As for "self-styled [Zionist]," I put it that way because they are not Zionists. This is spiritually deep.
David was admittedly confused. Zion was more than he knew. He knew it was supposed to be peaceful. He blamed those outside for starting the fighting. The real Zion is the peaceful Heaven in your mind and elsewhere.
I could go on and on about it elaborating. Suffice it to say here though that the current "Zionism" is a gross distortion of the real meaning. It's a misnomer.
This is important because so many of the Jews in Israel (The Zionist Project) are coming under the control of orthodox Talmudists, which particular religious Jews are racists and ethnic bigots.
Challenging them on their own religion is a strong approach. They hate it. They are ignoring it, so far. It is heavily censored. There are many places on the Internet where if one raises any Babylonian Talmudic questions, the comment will never show.
This is huge because the so-called, and self-styled, Christian-Zionists also don't know the truth, at least at the grassroots level.
This is slowly leaking out. The tide is turning. More and more questions are being asked without the censors being able to block it all.
You are not religious, but I'll be damned if anyone should touch so much as a hair on your head.
Many people calling themselves "Christian" will disagree. However, they are ignorant. It is never for a Christian to do violence or condone it, ever, eternally.
If you knew my God and what I'm told about this, the hairs would stand up on your whole body.
Sat at 2:34pm Â· Delete
Here's the rest of the thread to date:
That's all well and good, but with all due respect to the religious truth about Zion, if there is one, it is worth pointing out that "Zionism," a term coined by Nathan Birnbaum in 1890, historically refers to a secular political movement for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, not to a religious school of interpretation.
Sun at 7:46am Â· Delete
Many of them love that view of yours right now. It's exactly where they want people right now.
When they chose the term, they did so to milk the religious connotations. "Zion" afterall.... It spoke to Jews about David, etc. It obviously spoke to ostensible Christians in a huge, deceptive way.
Harry Truman (1948) was a (self-styled) Christian-Zionist for instance. Although he was also a 33 degree Freemason (the most openly lauded, to date, by the Freemasons of the former Masonic Presidents), which makes it completely obvious that he was very confused. Many people were sold one thing, and now we have something completely different that is morphing all the more back into the Babylonian Talmud. The Orthodox of a certain bent (not those who are first and foremost interested in righteousness) are taking over in Israel more and more. Are you watching it? I am. I do so with the aid of certain anti-Zionist Jews, not the least of who is Gilad Atzmon for one.
The Zionist Project was going to be socialist and pluralist, etc., while at the same time, behind the scenes just a bit, there were those who knew better.
The left was duped. The neocons and Likudniks are losing it. It's the orthodox, proverbial "synagogue of Satan" (whether you want to take that literally or not), who are gaining the Worldly Empire; and others, my "friend," are to be their mundane servants forever and ever; but not Amen. Theirs is a one-way street that has no place in my Heaven.
They do lose in the end; but those in the dark about it all the way to that end who remain in the dark about it for lack of anyone speaking clearly about it, well, it's not my intention to impose. You can finish the thought without my having to go into the life and times of Jesus here and now.
Sun at 2:51pm Â· Delete
I feel unqualified to comment on the synagogue of Satan or the life of Jesus here and now. As for Zionism -
First, I was not conscious of expressing a view. I was trying, at least, to make a factual statement, based on my layman's acquaintance with history books and primary sources. From those I have learned that Zionism was a national movement, driven largely by the persecution of Jews in Eastern and Western Europe in the late 19th Century, and inspired by the rise of nationalism all over Europe. I think that I'm not saying anything shockingly controversial here.
You are entirely right, of course, in pointing out that Zionism (like virtually all other national movements) made use of religious and mythical texts and symbols in the construction of its narrative and the justification of its goals.
Second, as far as I understand, my historical observation has no immediate implications on the moral status of Zionism. You can accept everything I have just said and believe that Zionism was evil or that it was the best thing that ever happened to mankind.
The only implication is that if you are unhappy with Zionism or any aspect of it, the most effective way to criticize it would not be through religious polemics, because the majority of Zionists (in Israel, at least) understand their Zionism in national, and not in religious terms.
Sun at 3:43pm Â· Delete
"The only implication is that if you are unhappy with Zionism or any aspect of it, the most effective way to criticize it would not be through religious polemics, because the majority of Zionists (in Israel, at least) understand their Zionism in national, and not in religious terms."
You've missed the point, or something else is going on.
For the benefit of others too though, it doesn't matter what the majority thinks when the minds of the majority are controlled by word choices and changing definitions. It's Biblical. It matters who has power. It's a struggle for power. It's fleeting, but it's a struggle. It's preventing much good from happening though, and that's what matters to me (people starving, etc.).
Look, Israel as it is would not exist right now had it not been for Christian-Zionists in Britain and the US. Israel would not last long right now were it not for those same people. So, if "Christians" are awakened to this truth and become real Christians, by definition, they won't continue making the error.
Now, eventually, the Zionists hope that they won't need anyone else. They have their nuclear weapons. Many Zionists are multibillionaires. They have their own weapons research and development programs. Right now, they are part of the Anglo-American-Israeli Empire. They are not interested in remaining an underdog in the worldly sense. They want much more than to be a regular neighbor.
Fortunately, there are many, many Jews who disagree with that push.
If you still don't get it, maybe you should let it work a bit in your mind. It might come to you.
Sun at 4:11pm Â· Delete
"From those I have learned that Zionism was a national movement, driven largely by the persecution of Jews in Eastern and Western Europe in the late 19th Century, and inspired by the rise of nationalism all over Europe. I think that I'm not saying anything shockingly controversial here."
It's a view, but there is controversy in it. It's starting from a snapshot; but as you know, that's not how reality starts out or should be. It's manipulated into it. That's why there's a memory hole.
Who's framing the debate? What's their goal? What means are they using?
They are up to no good. Take a stance (moral) here. Whose side are you on?
Sun at 4:21pm Â· Delete
Perhaps you are right: your thoughts are too deep for me to understand right now. But I'll let them work a bit in my mind and maybe, one day, I'll see the light.
Seriously, though, I think that you and I are interested in different constituencies. You think that what Christians believe can solve the problems of the Middle East, while I am interested in what Israelis and Palestinians believe.
As for moral stances, I have them, of course, though I'm not sure I'd care to open up a whole new range of issues in a correspondence over a comment on facebook. I can say, though, which side I am on: on the side of Israelis and Palestinians. The battle between light and darkness, good and evil I leave to the Lord of the Rings.
Sun at 5:09pm Â· Delete
I haven't been able to follow this thoroughly during the weekend - but a few lietmotifs have jumped out at me.
Yiftar, you say that you are in the side of the ''Israelis and the Palestinians'' - Sorry, but I find this rather difficult to understand from a equitious standpoint. Would be grateful if you could qualify what you mean exactly.
Tom, it is undeniable that Zionism is a political force majeur which uses religion as a modus operandi (or excuse for its immoral actions). You then expand on the moral implications, which I feel is the more balanced and logical way to combat this problem. If we stand back, and wipe away all the justifications, - religious or not - the acts of the Zionist entity cannot, in any way imaginable, be justified when appealing to the reasoning faculties.
Its mere raison d'etre is based on segregation, inequality and protectionism for the few select based on the tenuous argument of race. This added to the staunch inability to recognise 'the other' as anything ressembling a human-being, makes the Zionist claims to 'security' and a 'homeland' utterly unbelievable.
Yesterday at 12:24am Â· Delete
An additional moot-point. From the Zionist viewpoint: the only reasoning that I (from a wholly non-partisan position) can ascertain to be the lasting justification for its 'cause' is from a kind of historical rule-of-precedent.
The answer to all those who cry 'injustice' (directed at the Zionist 'cause') comes the ultimate riposte: when has the world ever been based on an 'equitable' resolution when tribal/economic/political factors have always relied on brutal oppression and organised barbarity?
Yesterday at 1:28am Â· Delete
I was, and am, serious; and you're still missing it.
The way you're using the term "Christians," I do not "think that what Christians believe can solve the problems of the Middle East." I'm an anti-Zionist and want to break up the sick, fake love-fest between the Christian-Zionists and Zionists, the import of which love-fest you severely underrate.
You care what the Israelis think? Why do the Zionists block what I write if they don't care? Why do they attend John Hagee's meetings? Why did they defeat George H. W. Bush? Why do they hire Frank Luntz to spin Zionism to counter Leftists cozying up to the Galloway way of thinking?
Do you know the electoral history of the Deep South, conservative, Evangelical Christians? Karl Rove does. It's one of the main things that got Bush-43 elected. He wouldn't have made it otherwise. It's why Bush couldn't push the Zionists. Did you know that? Are you qualified to discuss these things, or what?
You care what the Palestinians think? Then why would the Palestinians want to stop the United States from giving Israel billions per year in money and weapons? If all the Christians in the U.S. decided that funding Apartheid Israel must stop, do you think it would? Would it be right?
If you're leaving the struggle between right and wrong to the "Lord of the Rings," then by definition, you're sitting out morality.
Do you hold with Israel as a "Jewish" state? If so, then why were the Afrikaners wrong in Apartheid South Africa? Why have such a double standard in the world at this late date?
Yesterday at 2:32am Â· Delete
The logic of the Rapture-Ready, Bible-Believing, Super-Patriot, Red-Blooded Americans hell-bent for Armageddon is based upon very nearly literal interpretations of the Old Testament. You won't make many, if any, inroads with them by appealing to your brand of reason. If the God of the Old Testament said wipe out the Philistines, etc., then that's that in the eyes of many.
However, those same people are being taught to misread Jesus and have never heard a countervailing theology except concerning things they can easily dismiss.
What I'm saying is that even atheists can and should challenge those "Christians" on Christian grounds over the issue of the immoral and un-Christian treatment of the Palestinians.
The more people in America who shift from blind support for the Zionists, the better it will be.
The way to diminish the power of their movement is to introduce doubt concerning the things the common churchgoers have heard from their leaders. Many of those churchgoers don't understand that what they've been told is not Christian.
I frequent certain sites on the Internet where it is becoming apparent to me that there are Christians who are beginning to stand up within those churches. I've seen some very loud voices right in the midst of them. I've recently linked up with a handful. This is how it spreads. They were glad to hear from me: increasing the networking.
So, anytime or place the opportunity presents itself to say that Christians are supposed to do what Jesus said to do (which is to never resort to violence), I think everyone should say it and for the reasons I've stated above in this thread.
Yesterday at 3:15am Â· Delete
On your "moot point," they are losing that argument. What's more, the smarter ones of them, and there aren't many, know it now. They learned it just over the last three months. Only Avigdor seems to be oblivious; but that's good because he's a dunderhead who is making the utter fascism of the Zionists stick out as the sore thumb that it is.
The issue is that the U.S. is the veto in the U.N. The U.S. can't stop every conflict, but it could stop supporting a Jewish-only Israel in Palestine. Also, Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa is a recent precedent.
Anyway, you've hit on why the "Jews" didn't accept Jesus. The implications meant being decent — better to murder him by proxy than to become egalitarian, as if good family members.
Kill him and throw him in the pit. No, don't kill him. Right, there's no money in it. Let's sell him and split the proceeds. That was Judah, the name sake of the Jews. At least he later apologized. The lessons are lost on Netanyahu.
It's amazing to me under the current circumstances that Ashkenazic Zionists think they're so smart.
Yesterday at 3:46am Â· Delete
Sorry Tom, I don't have time to elaborate, and or, articulate my views in a satisfactory manner, but I would like to continue this discussion
So, you are saying that the Zionist misadventure was pushed into existence by Zionist-Christians in the UK (I guess during the time of the Balfour Declaration)? I assume also that you are claiming that the underlying stratergy was a biblical one, and not in the least affected by the recent discovery of oil in the Middle East region? You see, I was under the impression that the British Mandate over Palestine after the Ottoman rule of the region seemed to fit the bill on two fronts:
1) By resolving the Jewish 'homelessness' problem - especially after Nazi-Germany - for ulterior motives, see 2.
2) By allowing Jews predominantly from Europe (and thus intrinsically linked to the Anglo/US imperial advances) to settle and colonise historic Palestine. Thus become an accomplice in the geo-political fight for the right to control oil resources in the region.
I totally understand your stance about the pro-Zionist Christian influence coming out of the US - it is frighteningly alarming in fact. These people seem to be the strongest 'advocates' of the merciless murder of innocent Palestinian lives. You seem to suggest, time and time again, that all this has its roots in biblical fanaticsim and the subliminal quest for the ''End Times". But what of the notion - one that I believe in - that these people are being influenced by decision-makers who have only economic factors at heart? Not only that, that they also only collude with the religious entities in order to add some weight and hysterical frenzy to their unjust, purely economic 'cause'?
Yesterday at 5:37am Â· Delete
Tom, I think that I've made my original point clearly, and as I already indicated, I have no interest in taking on any of your other many points. I just wanted to point out that sentences of the form "the Zionists..." (are, do, believe), similarly to sentences of the form "the Arabs..." (are, do believe) or "the Christians..." (are, do, believe) rarely come out as intelligent as we wanted them to come out, because they tend to caricature and dehumanize.
Alex, what I meant by saying that I am on the side of Israelis and Palestinians is that I recognize the basic humanity of all people, and think that their rights, interests and wishes should be addressed as far as possible. If you'd like to understand how this translates into policies - well, I have already started conversations with you on this topic twice over email, and you haven't replied. I'd rather continue one of those.
Yesterday at 7:44am Â· Delete
Please accept my apologies, Yiftar. It's not that I don't want to continue this discussion - and I gladly accept your generous offer of sharing your views on this matter. It's just that time constaints have limited my ability to respond and or engage in a lengthy exploration.
I welcome anything you wish to share, but also realise that there is no hard and fast rule that would provide immediate relief to this given situation, bar the obvious: that Israel adhere to its obligations under various UN sanctions and retreat to 1967 borders. Allow Palestine a right to sovereignty and self-determination, with full control of its operations as a viable state - it all seems pretty simple to me, but Isreal has no intention to allow this. In addition, it is becoming glaringly obvious to me that, at this stage in the day, the battle is pretty much done-and-dusted. Meaning that Ben Gurion's intent at the inception of the state of Israel (I paraphrase - he mainatined numerous times that the Israeli psyche will never be at ease until it has the entire region of historic Palestine as its own territory) is the ultimate, and now quite tangible, goal.
Yesterday at 9:23am Â· Delete
This is in response to your comment that begins: "So, you are saying that the Zionist...."
You're making it easier for me to make myself clear. No, the Biblical actually includes the greed for oil. Jesus's brilliant statement is that you know them by their results. I've written over and over on my blog that they went in for the oil, but that, that is tied in with all the other variables. It all boils down to root selfishness (that is anti-Christ by the way). So who are they?
They are murderers. They are thieves. They are worldly empire builders: sociopaths. They are also otherworldly empire builders of the wrong kind (wrong "kingdom" or "government," "state" over all existence - what have you). Not all of them are all of these things in a self-aware sense though.
Now, I'm not judging or condemning or advocating punishment, etc. I'm stating it all so they'll have the truth in front of them and perhaps turn away from all the terrible things they are doing to each other. At least the lower ranks often shift out more readily and only need to be shown the deception.
All this stuff goes back as far as any of us can remember.
The New Agers going back to Francis Bacon (and before) took over America. Benjamin Franklin, for instance, was under no illusion that the United States would become the Empire. George Washington was the new proto-type Caesar (likely the highest Freemason symbolically to date). The Republic is a fake. It's an instrument of the aristocracy (elitists). Religion is compartmentalized. Those within it who are really spiritual and not just fakers milking donations to live in grotesque luxury feel its surges while those without can often think it's dying or dead.
It may help you to know that I'm Anglo-Saxon. I grew up in American Anglicanism. I have extremely high Freemasons in my background, not that my house was locked in. I was sized up and found to be too free spirited, so I learned osmotically. I was not ADD. I was though bored stiff by the Freemason's educational system, which needs to be dumped ASAP.
Some would say I come from an Illuminated household. That would all depend upon where one draws lines.
There were many "interesting" books on the shelves. Many of them are what people doing research into the area now call "hard to obtain" if not impossible. The library floor was black and white checkerboard.
"But what of the notion - one that I believe in - that these people are being influenced by decision-makers who have only economic factors at heart?" You nailed it, but the economic is more than money. It buys even souls. It buys all the evil power. Karl Rove laughed out loud at them. He laughed at how he told George W. Bush how to have two terms while his Episcopalian father only managed one.
You are right as far as you've taken it.
Yesterday at 3:19pm Â· Delete
I used terms. You use terms. It takes time to define them. There is zero characterizing or dehumanizing going on in my writings, quite the contrary.
I do not subscribe to your method of injecting and then halting where you could continue. Why stop?
Nevertheless, may God bless you.
Peace, love, and truth are one.
Yesterday at 3:29pm Â· Delete
Thanks, Alex, it seems that we are in agreement about the obvious relief to the situation. And I'm afraid that I share your pessimistic analysis as well.
It's Yiftah, not Yiftar (after the Biblical judge who killed his daughter - known in English as Jephthah)
Yesterday at 6:28pm Â· Delete
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)