell, Mah Eleh? "what are these?". This is the natural reaction people have to the phenomena of nature. We see, but are naturally wondering what they are. This is why man deified the forces of nature. It can also be arranged to spell "Aleihem" - "to them".When G-d decided to create the world, he first had to diminish himself in order for there to be a finite reality. G-d created the concept of "another" with the name Elohim (known as the name of contraction), and so made inherent in this name its purpose; that it be "to them" or "for them".

Again, this is simply due to the nature of the language having no set vowels. You could no doubt come up with a broad spectrum of words and phrases derived from the consonants and declare them "meaningful."

If we rearrange the letters in my name, we can get "a bawdier ill troll romp" OHMIGOSH DEEP COSMIC MEANING!!!!!

What do you mean, barely scratch the surface? Ive been studying Torah for 10 years.

Good for you. That means you're about as learned as a freshman at a Catholic school.

Whats relevant to me, i talk about. You, havent studied kabbalah; meaningfully atleast.

Meaningfully, as is usually the case with fundamentalists, meaning "in a way that agrees with me totally on everything"

Do you read Hebrew? Answer this question and dont avoid it like you always do. I know it harms your argument and your ability to manipulate the conversation, which is obviously your sole concern.

Actually it doesn't harm my argument. My argument is that your history is godawful, and that multiple people get multiple meanings out of Kabbalah, that there is no "one right answer." I don' need to play Anagrams with Hebrew letters to know this.

Judaism, and thus kabbalah, is my area of study. I dedicate four hours of my time to it a day. Obviously something you yourself dont do.

So dont pretend to have a knowledge of a subject you clearly dont have.

Judaism and Kabbalah aren't interchangeable. They are, of course related, but you can't equate them as the same thing; studying Torah is not the same as studying Kabbalah.

So, are you self-taught?

I am preachy, because I love Torah. I was preach ten years ago, and i will be preachy till the day i die.

You can open your mouth as wide as it can go, but it's not going to help you hear.

Did i call myself a kabbalist?

In retrospect, you did not. You regale us all with tales of your in-depth, intimate, and exclusive knowledge of the study, you go on and on about how hardcore you are at studying qabala, you go on as if you were the most learned person on the subject the internet has ever produced, but no, you've never actually called yourself a kabbalist.

Granted, im not a scholar - yet.

Wouldn't know it to hear you talk.

Even despite that, i know enough to talk about this with some as ignorant as yourself. Put in 4-6 hours daily for 6-7 years and see how much you can accomplish.

How do you think I came by my confidence in telling you that your grasp of history is pure and utter garbage?

Read Rashi, Ramban, Midrash Rabbah, Mishna Torah - works i have studied, among many other works, and than tell me im not allowed to speak about Judaism.

I never said you weren't allowed to talk about Judaism. Just that you have a truly awful grasp on actual history, and that you are very far fro mthe "final word" on what Kabbalah does and does not, can and cannot mean.

Basically I was telling you to stop being an ignorant pointy-headed douchebag, but I was trying to retain polite discourse.

Im not talking to a Jew, here.

Probably the truest thing you've said through this whole exercise I'm about as far from being Jewish as a person can actually get while still being a member of the same species.

Im speaking to a big mouthed gentile

What a coincidence, so am I! Keep it up and people are gonna think you're a Mormon.

who thinks he can criticize my ability to talk about this subject when he himself has nowhere near my level of education.

I'm criticizing your ability to talk about history, and I'm also questioning your surety that your understanding of Kabbalah is the one and only all-encompassing way to understand it. And if I, a lay gentile, can understand that the practice gets different results from different people, while you cannot grasp it, MAYBE you could find a better way to spend four hours a day.

Originally posted by eMachine

“There has never been a more revolutionary ideology or way of life or belief system or religion on this planet than Judaism. In its heart, Judaism is the absolute denial of any kind of man-made restrictions and constrictions on human consciousness, on human development, on human value. And it is therefore very frightening to all elites. So it makes sense then that the elites would want people to, instead of embracing this revolutionary - this subversive - way of thinking, they want you to believe that it's evil.”

This is an excellent example of religious "doublespeak."

Judaism is not merely a religion but a system of government and a system of laws of a primitive and genocidal tribe of Bronze Age religious fanatics who were blood sacrifice cultists and which contains numerous executionable offences for "crimes" such as failing to observe the Sabbath (Friday Sunset til Saturday Sunset), for women who are found not be virgins when they are sold into slavery (i.e., married), for blaspheming against the tribal deity, disobeying one's parents, adultery, homosexuality and various "religious" offences which are simply incomprehensible to a moden person, in addition to advocating slavery and the total genocide of all devotees of competing deities.

Biblical Judaism has absolutely no place in the modern world, which is why the vast majority of modern, educated Jewish people entirely reject this ancient religion and are probably more likley to revere the modern Jewish prophets such as Marx, Trotsky and Chomsky than primitive religious fanatics such as Moses.

It is entirely indicative of the mindset of a hypnotised and indoctrinated person who is suffering from religoius psychosis to consider the religious ramblings of some genocidal bronze age religious fanatics to be more relevant than, for example, the modern humanist ethics of a rational, educated, scientific philosopher of the 21st century.

To answer the question "Why the Elite Want You to Think Judaism is Evil?" The economic elites of our modern world are not Judaic religious fanatics, and this includes the Jewish intellectual and economic elites; they are products of the modern education system and of the scientific and technological revolutions, many of whom consider the primitive and barbaric religions of the ancient world to be entirely anathematic (i.e., loathsome, disgusting, hateful), as should all intelligent, educated persons of the 21st century.

Lux

reply to post by dontreally


You are incredibly well informed for a Goyim. Did you manage to figure all that out on your own (no disrespect just curious)?