It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Dome of the Rock is the Abomination of Desolation

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by trekwebmaster
 


You make a good point about God having shut the gate. You wouldn't want just anyone traveling through that gate. I thought that the Sultan might have sealed off the gate to prevent false messiah claimants since the true Messiah would not be stopped by a brick wall, but then I saw that he installed a cemetery outside the gate in full knowledge that a Jewish priest would not be able to enter. There is no doubt that this Sultan was going out of his way to prevent the Jewish Messiah. Possibly, because the Muslim Dajjal or Anti-Christ is supposed to be of Jewish decent and claim to be divine, a.k.a the Christian understanding of Ya'hshuah who the Jews would actually follow this time because he would unite the twelve tribes and fulfill messianic promises. Or perhaps the Sultan was just a spiteful anti-Semite.




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by trekwebmaster
 


You make a good point about God having shut the gate. You wouldn't want just anyone traveling through that gate. I thought that the Sultan might have sealed off the gate to prevent false messiah claimants since the true Messiah would not be stopped by a brick wall, but then I saw that he installed a cemetery outside the gate in full knowledge that a Jewish priest would not be able to enter. There is no doubt that this Sultan was going out of his way to prevent the Jewish Messiah. Possibly, because the Muslim Dajjal or Anti-Christ is supposed to be of Jewish decent and claim to be divine, a.k.a the Christian understanding of Ya'hshuah who the Jews would actually follow this time because he would unite the twelve tribes and fulfill messianic promises. Or perhaps the Sultan was just a spiteful anti-Semite.


Thank your for replying, the "barriers" which have been placed seemed to work against "man" and for G_d, which is sublime in execution and intention; this actually does more to fulfill prophecy than prevent it. As for the messiah, wouldn't the implication be that "Sons of Zadok," and the "Levitic Order" is to inherit and tend to the temple, as referenced in a previous post. The latest topic of interest is whether the temple is actually the heavens or a physical geographical location. Some passages would lead one to believe the former, while others, would lead one to believe the latter. Very great reading, either way.

Many Blessings,



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by trekwebmaster
 


In Jewish thoughts, its both.

The temple of 'heaven' is the great idea, or spiritual awareness that makes the physical temple a reality.

The actual temple will have to be built; as the 1st and 2nd temples were.

This is a bigpoint of contention within the religious Jewish community. Some believing that a temple will miraculously descend from heaven, while others believe it is to be a man made temple, as the first two were.

Maimomindes supports the latter view. Where this nonsensical, illogical idea entered, that it would 'drop' from heaven, i dont know. Judaism and torah always emphasizes physical action, and this is what the Temple institute in Jerusalem is for. Theyve built a 3 million dollar menorah, the priestly garments, the ladle, shovel, altar, harp, lyre, and many other temple utensils with a Temple prototype being built outside Jerusalem preparing for the period of the return of Moshiach Ben David.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


I would support the latter view as well. Isn't expecting God to do something that is completely within your power to do, tempting God? If you have to build a house and you have all the materials and the ability to do it, wouldn't it be blasphemous to look up and say, "whenever you're ready"? I'm not a huge fan of Maimonides, because of his more rationalistic and secularist views, but I can agree with him on this.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


Maimonides wasnt a secularist. He did incorporate aristolian thought into his philosophy but he wasnt by any means, as many people imagine him to be, a "materialist".

Maimonides quite often makes reference to the 'kabbalah', but at the same time harshly criticizes mysticism - which of course is referring to the alchemy and neo-platonism that was popular in his time, which in itself was the offspring of ancient greek/babylonian and egyptian pagan theology.

Theres a difference between Jewish esoteric thought, which distinguishes kabbalah from pagan mysticism, which is entirely irrational.

Also, as for the Temple, that can be related to that story of the guy who was lost at sea and a bunch of different solutions were presented to him in a "natural" way, which nonethless were miracles and gifts from G-d.

Its a Jewish axiom that G-d creates windows, but it takes man to open them. He gives us the resources - both physical and spiritual, and than we do it, with faith and trust in its succesful completion. This is how G-d will help man build the Temple. He is the source - of inspiration and strength. He works through man. but it takes man to realize it.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


No, i dont see how G-d started out as a polytheistic one, please elaborate.


Didn't God himself acknowledge the existence of other gods when he said 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me'?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 



Originally posted by St Udio

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
This sort of talk leads to people blowing each other up over a small piece of real estate.


Seriously, why? Why would a deity who created the cosmos give so much importance to a few hundred square meters? Couldn't the new temple just be built a block down the road? Would the deity care all that much?



a few hundred square meters???


...I wasn't being precise...



the size of the temple mount, with all the additions, is approximately 35 acres...
i've also heard that in modern terminology that it's size is close to 1,600 meters X 900 meters
(multiply those numbers and see what you get.... ooooh, thats like sacred numberology yes?)

see: www.templemount.org...


So you're saying that the temple mount is 1440 sq kilometers? According to the CIA world factbook, Israel has 1,940 sq km of arable land in the whole country of 22,072 sq km. I'm sorry, but if the temple mount is actually taking up 0.5% of the country...what the hell?



i don't know right off the site i visited to get this tid-bit of info.... be ir right or wrong...
but this group of temple enthusiasts say that the Al Asqua (sp?) Mosque is the real Abomination....
the 'Dome of the Rock' was intended as a cross-religious/spiritually iconic building for visitors
and people on personal pilgrimages....
nothing sinister there, in my eyes


None of it is an abomination. It's just people practicing a different religion.



picking my brain cells, the temple mount was once the sacred 'Threashing Floor'... then the
enlarged temple mount (through the 2 temples) covered uo the whole of Mount Moriah...
thats why it covers some 35 acres
(usually spoken of in ancient measurement terms...)


Can you please cite archeological evidence of this?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 



Originally posted by kallisti36
Let me explain this in a theological way: the Dome of the Rock is a giant religious slap to the face.


A 1300 year old slap in the face? That's an awfully long slap. How is it a slap in the face to build a monument on a site that has religious significance?



Don't you lecture Christians and Jews about being more accepting, there is nothing excepting about the Dome of the Rock.


So Christians and Jews can be hate-mongers because other people are? I thought Jesus was all about "love"



All over the Dome are mosaic friezes talking about how Ya'hshuah isn't God


An idea held by the majority of the world. over 4 billion people don't consider that being to be a deity, how is a competing religious belief not accepting? Religious beliefs are typically not reconcilable.



and Jews are forbidden from praying on their temple mount.


How is it their temple mount? They lost that temple centuries prior to the construction of the Dome. It's a piece of real estate. Real estate changes hands all the time, buildings are built upon older ones.



Why do they even need to put those mosaic friezes up?


Can you show me an image of the ones you're specifically referring to?



The Temple had very little to do with Ya'hshuah, he didn't spend a whole lot of time there.


If you're referring to the guy we typically call "Jesus" (I'm guessing you are, I don't know why you're not using the more often used version of the name), it might be because Islam tends to emphasize that there is one monotheistic deity in one indivisible part and discourages the worship of anything else as a deity. They do consider Jesus whom they call "Isa" to be one of the three great prophets, a prophet greater than Moses.



I would understand Muslims installing a mosque on Golgotha with those friezes, because that is a place of huge significance to the doctrine of the God-man and the crucifixion.


Well, they don't think Mohammed was taken into heaven at Golgotha.



It does make sense when it is seen as a deliberate blasphemy and fulfillment of prophecy.
[/quote

Deliberate blasphemy? So they're practicing their own religious beliefs...and that's blasphemy? It's not a fulfillment of prophecy, it's people practicing their own religious beliefs


.
Yes, I have read the Hebrew scriptures, it says that Abraham came out of Ur and his father made idols.


...Abraham is a fictional character. His father is a fictional character. I'm talking about the archeological evidence. Ancient Israel in the time of David (the earliest confirmed Biblical figure, no preceding figures have any archeological evidence) was polytheistic.



The Jews were lead out of a polytheistic society by YHVH.


Except that Abram never talks to that being, he talks to Elohim. YHVH was a being amongst a polytheistic pantheon.



Finding idols and polytheism among the Jews isn't a surprise either, nearly every prophet in the OT was railing on the Israelites for worshipping other gods and making idols.


Yes, and those prophets were doing so because they were mostly encouraging devotion to a single deity who existed amongst many.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 



Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Or, you can read the bible and read about how often the Israelites "turned away from their G-d".


Or you could study the most widely accepted academic hypothesis on the formation of the Hebrew scriptures that shows that the Bible is quite revisionist about its history...



What do you think the ENTIRE books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings are about? They left their G-d and continuously served idols.


I don't think those books are historically accurate one bit as I've yet to see any evidence of this.



This doesnt prove at all that the Torah and religion of Israel was pagan;


The archeological and literary evidence are there to show that it does. Now, not the whole of Israel's history is, nor is the whole of Judea's (why is it that most Christians and Jews forget that the majority of Jewish imperial history had two Jewish states rather than one?).



it only suggests what the bible already avidly discusses; paganism, serving the Ba'al, Ashtaroth, Ashera, Molech, and other assyrian/babylonian and egyptian idols.


Except that there's no evidence that the Bible in that form was written prior to the Babylonian captivity or that monotheism ever existed in Egypt prior to that time frame.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by EssenSieMich
 


The word for 'gods' can also be translated as powers.

When one attributes power to anything other than the one true power - the source of everything, than he is putting "other gods" before the TRUE G-d. This is what this means. This doesnt mean there are other gods, in an absolute sense. It just means our facuty of free will allows us to choose to either acknowledge G-d, or not. G-d is commanind us to utilize our power of free will to be faithful to the truth of his absolute authority, and not delude ourselves into thinkig there is any power in; political ideologies, philosophies, lifestyles etc. Various 'powers' people worship today.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by EssenSieMich
 


The word for 'gods' can also be translated as powers.

When one attributes power to anything other than the one true power - the source of everything, than he is putting "other gods" before the TRUE G-d. This is what this means. This doesnt mean there are other gods, in an absolute sense. It just means our facuty of free will allows us to choose to either acknowledge G-d, or not. G-d is commanind us to utilize our power of free will to be faithful to the truth of his absolute authority, and not delude ourselves into thinkig there is any power in; political ideologies, philosophies, lifestyles etc. Various 'powers' people worship today.

Now this is where I disagree with you. I believe that polytheism came about when the Watchers left their estate to have sex with human women, as described in Genesis 6 and further elaborated on in 1Enoch and Jubilees. As we know, the reason why YHVH didn't want people to make images of him is because it's impossible and insulting, because he's beyond our comprehension. Angels on the other hand look human and would have been all shiny and impressive and pretty easy to bow down to and worship. In fact in Enoch Samyaza and Azazel are specifically accused of having lead people into idolatry, which implies that aside from impregnating women with cannibalistic giants and teaching people sorcery, they also thought it would be fun to play god. So from a non-Abrahamic standpoint you could think of Angels as "demi-gods" and YHVH as the chief god, but you would be wrong.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


What I'm getting at is that Islam has forcefully occupied the Temple Mount for over a thousand years and their actions are indicative of an absolute disrespect for the Jews. Why can't the Jews build a temple up there? Why won't they listen to a pluralistic all Abrahamic religions Temple compromise (not a huge fan of the idea, but at least it'd be fair)? As for the land just being real-estate, remember that when something ironic happens, like the government discovering oil on your land and using their mineral rights to drill in your backyard. Israel is the ancestral land of the Jews, it is their promised land. Islam lays claim to mount Moriah because of an awfully convenient "night-journey" Muhammad took on a flying MacGuffin 750 miles to a place that he had never been before and ascended into heaven without the two witnesses required of such a claim. That's all well and good, they can believe what they want, but the Mount is of way more importance to Jewish people, I think they can compromise.

edit on 28-1-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
G_d vs. idols, powers, spirits, or whatever you'd like to call them. Those attributes belong to All that Is; and that is G_d, in All His Forms, which is a pitiful word to attempt to describe Him who can't be described.

I have a feeling, a deep intuition, which informs that those "gods" or polytheistic references to G_d's "attributes, powers, or lower manifestations," to tribal man, some of those lower powers would seem much like a god; which is why we don't worship them and exactly why it was taught to our forebears that this practice is idolatry. G_d set the moon and stars in place, but when a "sign" or "event" happens in the heavens, we should not drop to our knees to praise it directly, we should therefore, recognize it for what it is. G_d has put them in motion for a reason and the moon or stars should not be praised or worshiped, but noted and used for reference as to its purpose.

Personally, I would think that mankind's limited perspective of G_d was very limited in the early times, when man moved from "hunters and gatherers" and into "agricultural-based" civilizations. The need for knowing certain times of year to plant and harvest or rain or flood would dictate the very survival of humanity and the season's indicators were invaluable to survival. As differing cultures grew and strife over land and resources increased, mass deportation of the conquered resulted in mixed ideologies and people losing their ethnic cultural heritages. This was done to keep people oppressed and to better control them by an elite structure. The mass deportations of certain groups resulted in extreme hatred of the oppressors and separate religious "branches" which often are not similar.

I reason to think the similarities of certain religions should be embraced and the negative differences, which affect cultures and societies conversely, should be examined to see if there is another interpretation or mistake in interpretation. I think we can expect to find, the differences are usually the result of man's faulty interpretation or omissions to directly influence and control by "gate-keeping" of religious information, which subsequently gives-rise to formation of dogmatic ritualistic structure, which further solidifies a religion's shadow over it's populace. With the differing religions freely available to choose-from, careful consideration should be given to keeping an open-mind of forthcoming new information, which might change perspectives to enrich all mankind, not just the few of one type of religion.

The more we begin to seek-out information, the more we see that the basic tenets of such things as, truth, hope, faith, love, and integrity, should be present in any religion but ones which propagate negative effects or affects should be carefully avoided. Perhaps one day, the need to shame another person of their religious choice will be unknown and that all existing and future religions will all share the same reverence to what is good and Holy, and what is not.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 





I believe that polytheism came about when the Watchers left their estate to have sex with human women, as described in Genesis 6 and further elaborated on in 1Enoch and Jubilees.


From what i understand, all of that is allegory.




As we know, the reason why YHVH didn't want people to make images of him is because it's impossible and insulting, because he's beyond our comprehension.


Agreed. G-d is known kabbalistically as "Ein Sof" - the infinite. G-d is beyond all comprehension, however, G-ds names - YHVH, Elohim, his 2 main names, are archetypal and refer to ways in which He relates with mankind. YHVH is transcendant, and is thus the personal G-d to man and the G-d of history. Elohim is finite, natural existence. This name has the same numerical value as HaTeVa - nature. Elohim itself means "powers", ie; the various phenomena of nature.




Angels on the other hand look human and would have been all shiny and impressive and pretty easy to bow down to and worship.


There are different types of angels. The word for angel in Hebrew, malak, also means 'messenger;. In the strictest sense of the term, angels are incorporeal energies or emenations from G-d. They can actually be looked at as stages in the chaining down of the worlds. The higest angels are the cause of lower angels, who are the effects, who in turn become causes for lower classes of angels. This is basically what the bible means when it refers to angels. Its speaking in metaphor because how else can man understand such an abstract concept, without comparison? Also, on a deeper level, this world is the manifestation of all the spiritual worlds above it. So, a rock is the projection of an archetypal spiritual power - or angel in physical reality. Same thing with everything else.

As for angels being human. A certain class of angelic beings can PROJECT themselves into this reality, either in vision, or in rarer cases, actual physical reality. But they are not actually of this reality, and the form they take is merely a symbolic likeness to its archetypal nature. There are however Shed'im, demons who are in between this world and the spiritual world, and they apparently do have a physical side to them. Maybe these are the 'reptilians' so many people talk about.

Its important to always keep in mind the spiritual abstract nature of angels. People too often fall into the trap of taking the symbol literally.




in fact in Enoch Samyaza and Azazel are specifically accused of having lead people into idolatry, which implies that aside from impregnating women with cannibalistic giants and teaching people sorcery, they also thought it would be fun to play god


Again, this should be understood as allegory. The "watchers" refer to a certain awareness of ones objective spiritual reality. If you actually read the book of Enoch with this understanding you can see what its really speaking about. The watchers - the abstract awareness of ones source, became tempted by the 'woman' of the earth. Woman are generally used as a symbol for materiality, or selfishness. For instance, the latin word Matter is from the word "mater" - mother. So, when this spiritual level of awareness lusted after "woman" - egotism, and becoming separate, it produced the Nephilim. This word is derived from the Hebrew word "nafal" - to fall. They are fallen states of consciousness. "Giants" because anyone who knows anything about emotion - greed, lust, envy, etc knows that they cloud consciousness and like giants are very difficult to overcome.

The episode of David and goliath in samuel discusses how one can overcome these chaotic energies. David doesnt attack Goliath using a shield or armor, or sauls sword; he doesnt use that because it is the very same things that goliath uses. And he being of much greater size, would naturally overcome David (this is all psychology, btw). David picks up pebbles, and places them in his pocket. The word for 'forehead' in Hebrew, Matzach, is from the root "netzach" - which means to endure, or determination (for instance, when one is determined, it can be seen in his forehead). David flung a stone right at the forehead of Goliath; at the 'determination' of the emotion which clouds ones spiritual awareness. David went into battle with goliath with just a simple faith in g-d, and an ANGER at the arrogance of this uncircumsized philistine. This emotion which seeks to tyranize the mind.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Kabbalah is another area in which I agree with Maimonides, but I think that's the extent of our agreement. Anyway, that's beside the point. I wouldn't be so quick to consider all fantastic things in Biblical text ato be allegories. For one, there are specific areas of Enoch where he is using allegory and symbolism, but they are distinct from the early text in that he refers to them as dream visions and parables as opposed to the earlier journeys he took with the archangels to the throne of God, Sheol, and the fallen Watchers where he says "I went" and "I saw" and "I journeyed" as opposed to "I was shown" and "wisdom was given to me". This same concept applies to Ezekiel who frequently used allegory, but described objective visits by celestial beings like the Cherubim. His description of the Cherubim is confusing, but we know from the description of the Ark that they exist. Another way that Prophets distinguish between a symbol and an objective event is the use of animals and such instead of a proper name. For instance Enoch tells a parable of Adam, but refers to him as a red heiffer. John of Patmos writes of the Messiah as a lamb, using obvious symbolism, but also foretells of fires, war, famine, and a mountain called wormwood hitting the Earth and poisoning the water. The lamb is an obvious metaphorical symbol, but the mountain called wormwood is a clear description of a meteor or an alien object from space.

Another thing to consider is that in the Bible there are metaphorical symbols as well as living symbols. Saul is a living symbol of the dangers of pride and how the will of God is greater than that of man. A great symbol, but Saul actually existed whereas the Messiah is not a literal seven eyed lamb, but a perfect sacrifice. Yes the Nephilim and the fallen Watchers can be seen as a symbol of temptation and fall from grace, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. You can ascribe symbols to a lot in life.
edit on 28-1-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by trekwebmaster
 





such things as, truth, hope, faith, love, and integrity, should be present in any religion but ones which propagate negative effects or affects should be carefully avoided. Perhaps one day, the need to shame another person of their religious choice will be unknown and that all existing and future religions will all share the same reverence to what is good and Holy, and what is not.


What do you mean by this statement. It doesnt really specify scenarios where this would apply.

Not all religions have the same concept of 'truth, hope, faith, love and integrity". The crusaders thought it was very loving of them to kill Jews who refused to be saved. This was their way of saving their souls. Not all people have an equal appreciation of integrity. Some, with a twisted nihilistic or gnostic mentality, would consider things usually considered good, evil, and things that are usually regarded as evil, as being good. These are people completely out of line with traditional Judeo-Christian views of morality.

Also, could you explain the statesment "one group shaming another". ?

Does this mean one group regarding anothers group behavior, as shameful? Lets say a religious Jew or Christian who regards this pop culture society as being superficial and decadant. Is that a valid disposition?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 





Another thing to consider is that in the Bible there are metaphorical symbols as well as living symbols. Saul is a living symbol of the dangers of pride and how the will of God is greater than that of man. A great symbol, but Saul actually existed whereas the Messiah is not a literal seven eyed lamb, but a perfect sacrifice. Yes the Nephilim and the fallen Watchers can be seen as a symbol of temptation and fall from grace, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. You can ascribe symbols to a lot in life.


Im not sure i can agree with you there. Sometimes the LITERAL interpretation is in the terms of the allegory. For instance, emotion is an OBJECTIVE reality, and thus the symbol used to speak about it is very literal; albeit, in regards to an abstract spiritual realm of being, and not this physical world.

Very often evil emotional energies manifest as 'giants' or 'goblins' or 'monsters' and very often 'demons' in dreams and visions. They take this form because it suits their nature.

There WAS an Adam, and there WAS an eve, and im not saying everything in the bible is to be understood in a purely allegorical sense. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were 'living symbols' for the 3 archetypal modes of serving G-d. Abraham was a man of chesed, Isaac, of gevurah "the fear of Isaac", and Jacob reconciled these qualities and so earned the name "Yisrael" when he overcame Esaus guardian angel (Satan). The general belief is that the 5 books of moses, due to their supreme nature, are also literal. But many books in the Torah are obviously mainly allegorical; nonetheless, spiritually very meaningful and 'literal' in a spiritual sense. This is seen in the book of Judges, Joshua (with some things), Jonah etc... Where one can make the distinction is hard to say because the books are understood at a metaphorical level aswell. Obviously, the details in the book of joshua are true. Same with some events in the books of judges, samuel, kings, etc, but their are metaphorical tales aswell (like Samson and the delilah, which is obviously metaphor).



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 



Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


What I'm getting at is that Islam has forcefully occupied the Temple Mount for over a thousand years and their actions are indicative of an absolute disrespect for the Jews.


And the Jews wanting to forcefully demolish a centuries old monument that was built upon ruins isn't disrespectful?



Why can't the Jews build a temple up there?


Do you know of a Jewish individual that would be satisfied with building just a temple there without getting rid of the other stuff?



Why won't they listen to a pluralistic all Abrahamic religions Temple compromise (not a huge fan of the idea, but at least it'd be fair)?


Why limit it to Abrahamic religions? Why can't Canaanite pagans build up there? I'm sure they had places of worship in that area at some point in history. And I've yet to actually hear such a compromise from anyone in any position of power from either side.



As for the land just being real-estate, remember that when something ironic happens, like the government discovering oil on your land and using their mineral rights to drill in your backyard.


False analogy. The land was unoccupied ruins and had been for centuries before the dome was built.



Israel is the ancestral land of the Jews,


Ok, then why is Jerusalem an issue? It was hardly ever under the control of the northern kingdom of Israel, it was part of Judea.

And there's no historical evidence to support the little fairy tale that the Bible tells about how the Jews got that land...and if you do read the fairy tale, it's one of genocide, slavery, and mass rape.



it is their promised land.


According to a fairy tale without a single shred of historical evidence. Not a shred of archeology supports it.



Islam lays claim to mount Moriah because of an awfully convenient "night-journey" Muhammad took on a flying MacGuffin 750 miles to a place that he had never been before and ascended into heaven without the two witnesses required of such a claim.


As opposed to the story in which Jews travel out of Egypt (where they never lived in great numbers) after a magical burning bush starts speaking to him, the Red Sea conveniently and magically splits in half, they spend 40 years going around in circles without leaving a single shred of archeological evidence with a magical pillar of smoke guiding them, finally make it up to Canaan...and then slaughter the hell out of everyone quite quickly..and yet the evidence directly contradicts that and shows the fall of Canaan to have been gradual and based on city-state revolts.

Yeah, genocide is a much better claim to a place then some dude flying somewhere and then going up to heaven.



That's all well and good, they can believe what they want, but the Mount is of way more importance to Jewish people, I think they can compromise.


So one religious claim trumps another because it's more important to that religion?

Well, to my religion the holiest space is also the temple mount. I think it is where the most holy being ever first touched Earth and decided to cook everyone in the area a nice pancake dinner.

What makes my claim inferior to those of either the Muslims or the Jews?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Islam as imperfect as it is doesn’t have any idolatrous inclinations such as Christianity and its making a man God or Judaism making a nation divine and “ chosen” of God.

It is a religion in theory that says that people are judged by God according to their deeds not their profession of any faith.

Even “Muslins” in Islam have no claim on God, only Muslims who think like Christians and Jews, with their idea that God only loves them [because of their chosen faith, not their deeds] think in such a primitive fashion, such as the modern day Islamists.

In the end the Islamists; crazy evangelical Christians and their [God only loves Christians insanity] and the Jews with the real estate God who only loves Jews, deserve each other.

All sectarian religion [God loves us only] is primitive, ignorant, and destructive.


edit on 28-1-2011 by inforeal because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2011 by inforeal because: typo



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





And the Jews wanting to forcefully demolish a centuries old monument that was built upon ruins isn't disrespectful?


Yes it is very disrespectful. What Chutzpah for those Ishmaelites to build a mosque atop the ruins of the 1st and 2nd Jewish Temples.

When the Jews demolish it, it would be well deserved and natural, seeing they built it on their holiest site.

Imagine the Jews go to mecca, and built a synagogue right in front of the Kaaba. It wouldnt go so well with muslims, would it?

Many Rabbis and leaders have said they would prefer to transport the mosque to mecca or Medina, without destroying it. But given Arab audacity, i dont think that will happen. It might have to be destroyed completely.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join