Psalm 21 and the Human Predicament
There is some difficulty in reconciling humanistic ethics with biblical scripture that has disturbed me recently. If a religious text nurtures morally unacceptable impulses that are acted upon either consciously or sub-consciously in political domains, how can these adverse influences be repudiated without purporting to claim a hegemonic status for a secular reader? Even a religiously oriented person such as myself, who rejects deference to whatever is contained in the most holy of books if it conflicts with conscience, is troubled by this tension between what we believe to be right and what can be found in the holiest of books. In the West, where the specific religious roots of political authority are rarely acknowledged directly, the problem persists, especially in claims by the state to deal with its enemies at home and abroad.
Even if we leave to one side the problems that the modern mind has with the metaphysical and miraculous claims made on behalf of religious authority, and take refuge in how Paul Tillich handled these issues by way of identifying God with the human experience of ‘ultimate depth’ regardless of the form assumed, provided only that it did not serve to vindicate ethically unacceptable behavior. In effect, the post-theistic core of religious devotion in this reworking of tradition becomes almost synonymous with spirituality and awe as experiential realities, having more in common with the thought of Alfred North Whitehead than with the institutional religions.
My concern here is far more modest and limited, and can be expressed in a very particular manner. Its main concern is how to read Psalm 21 in ways that are neither designed to avoid the awkwardness of its apparent endorsement of genocidal violence nor to repudiate the spirituality that is bound up with the sentiments that led the psalmist, reputedly King David, to intone sentiments that seem too extreme. After exalting the Lord for his support of the earthly ruler, the psalmist removes any doubt about an affirmation of unquestioning faith: “For the king trusts in the Lord, and through the mercy of the Most High he shall not be moved.”
What particularly impresses the psalmist is the strength of God, and his power and will to subjugate all that is found to be evil, or in practical terms, posing a threat to an earthly ruler or society: “You shall make them as a fiery oven in the time of Your anger; the Lord shall swallow them up in His wrath, and the fire shall devour them.” Even beyond exterminating those who are enemies of the favored ruler and designated as evil, this wrath attributed to God shall know no bounds: “Their offspring You shall devour from the earth, and their descendants among the sons of men.” Continuing in this vein, “[f]or they intended evil against You; they devised a plot which they are able to perform.” With a military flourish such enemies will be made to “turn their back” while the arrows of the Lord are strung so as to carry out their lethal mission. The psalm ends glorifying this sacred violence: “Be exalted, O Lord, in your own strength! We will sing and praise Your power.”
Psalm 21 is not an aberration in the Bible, but neither is it a summary of the biblical worldview. The Book of Esther is another tale of God’s wrath unleashed on behalf of Jews living in the vast kingdom of King Ahasueres. Saving these Jews of the kingdom from a plot to destroy them, the king heeding Queen Esther, is merciless and shows no respect for innocence: “Thus the Jews defeated all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, with slaughter and destruction, and did what they pleased with them.” (Esther 9:5) It is this absence of limits if the cause is righteous that prepares the way for the commission of what today are called ‘crimes against humanity.’
There are many biblical expressions of God’s wrath mobilized against the enemies of the Israelites in ways that offend those strands of contemporary morality that rejects ideas about the absolute evil of the enemy or the unconditional goodness of the nation and its friends, and is sensitive to the innocence of those who are not themselves perpetrators of wrongful acts. The ethical and legal rejection of genocidal vengeance became supported by an almost universal secular consensus after the Holocaust, but unfortunately genocidal politics and sentiments remain embedded in human experience of ethnic and religious conflict, and everywhere lye dormant just below the surface in virtually every society.
Religious websites do not condemn or contextualize such genocidal language, but insist that the intention of the psalmist is to underscore the degree to which evil will be punished and the degree of protection given to those who put their trust in God. In most institutionalized religious circles there is little willingness to consider such sentiments as problematic or exerting dangerous cultural influences. What seems required is a repudiation of the plain meaning of the language used as well as an explanation that such sentiments was never meant to be taken as guides to action and justifications for limitless violence against enemies. It might also be observed that the distinction between friends and enemies was somewhat more polarized in ancient times.
Of course, I am far from the first to raise some doubts about literal deference biblical ethics, although it should be noted that the two later monotheistic religions incorporate without reservation the Old Testament, including Psalm 21, although in various ways they move beyond it, exhibiting a moral evolution. Thomas Jefferson, among many others, in the Deist tradition, prepared his own biblical text, removing passages that he found ethically offensive or contrary to reason. Such an undertaking would seem to be clearly heretical from most institutional perspectives, privileging individual human judgment over a sacred text endorsed by religious authority over the course of many centuries. Yet is this display of reverence for revealed truth really different than subtle moves in the opposite direction, suchas giving a sanitizing reading to the text so as to avoid the ethically offensive content of its clear meaning as interpreted on the basis of common sense?
Have we in the modern world truly rejected these absolutist attitudes toward ‘the enemy’? The Nazi death camps and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki suggest that the hatred of the other and the uncritical celebration of the self continue to produce the most hideous crimes against humanity. These shameful undertakings are usually accompanied by rationalizations and erasures that result in widespread denial in the relevant national communities and manage to suppress critical reactions by ‘good Germans’ and ‘good Americans’ who insist that they know not often in apparent good faith.
The anti-terrorist rhetoric of recent years is rather exterminist in its expression, and political implications. George W. Bush, not someone who shuns self-serving moralism, openly endorsed the idea that the attackers of 9/11 were evil, and should be hunted down and exterminated, although at least he did not implicate the descendents. There is a biblical resonance in his words spoken during his commencement address to West Point graduates in June 2002: “Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wrong. I disagree…We are in a conflict between good and evil. And America will call evil by its name.” Such a dualistic passage, at once presupposing that we are the side of the good and opposed by that which is evil is confusing if thought about. It, at once, claims a religiously sanctioned authority to destroy and violates the specifically Christian teaching that rejects such a sharp divide between good and evil since we are all born sinners. What Bush does somewhat contrary to a more refined religious understanding is to fuse his ultra-nationalist agenda with a moral imperative to destroy the enemy without worrying about limits, restraints, and compassion.
A similar entitlement to kill was claimed by Barack Obama when Osama bin Laden was finally found hiding out in Abbottabad, Pakistan on May 2, 2010, killed although unarmed, with few questions being raised as to whether such an almost ritualized execution was justified or necessary. Instead the American president, presented the event as a major victory for his presidency, and the process by which this outcome came about was celebrated in a rare bipartisan spirit by the public and given an attempted public vindication in the film “Zero Dark Thirty,” which included an indirect endorsement of torture as an essential element in the CIA search process yielded crucial information about the whereabouts of the al-Qaeda leader.
This kind of partisan morality is more in keeping with the ethos of Psalm 21 than with the mainstream Christian understanding of good and evil, which condemns as heresy the idea of the absolute good of the self and the absolute evil of the enemy. In this regard human undertakings if claiming moral authority, should always include respect for the redemptive potential of the other, as well as the element of sinfulness of the self. To claim God’s partnership in warlike undertakings thus seems like a distortion of the truer understanding of the spiritual core of the biblical message, especially as understood and interpreted over the centuries in relation to the New Testament. Yet such protection against the hubris of the powerful stands on the shoulders of unrepudiated biblical texts such as Psalm 21 or the Book of Esther.
The retaliatory threat embedded in the doctrine of nuclear deterrence
seems defensive in its posture, yet it proposes an absolute lethality of response that threatens to kill tens of millions, and even to risk endangering the future of the species; E.P. Thompson in his condemnation of any reliance on nuclear weapons, believed that even the mental and cultural preparation required to make a credible deterrent threat to bomb enemy cities embraces an exterminist form of national security, and as such, is morally decadent.
This radical separation of good and evil in the globalized world of politics, either with bold conviction, as during the Bush presidency, or more subtly, during the Obama administration, suggests that societies are still comfortable with the dangerously self-serving approach of Psalm 21. This commentary is not meant to single out for criticism either the Old Testament or the United States. These tendencies are embedded deeply within Western political culture, and unless challenged and repudiated, possess several ominous implications for the entire human future: The absolutist pretensions of nationalist and religious extremism, the globalization of conflict, scarcities of space and resources, the devastations and uncertainties of climate change, prospects for pandemics, the apocalyptic potential of military technology, pervasive insecurity and vulnerability, and the unavailability of actors and capabilities on a global stage to uphold human and global interests.
There is a narrow question: should not those of us who affirm the spiritual significance of our life experience insist on a reading of religious texts that corresponds with our conscience, and not evade the challenge of rejecting some elements of religious tradition rather than attempting to explain it away?
There is also a broader issue: unless we purge our individual and collective lives of these destructive patterns, the destiny of modern civilizations and even of the species is placed in severe jeopardy. The idea of civilizational collapse has been extensively explored from the perspective of collective failures to heed warnings and adapt, but as a matter of delimited ethno-religious communities, not in relation to the species and entire world, which notoriously lack effective sensors for dangers directed at the whole as distinct from challenges to the part. Our modern world order, an evolving state-centric structure, absolutizes the parts, marginalizes the whole, and thus seems dangerously obsolescent as the challenges to the whole grow more and more relevant, while remaining unmanageable. To grasp onto what must be done is also perplexing. For instance, in my view the advocates of philosophical anarchism have more to teach us than the champions of world government.
Global Justice in the 21st Century 
Thanks, Richard, admirable sentiments. I particularly like your last sentence!
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:05 PM, WordPress.com
DITTO.
My dedication to Richard Falk: Gospel – Jim Reeves – A Beautiful Life
September 23, 2013
Dear, dear Honorable Richard Falk:
All the talk of a “god” to me does not lift me.
But, I do respect your way of trying to explain
‘good’ and ‘poor’ ways of explaining things.
I think the Buddhists, the early East Indian thinkers, and the
free thinkers are free of this and do give their followers clear
and honorable ways to reach high and honorableness.
It is not possible to love ones god or gods and at the
same time kill and hate with complete greed and unkindness.
The Golden Rule says it so excellently: “Do unto
others as we would wish done unto us.” This has been said
in many religions also non religions and it is pure GOODNESS. It does not need mentioning of human conceived gods.
Whatever, the goal is high moral principles and most certainly the way that obama, kerry, our allies, Israelis etc are going is NOT the way to go. It is NOT love but is full of hatred and killing and greed.
Follow the Golden Rule and the result is Goodness for all mankind, it will bring peace and happiness.
Bless your magnificent mind Honorable Richard Falk. I admire you and I love your goodness. Thank you for all that you have done and continue to do for mankind.
Sincerely your friend Georgianne E. Matthews
You are free to post this following your superb statements.
g.e.matthews@att.net
From: WordPress.com
To: g.e.matthews@att.net
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 8:05 PM
Subject: [New post] The Violence of Psalm 21
Respond to this post by replying above this line
New post on richardfalk.wordpress.com
The Violence of Psalm 21
by Richard Falk
Psalm 21 and the Human Predicament
There is some difficulty in reconciling humanistic ethics with biblical scripture that has disturbed me recently. If a religious text nurtures morally unacceptable impulses that are acted upon either consciously or sub-consciously in political domains, how can these adverse influences be repudiated without purporting to claim a hegemonic status for a secular reader? Even a religiously oriented person such as myself, who rejects deference to whatever is contained in the most holy of books if it conflicts with conscience, is troubled by this tension between what we believe to be right and what can be found in the holiest of books. In the West, where the specific religious roots of political authority are rarely acknowledged directly, the problem persists, especially in claims by the state to deal with its enemies at home and abroad.
Even if we leave to one side the problems that the modern mind has with the metaphysical and miraculous claims made on behalf of religious authority, and take refuge in how Paul Tillich handled these issues by way of identifying God with the human experience of ‘ultimate depth’ regardless of the form assumed, provided only that it did not serve to vindicate ethically unacceptable behavior. In effect, the post-theistic core of religious devotion in this reworking of tradition becomes almost synonymous with spirituality and awe as experiential realities, having more in common with the thought of Alfred North Whitehead than with the institutional religions.
My concern here is far more modest and limited, and can be expressed in a very particular manner. Its main concern is how to read Psalm 21 in ways that are neither designed to avoid the awkwardness of its apparent endorsement of genocidal violence nor to repudiate the spirituality that is bound up with the sentiments that led the psalmist, reputedly King David, to intone sentiments that seem too extreme. After exalting the Lord for his support of the earthly ruler, the psalmist removes any doubt about an affirmation of unquestioning faith: “For the king trusts in the Lord, and through the mercy of the Most High he shall not be moved.”
What particularly impresses the psalmist is the strength of God, and his power and will to subjugate all that is found to be evil, or in practical terms, posing a threat to an earthly ruler or society: “You shall make them as a fiery oven in the time of Your anger; the Lord shall swallow them up in His wrath, and the fire shall devour them.” Even beyond exterminating those who are enemies of the favored ruler and designated as evil, this wrath attributed to God shall know no bounds: “Their offspring You shall devour from the earth, and their descendants among the sons of men.” Continuing in this vein, “[f]or they intended evil against You; they devised a plot which they are able to perform.” With a military flourish such enemies will be made to “turn their back” while the arrows of the Lord are strung so as to carry out their lethal mission. The psalm ends glorifying this sacred violence: “Be exalted, O Lord, in your own strength! We will sing and praise Your power.”
Psalm 21 is not an aberration in the Bible, but neither is it a summary of the biblical worldview. The Book of Esther is another tale of God’s wrath unleashed on behalf of Jews living in the vast kingdom of King Ahasueres. Saving these Jews of the kingdom from a plot to destroy them, the king heeding Queen Esther, is merciless and shows no respect for innocence: “Thus the Jews defeated all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, with slaughter and destruction, and did what they pleased with them.” (Esther 9:5) It is this absence of limits if the cause is righteous that prepares the way for the commission of what today are called ‘crimes against humanity.’
There are many biblical expressions of God’s wrath mobilized against the enemies of the Israelites in ways that offend those strands of contemporary morality that rejects ideas about the absolute evil of the enemy or the unconditional goodness of the nation and its friends, and is sensitive to the innocence of those who are not themselves perpetrators of wrongful acts. The ethical and legal rejection of genocidal vengeance became supported by an almost universal secular consensus after the Holocaust, but unfortunately genocidal politics and sentiments remain embedded in human experience of ethnic and religious conflict, and everywhere lye dormant just below the surface in virtually every society.
Religious websites do not condemn or contextualize such genocidal language, but insist that the intention of the psalmist is to underscore the degree to which evil will be punished and the degree of protection given to those who put their trust in God. In most institutionalized religious circles there is little willingness to consider such sentiments as problematic or exerting dangerous cultural influences. What seems required is a repudiation of the plain meaning of the language used as well as an explanation that such sentiments was never meant to be taken as guides to action and justifications for limitless violence against enemies. It might also be observed that the distinction between friends and enemies was somewhat more polarized in ancient times.
Of course, I am far from the first to raise some doubts about literal deference biblical ethics, although it should be noted that the two later monotheistic religions incorporate without reservation the Old Testament, including Psalm 21, although in various ways they move beyond it, exhibiting a moral evolution. Thomas Jefferson, among many others, in the Deist tradition, prepared his own biblical text, removing passages that he found ethically offensive or contrary to reason. Such an undertaking would seem to be clearly heretical from most institutional perspectives, privileging individual human judgment over a sacred text endorsed by religious authority over the course of many centuries. Yet is this display of reverence for revealed truth really different than subtle moves in the opposite direction, suchas giving a sanitizing reading to the text so as to avoid the ethically offensive content of its clear meaning as interpreted on the basis of common sense?
Have we in the modern world truly rejected these absolutist attitudes toward ‘the enemy’? The Nazi death camps and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki suggest that the hatred of the other and the uncritical celebration of the self continue to produce the most hideous crimes against humanity. These shameful undertakings are usually accompanied by rationalizations and erasures that result in widespread denial in the relevant national communities and manage to suppress critical reactions by ‘good Germans’ and ‘good Americans’ who insist that they know not often in apparent good faith.
The anti-terrorist rhetoric of recent years is rather exterminist in its expression, and political implications. George W. Bush, not someone who shuns self-serving moralism, openly endorsed the idea that the attackers of 9/11 were evil, and should be hunted down and exterminated, although at least he did not implicate the descendents. There is a biblical resonance in his words spoken during his commencement address to West Point graduates in June 2002: “Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wrong. I disagree…We are in a conflict between good and evil. And America will call evil by its name.” Such a dualistic passage, at once presupposing that we are the side of the good and opposed by that which is evil is confusing if thought about. It, at once, claims a religiously sanctioned authority to destroy and violates the specifically Christian teaching that rejects such a sharp divide between good and evil since we are all born sinners. What Bush does somewhat contrary to a more refined religious understanding is to fuse his ultra-nationalist agenda with a moral imperative to destroy the enemy without worrying about limits, restraints, and compassion.
A similar entitlement to kill was claimed by Barack Obama when Osama bin Laden was finally found hiding out in Abbottabad, Pakistan on May 2, 2010, killed although unarmed, with few questions being raised as to whether such an almost ritualized execution was justified or necessary. Instead the American president, presented the event as a major victory for his presidency, and the process by which this outcome came about was celebrated in a rare bipartisan spirit by the public and given an attempted public vindication in the film “Zero Dark Thirty,” which included an indirect endorsement of torture as an essential element in the CIA search process yielded crucial information about the whereabouts of the al-Qaeda leader.
This kind of partisan morality is more in keeping with the ethos of Psalm 21 than with the mainstream Christian understanding of good and evil, which condemns as heresy the idea of the absolute good of the self and the absolute evil of the enemy. In this regard human undertakings if claiming moral authority, should always include respect for the redemptive potential of the other, as well as the element of sinfulness of the self. To claim God’s partnership in warlike undertakings thus seems like a distortion of the truer understanding of the spiritual core of the biblical message, especially as understood and interpreted over the centuries in relation to the New Testament. Yet such protection against the hubris of the powerful stands on the shoulders of unrepudiated biblical texts such as Psalm 21 or the Book of Esther.
The retaliatory threat embedded in the doctrine of nuclear deterrence
seems defensive in its posture, yet it proposes an absolute lethality of response that threatens to kill tens of millions, and even to risk endangering the future of the species; E.P. Thompson in his condemnation of any reliance on nuclear weapons, believed that even the mental and cultural preparation required to make a credible deterrent threat to bomb enemy cities embraces an exterminist form of national security, and as such, is morally decadent.
This radical separation of good and evil in the globalized world of politics, either with bold conviction, as during the Bush presidency, or more subtly, during the Obama administration, suggests that societies are still comfortable with the dangerously self-serving approach of Psalm 21. This commentary is not meant to single out for criticism either the Old Testament or the United States. These tendencies are embedded deeply within Western political culture, and unless challenged and repudiated, possess several ominous implications for the entire human future: The absolutist pretensions of nationalist and religious extremism, the globalization of conflict, scarcities of space and resources, the devastations and uncertainties of climate change, prospects for pandemics, the apocalyptic potential of military technology, pervasive insecurity and vulnerability, and the unavailability of actors and capabilities on a global stage to uphold human and global interests.
There is a narrow question: should not those of us who affirm the spiritual significance of our life experience insist on a reading of religious texts that corresponds with our conscience, and not evade the challenge of rejecting some elements of religious tradition rather than attempting to explain it away?
There is also a broader issue: unless we purge our individual and collective lives of these destructive patterns, the destiny of modern civilizations and even of the species is placed in severe jeopardy. The idea of civilizational collapse has been extensively explored from the perspective of collective failures to heed warnings and adapt, but as a matter of delimited ethno-religious communities, not in relation to the species and entire world, which notoriously lack effective sensors for dangers directed at the whole as distinct from challenges to the part. Our modern world order, an evolving state-centric structure, absolutizes the parts, marginalizes the whole, and thus seems dangerously obsolescent as the challenges to the whole grow more and more relevant, while remaining unmanageable. To grasp onto what must be done is also perplexing. For instance, in my view the advocates of philosophical anarchism have more to teach us than the champions of world government.
Richard Falk | September 23, 2013 at 8:04 pm | Tags: Alfred North Whitehead, Bible, Book of Esther, David, God, Lord, Old Testament, Paul Tillich | Categories: Commentary, Crimes of State | URL: http://wp.me/p19Wt7-lJ
Religion is the handone (handmaid) of the State.
Not only is it violent against others, it is terrifically violent against oneself; immensely contradictory – like a crazed school teacher – no clear program of what to and not to do; like an abusive parent or lover – the partner is never right, so the abuser always finds a way to conduct the abuse. So the bibles of religions.
The unfortunate thing now is that we will hear in amazing tones, from our troll.
The attempt to trace war and violence in the West back to a Jewish source is not very different in its way from claiming that Jewish bankers control the world’s economy. It is of course entirely false and when the accuser is in a position to know better, it is utterly vicious, despite the usual veneer of reasoned discourse. No one has ever been inspired to make war or carry out massacres by the Hebrew Bible. People and nations find their rationalizations or motivations to kill one another elsewhere. The fact that it did not occur to you to subject the Koran to similar scrutiny and add a word or two about Muslim violence pretty much gives the game away.
to Fred Skolnik:
I think you didn’t read the Koran. If you ever did, you would know that it is based mainly on Mosaic Belief/s as well as on the Bible itself. Have you ever read the Bible ???
How sad that you don’t recognize the useful purpose of religions especially extracted from the Middle East (Mosaic belief = Jewish, Christianity as well as Islam) for political motivations.
The forming of the Jewish state of Israel is based solely on its religion therefore no wonder that Jews are favored and believers of other religions fall extremely short when it comes to laws.
Moreover, how sad that in our times such remarks as yours are done despite the fact that we are able to get to reliable sources how religions were used for political purposes whether it is the Mosaic belief of the Jews or Christianity or Islam from over twothousand years.
How sad that intelligent individuals think that people are still blind and/or stupid ….. at least in Continental Middle and Northern Europe people are more advanced in their way of thinking and facts are more reliable than maybe at your side according to what you have written in your recent post.
Reading the Bible dismantles itself violence and revenge and shows violence in a manner which should be forbidden for children and teachings of ethics and humanity should done instead.
monalisa
Dear Monalisa
I am not going to argue with you about how and why human beings make war and kill each other. If you wish to think it’s because of the Bible, go right ahead.
“The forming of the Jewish state of Israel” is not based on its religion.. It was “formed” because the Land of Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people, because the Jews were present in the Land of Israel for 2,000 years before the Arabs came out of the desert and conquered it, because the Jews were a sovereign nation there and created their culture and national consciousness there, and because the Jews continued to be present there after the Arab conquest. Israel is a national state in the same way that France is a French state and Soain is a Spanish state and the Arabs living there are a national minority whose primary identity is with a larger Arab world that is hostille to Israel and that is the main cause of any discrimination they experience. At the same time, however, very few of them would wish to have their homes and land transferred to Palestinian sovereignty in a peace settlement, and that should tell you something about how they live in Israel.
I do not wish to engage in a discussion with Fred Skolnik about the history of the Jews and Arabs in “historic Israel”, except to say that he is dead wrong in every statement he makes about that history. It might enlighten him to read some objective history rather than repeat the Zionist hasbara that claims historical rights to Palestine.
The Old Testament is hardly accurate history, nor is the Quran. Both are invented mythology.
Good for you, Gene. That’s an awful lot of historical knowledge you bring to bear in your incisive and devastating comments.
I could bring a lot, Fred. But it would only be wasted on you.
I stand corrected then, There was no Arab conquest. The Romans did not conquer a sovereign Jewish nation. And we all know that the books of the Hebrew prophets were written by a retired accountant living in Poughkeepsie. Thanks for pointing that out.
@Fred Skoln
Only God is sovereign and what He appoints—the Landmarks of Holy Land, as we know that. When Kingdom of Israel was parted the sovereign Jewish nation was split (another standing with God—not sovereign, and not appointed by God).
You are misapplying the text (all the text of the Scripture we apply that may be applicable, in fact) to the historical events.
When Romans and Arabs were in conquest with Israel they were not dealing with Judah and household of David—or vice-versa, (in fact).
However, they were within the Landmarks of the Holy Land.
The kingdom is split—there is no such thing as sovereign Jewish nation in this point in time, (but there is sovereign Holy Land with exiles: Jews, Christians, Muslims, and other’s in it). It is another point in time…you are in a time-pass by your explanation.
I must be looking to the Scripture, by Spirit, and no other way.
K.F.
What makes you think this god is a male? Do you know the Bible say it is a “jealous” god?
GEM
________________________________
@ Georgianne Matthews
Are you serious: Jealousy has nothing to do with the essence of God (jealousy is a feeling).
The Bible tells us that the man was created in the image of God (natural and spiritual image). I would conclude by the Gospel, as we know what Jesus of Nazareth said: “who has seen me has seen God” and by Christian Faith we understand that he was Messiah, the anointed One of God. Christ of Nazareth, we believe is One with God (in all essence); He is the only begotten Son of God.
This is why we believe by Faith of the Church and Spirit that God is not female in any shape or form. God did not send a woman to graft in entire human race by Spirit of God and Faith trough Jesus of Nazareth.
God is faithful to Himself, and He sent a Child who was conceived by the power of God’s Spirit—a virgin was with the Child. God Himself was poured by His Spirit into the nature of man and was crucified by the works of sinful and evil mankind. Then, He overpowerd the realm of death, and by work of God He was resurrected by Spirit.
This is resurrection divine; it is by God, by Spirit of God, resurrection of God in human nature, as resurrection of human nature in divine essence will take place by Spirit, for those who were/are in Spirit will be transformed. The Spirit will overpower the dead bones, and they will be filled with breath of life/the Spirit of God.
The woman brough on death to the human race, and she was made out of bone that came from Adam who was made from the dust of the erth into the image of God. The Spirit of God transformed the dust of the earth.
to Gene Schulman,
my I add that also Christianity took a lot of tales and worshipping out of the Egyptian Pharaonic times.
For example:
Isis and Osiris – more than fourthousand years ago, worshipped in Egypt and later on after the conquest by the Romans in Italy until about 600 A.D. Interesting detail: the Holy Marjam of Christianity is right from the beginning of her implementation depicted as Isis and Osiris – can be seen and is a verified fact.
Wonders dedicated to Jesus are already written in Papyrii before and after 1500 B.C. – also verified.
Concerning some tales out of Mosaic Belief:
The exile of Moses (and the written down of so many thouands of Jews at that time) couldn’t have happened until approx. 1100 B.C. as the Pharaonic Egypt had its borders securely controlled and at this old time no Suez Canal existed.
Moeover there aren’t any real traces found by archeologists as well as scriptures verifying that a “big state of Israel” existed for a period of at least thousand years.
Too many tales and it just shows that individuals dedicated to know what really happened cannot easily brainwashed by religions.
Especially the Pharaonic Egypt with its depictions, temples and most of all with its papyrii conserved over the times (due to climate conditions) are a real source.
Moreover, when looking into the religious philosophy of the Pharaonic Egypt there can a lot be found which has too been transported and incorporated into ancient Greece philosophy and therefore reached the Romans in due time.
monalisa
to Fred Skolnik:
the books of the Hebrew prophets were written approx. between 400-300 B.C.
However, not long before 400 B.C. – this because even Mosaic believers know which words, how and in which manner during the times writings were constructed.
There is a science about scriptures, the use of words, how sentences were constructed (if at all). Certain times have different usage of words, structure of texts and so forth.
Naturally, plus and minus several years. But not hundred of years.
This is up to date the latest outcome of the usage at certain times.
It would surely be somehow foolish to think that language and its usage either in scriptures or otherwise wouldn’t have changed over time.
If anything new would be found and could be put into relation within other scriptures at certain times we would know as archaelogists would put it into their time lines.
In order not to fall into a trap an objective view is most of the times very useful while thinking about certain cultures and its developments and religion.
Especially when it comes to claims that some religious believers have lived twothousand years ago in this or that area.
By the way: How about Aborigines ? They have the certain right to their own country and should be rewarded by the Australian government …… and not fed up with dogs meal….
they lived for more than thirtythousand years there ….
same goes to the natives of USA … how have they been treated ….and how have they their right about their country refunded ? Certainly they lived for more than tenthousand years (archaelogists say more than fourteenthousand years) there …..
how about their rights to own their land ??
Your points of view aren’t objective – you have fallen into a trap – I can trace from your writings.
Therefore, an objective discussion with you isn’t on the table.
monalisa
Monalisa
You are talking incoherently about the Hebrew language, which I assume you don’t understand. What is objective about that? You might as well explain to the Chinese too how their language is constructed.
The writings of the Hebrew prophets can easily be correlated with historical events in order to date them, not to mention the matter of style and internal evidence. We therefore know, for example, that Jeremiah produced his prophecies in the last quarter of the 7th cent. B.C.E. You yourself could figure that out if you knew a little history and bothered to read the book.
I have a reflection:
In Palms 21 we read about unconditional love, divine assistance for the righteous King David, and about unconditional judgment and wrath toward unrighteous/wicked.
There is some symbolism, as the judgment that David referees are spiritual and natural. According to the Books that are written by the prophets under inspiration of God’s Spirit, we know about everlasting fire, and the furnace that cannot remove dirt from the gold (the one who melts the gold; using fier has to do that removing of/separating from dirt), when he does not/can not—that is so in order that gold is rejected. This is about that fire that melts gold for purification, which never takes place with the wicked, and yields a full rejection—as the fire only consumes and does not, nor can cleanse those who are written down in hell—they are at no commitment to God, according to their everlasting existence at that fire of hell.
David speaks about natural and spiritual herem. The wicked and unrighteous are cut off in their seed and fire—this can be both eccalistical (spiritual judgment) and natural (literally to be cut off by sword/natural and everlasting death). David by Spirit of God speaks of both judgments:natural and spiritual.
It is written that all sinners are cut off by the sword (herem/natural destruction).
In this point in time devout Jews, and Jews that are righteous (regardless where they are), and the Church (Jews and Non-Jews) do not apply natural herem/sword (nor fall under one by God’s will). Still, God will allow for servants and saints to be killed/martyrs of God. He is perfectly Righteous when comes to the free will of mankind regardless how evil mankind is, even if they kill they will be allowed their free and evil will. However, they will be warned by God and will be judged by Him, as well. David knows that; he speaks of that in Psalm 21.
The judgment of God is by the Spirit of God who works, and convicts (this can be the unmerciful judgment, outside their will-power of man, that is spiritual in nature). This comes by Spirit of God and prophets of God (as always have had). The anointed and the prophets by the righteous works of Spirit cut the wicked of (in natural), but they do not kill while doing that. By the Spirit of God, in the spiritual they cut the wicked of their spiritual evil, effecting in natural. Not by the sword (by Spirit of God righteous do not take part in the guilt of blood).
Prophets in their role are always different from others who are not under prophetic anointing.
David himself was King and the prophet, and still he was under guidance of God when came to herem (vows of destruction). However, David was not allowed to build the Temple because he was warrior and blood was on his hands. David was also in the guilt of blood, as he has killed an innocent man. (Meaning, he as stepped out that priestly promise/care position when he killed Uriah and judgment of God applied, even when the sin of David was forgiven, the consequence/result of that sin was not gone).
At this point in time, the promise upon household of David is active, and the household of David is priestly Kingdom by the anointing of God’s Spirit.
David himself was/is the priestly nation; he was/is under the Spirit of the one who was/is the priest forever according the Order of Melchizedek. This priest Melchizedek appeared/was before Abraham when he destroyed the enemies with other kings.
Children of Abraham do not hate God and His Spirit; children of the devil do, and for that reason,the one housed is divided (father against the son, daughter against the mother in law…) and the nations are in war (nation against the nation), and this will be so, until the end comes.
The Churches who teach God who loves unconditionally (a Gospel of Love…and often are in hate and kill/war in natural realm/terms) are heretics. God is unconditional in His Love, but he is also unmerciful in His Judgment. When Stephen was stoned to death, there was Saul/Paul, and there were those who were sinning against Spirit of God (as their ancestors always have had, as they hated Spirit of God and prophets of God)they, then, in front of Saul killed servant of God (Stephen was stoned to death). Jews that were unrighteous/evil have misapplied the works of the Law in relation their Faith (they had none).
What did Stephen see before he died: The heaven was opened to Stephen and he saw the One who was sitting at the right hand of God, and He stood up from where he was seated; (he stood up in Judgment). Now that was resurrected Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and the Church-Catholic Charismatic believes that He is unmerciful judge. Still, Church-Catholic Charismatic believes that He is the one who unconditionally loved Saul (and has changed his name to Paul) when he called Paul—Paul the one who not only was present when Stephen was killed, but also he approved himself with these who killed Stephen (he took part in that work as Saul, too, was one who prosecuted Christians who were both Jews and Non-Jews (often the line of David), the Church-Charismatic and Spirit filled believers, according to the Church age. Paul was Anti-Spirit of God, and then he repented according to the call he received from God. Before he was called and became Church Charismatic, he was in another time (time-pass).
I have another reflection:
The natural revelation can point (and explain) spiritual facts. Meaning, the closest natural evidence that you may have how accurate Special revelation (Biblical evidence) is may be by means of archeology (if not the people itself). Now, this is for those who are outside the Sprit of God activated and cannot fully receive the Scripture in its essence.
Biblical scholars and science will misinterpret the facts that are applicable to the context in which the Scripture was written by prophets, and rewritten (for preservation).
Who wrote it and when it is irrelevant for these who have Faith by Spirit of God, for Scripture was always passed down in accuracy from generation to generation, in Word and Writ, as Jewish people/Rabbis knew all writings of the Scripture, without looking in the writing, directly (always). God has spoken trough the prophets, and always he has preserved that what He said to the prophets.
We know that evil King once burned the scroll that prophet gave him, and the scroll was rewritten. Accuracy of the Scroll was by Spirit of God—not that which is natural in substance (the scroll itself).
We know that the Scripture was written over thousands of years by different prophets, and were rewritten over the long period of time by Jewish faithful, Rabbis. The Scripture was without error, as it is passed down by the Spirit of God, and by those who wrote and rewrote the Scripture for preservation.
The Scrolls are valid; Spirit of God breathed Special revelation into the mankind. It is not activated without Spirit; however, one has to read the Scripture and all contexts that surround the Scripture by Spirit of God. There is no error in the Scripture in any shape and form. However, there may be human error due to spiritual attacks over those who were called to rewrite the Holy Scripture, and when the Scripture was rewritten. (They find something that does not appear quite right, and they are bewildered, ready to dismiss/divorce the Scripture from her Inerrancy that is fully applicable to the Word of God. (This is their theology in argument, that Spirit filled believers only look at them as heretics, according to their works: when they try to discern something over which they have no spiritual authority/appointing).
There are no inconsistencies within the Holy Scripture, as all prophets have written about many or same instances (from another perspective).
Another thought/recent historical event: The pyramids (Egyptian, and tallest at the world this far) were newly discovered in Bosnia (a pyramid complex of 3 in total). The scientists have said that they have been there about (or at least 2000 of years…according to the level of dirt-cover accumulated). They were totally in dirt and forest (to a natural/non-expert eye). A native of Bosnia saw those pyramids in their context, during the flight, and he marveled what was revealed to him, just by digging it out. Now we all marvel.
Now, would that verify that ancient Egypt was in Bosnia, and was going on somewhat more than 2000 years ago, and no less in total? Ancient Egypt was not long ago, or was copied by these who had access to knowledge of Egypt?
Also, some tongues speaking (demonic utterances) were present with Greek-Romans before outpour of the Spirit and Scriptural languages. These which were existed before Scriptural were of demons (as they are now). Demonic possession was in existence always. Unfortunately, at this point in time they are in false church charismatic, where else would they be?
Ancient Egyptians had a particular level of wisdom that also came from God; however, it was never fully inspired by God as Holy Scripture is. It may have been twisted—that which they knew. They knew something about Scripture/things of the Scripture, in fact…just by presence of Joseph and few others of Jacob that came after that.
Usually, the natural eyes are quite blind. I somewhat am blind by faith, and write myths into a thoughtful humanity, rather than Scripture that is inspired by Spirit of God.
Also, I will not be disturbed by any false explanation and some odd doctrine because nothing can shock me anymore.
K.F.
I found it interesting that Iranian President Rouhani ended his UN General Assembly speech with a reference to the passage in the Qur’an which refers to Psalms 39:27 : http://bit.ly/1eGJPAr
“My hope, aside from personal and national experience, emanates from the belief shared by all divine religions that a good and bright future awaits the world. As stated in the Holy Qur’an:
And We proclaimed in the Psalms, after We had proclaimed in ……the Torah, that My virtuous servants will inherit the earth. (21:105)
He also connected nuclear weapons to Iran’s religious and ethical convictions:
..“Nuclear weapon and other weapons of mass destruction have no ..place in Iran’s security and defense doctrine, and contradict our ..fundamental religious and ethical convictions”
While Rouhani referred to “religion“ seven times Obama used the term only once, in his opening paragraph, citing it as a “cause of division”, rather than the commonality of religion.
While totally avoiding the religious and ethical convictions of the US in the role of nuclear weapons, he makes his position on imperialism and the use of US military power clear: http://1.usa.gov/14GO9KC
…“So let me take this opportunity to outline what has been U.S. policy …towards the Middle East and North Africa, and what will be my policy …during the remainder of my presidency.
…The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our …power, including military force, to secure our core interests in the …region. “
@ Erich Kuerschner
I have faith that Iran will do well with their new president (not that they were doing wrong with the prior one); however, this president is more spiritually mature and has that spiritual authority over the Land in this critical point in time. Iran is under divine providence of God.
Every person in sanity knows that any type of nuclear weapons is works that the insane scientist stood behind it.
I do not see other interest for US, except to keep their indoctrination to them self’s, and stay away with that from other lands that are in Faith-valid. This is only so because US have had heretical, and hypocrite inclinations toward many, at different times ( by which are harm to their own self, as well as their children).
Further, there is no other way to resolve world issues without mature, and Spirit-filled believers, and those who have a healthy conscience. Faith that is valid will not cause division, based on self-interests.
Now, I am all for democracy that is valid, but I am not dumb, nor do my thinking in a dumb-spirit. I also believe that Muslim believers also do not do their thinking in a dumb-spirit.
Democracy is not something that is valid to humanity, especially in cultic oppression that is driven behind that, and where false and no true prosperity and true justice can come…humanity is far behind its potential that is only possible with the valid justice. False justice is abounding, and there will be only few that are capable of seeing that, by Spirit of God-or moral law’s of their conscience, and then do that which is right.
There is always hope, but we should not expect for evil and irrational things. It is rational for this generation to get rid of all weapons that are in capacity of mass destruction: nuclear, biological—or medical (hopefully all this will stop, and be gone). Scientist can be quite evil, and will make use of all to evil things, as well.
Generational sins are upon us, as always were.
I hope this was helpful,
K.F.
Hi Kata: Any honest and compassionate dialogue is ALAWAYS helpful. And I thank you for yours.
However, with all due respect, I seem to see things somewhat differently,
First I don’t think that a President has much power in the US over military and foreign affairs. As Morrison Brown (I suspect Richard Falk recalls him? — as well as the Santa Barbara Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions – is the New Age Peace Foundation somehow an offshoot?) wrote in 1963:
“There is little doubt that the armed services exert more control over Congress than that body exerts over the Defense Department. Indeed, the military elite is clearly in a position to assume actual political command over the U.S. striking forces if there are serious signs of ‘weakness’ in U.S. foreign relations.”
Second, I question whether “this president is more spiritually mature”. In economics, I can say without question that Obama has shunned those economists that have a track record of working for the unfortunate, and appointed what I consider really the worst (in the sense of selfish, and disregard for the unfortunate). In regards to nuclear policy (where I now work) it also seems clear to me that we have an unprecedented buildup to increase the killing efficiency of our nuclear weapons stockpile. He is also unwilling to back off from the US “first strike, first use” of nuclear weapons. I actually don’t find the scientists that developed the first two bombs insane, merely confused due to the rapidity with which events unfolded in 1939. Many tried to walk back the bomb (Einstein call the letter he wrote with Hans Bethe his greatest regret, and folks like Joe Rotblat even quitting before the bomb was used.), but by then the military, political, and industrial folks had control and the scientists virtually none. Yes, the insane ones continued the work. Lewis Mumford’s admonition in the Saturday Review of March 2, 1946 says it well:
“Gentlemen: You are Mad !” http://bit.ly/V8Ezqs ”
In regards to Obama’s “spirituality” I have a difficult time with his not finding a way to a least state his public opposition and make a statement on the morality and ethics of the bamb, as Rouhini has, at least against using nuclear weapons first. In this Wall Street Journal article of April 6, 2010, eg
U.S. Keeps First-Strike Strategy By JONATHAN WEISMAN And PETER SPIEGEL
“WASHINGTON—The Obama administration will release a new national nuclear-weapons strategy Tuesday that makes only modest changes to U.S. nuclear forces, leaving intact the longstanding U.S. threat to use nuclear weapons first, even against non-nuclear nations.” http://on.wsj.com/1710Ikz
But I VERY much agree with you that central is the issue of how a nation uses its science and scientists. In an International Conference on Teaching Engineering, convened at Darmstadt, Germany in 1947, the central role of allowing Universities to engage in study and work that harmed humans was generally recognized as a root cause of war, aggression, and oppression. But this is precisely what has happened in the American University system- they are now essentially merely branches of the Department of Defense.
But in the end, as John Swomley writes often, it is how the people, not the leaders, respond that ultimately matters– whether they act as the early Christians and see their role as confronting political power, and the function of a Christian to be liberate people from whatever oppresses them (non-violently, of course) as Jesus, Paul, and Peter did, or whether they act as many (but my NO means all) post St. Augustine Christians do, and agree to use violence as a force, essentially rejecting early Christian ethics, morality, and purpose.
[see eg the chapter on “Christian Theory of Government” In John Swomley’s “The Politics of Liberation”]
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts, and stimulating mine.,
Erich:
I found your comments in response to Kata very illuminating, especially your call on Obama to
make the sort of forthright condemnation of NW as made by Iran, and at least bring the Israeli
bomb into play in the setting of regional diplomacy.
Richard
Erich,
There is so much going on.
I totally agree with you that president Obama is limited, even just by spiritual authority that he lacks when comes to other nations according to his position, all together. Over the last months,he appears to be more exhausted. I cannot even imagine the stress that he is under. I hope all good things for him.
There is a need for a better structure within democracy, achieving what is constitutional for all lands/regions, and with that lawful. Scriptural ethics, and traditions of the culture are important to a valid democracy. Democracy that will be valid will include spiritual ethics, as well as constitutional background of the cultures at question. Preservation of different cultures and Faiths are ethical focus when comes to sustaining governments that are falling apart, regardless what causes may be.
US adds to their weaknesses when they do not collaborate with all of the nations (regardless in which condition they are with them). That is why diplomats are available in this point in time. Spiritualy, each land receives their results according to their lawlessness. Nations can repent of their anger and have a new start, which should be no difficulty for anyone.
US military culture is outside the valid point in time; it is misinformed and mismanaged. I am not saying that all military is bad and useless, but their mission is mismanaged and misplaced. They need to be helped back to usefulness. Meaning, to be there for rational and valid needs. There is hope for US to remain the world leader and no world subduing/destroying ancient culture. This is hope for US regardless hardships that they face.
The mission of the Church is right here, as we are dealing with Church mission (Church marriages, seed mixing and spiritual issues, all together). There are few tribes of ancient that are difficult to graft in for the Church, and are right here in US. When immigrants pour into US, there is some spiritual reason behind it. Likewise, when some lands are closed off to the Christianity it is due to evil gospels that are in spirit of false-Christ, bad anoitings. So there is a valid reason for that, as well, when they are closed off, as they are taking their national security seriously from spiritual stands.
The weaknesses to US are right here in US, as the overlook their resources in human capital that is wasted. While I see US in a better position than it was before with the world—there is a danger that they are going to be trapped in some terrible situation that will not only cause harsh consequences for US, but entire regions. Diplomacy is the only way to resolve the problems of this point in time, efficiently, as there is too much risk by any other means that may be relevant.
There is a global interest, and global security, as there is no other way. The times just are like that. There may be very irrational leaders, not always spiritually immature, but very evil, and not only here in US, but globally to do whatever, and no one likes that. When people of Faith come together,they will be able to do good things, applying their Faith to help humanity to rebound from these harsh conditions that it is in. They can not abuse their Faith-mambers, and allow others to abuse them, as that has to stop.
People get tripped regardless which land they may be; there is just too much going on between radical groups in lands now days that nothing works because of them. When I look at US concerns, and then life issues, I am not sure how people can still manage any valid government function. I guess it is manageable somehow; I guess as the whole/basic needs of populations are dismissed. There are too many of generational liabilities and these have to stop to be added on for US.
I have little or no knowledge how different branches of US government interact, but here in US there is best structure to a government just do to spiritual context in the land. (I am not sure how well this structure would serve other governments, in long terms. Maybe that is what humanity needs, and not necessarily other things that may be applicable to democracy (but I am not abut any of this, as this is just flying through my mind).
Whenever a land does not take care of children and focuses on the economy with that care/service they are at bad path economically.
There is too many economics wasted on dead-end services to the children in US, and things are disorganized and not efficient. Restructuring that would be infusing prosperity in the land (right here in US) regardless what else is going on. Hopefully there will be a promising future for the kids in the land to be left by this generation. There are the things that we see, in this point in time, very distressing things due to spiritual abuses in the land. Items that are not sustainable to the nation when comes to long term mission of US, as a nation US will need to remain humanitarian leader, to be humanitarian in the land.
Likewise, taking out some of NW out of the world and not all is in a way a circle of a dead-end approach (not complete), all together, due to fairness and effectiveness in approach, itself. Region by region approach can be a short-term and long term priority (in reference to all emergent hostility).
Removing nuclear substances from region of India is a serious consideration, as in some point in time they will be ending up with stock-piles, just as it is here in US. In India, there is false charismatic anointing, and I always have a serious concern seeing that in any land. India is specifically vournable due to thise issues.
Church-Charismatic looks at spiritual realities. Before I fell under false-church-charismatic spiritual attack, all my anointing and gifts spiritual were idle (not needed as I was doing well spiritually). I never went about religious-or spiritual issues because it was irrelevant to my faith.
When comes to Einstein, I believe that he repented of his work when he was set free from the counterfeit spirit. In his life, there were some spiritual conflicts. I saw activity and manifestation of an evil spirit that worked through his first wife (how it got access to them; I am not sure). Also, manifestation of the spirit in his work is difficult, and it does not appear to be all of God’s Spirit—there was some activity of other spirit.
Einstein was under prophetic anointing, and that anointing is always under heavy spiritual attack. Sometimes people that are in spiritual hindrance: defiled/illicit marriage, or have something generational inborn, or a false anointing by church charismatic invalid going on—they are significant Bipolar or something like that (as Psychologist would say).
Whatever took place before, during, and after WWII it appears to be allowed, as there were no moral/spiritual restrictions that were applicable. The way Spirit of God is moving is toward doing away with all of that. Having stockpiles in the world has no other purpose than to sit there—or be used; however, it cannot be used over the mankind. With that, humanity has to get together and do away with that.
It seems that Oil of the Spirit that comes through the scientist is either misused or misplaced (as was the case with Einstein). There is a kid from former Yugoslavia (I cannot recall if he were from Novi Sad) that went to Yale University; he should be in his first or just second year, or something like that. He is much anointed, as I understood. I am not sure what does he study @ Yale, however. I think his first name is Dean, but I am not sure. I do hope that he does not fall under some kind of spiritual attack while he is in the Land.
When Rome fell apart, and was invaded by other tribes, the Church had to manage to graft in of those tribes, and that did not take place much efficiently. At that time,the Church started to weekend, as her spiritual strength was not in Church-Charismatic-valid. They stepped away from the first generation of Christian’s way to far, and troubles followed. The tribes that were not grafted in within the Church did as always have had, while using the Church (eccalistical power) to war in the flesh. This is still going on. However, Church Charismatic that is valid (as was the first generation of Christians) is strong by Spirit and does not practice evil things; however, we as Church are viciously prosecuted (more in spiritual than natural). The false church is very vicious.
Christian without spiritual values are not valid, or is totally immature, disoriented when traditional within spiritually hostile lands. Church Charismatic, the first generation of Christians knew well that counterfeit church was at the rise within the Church itself. The last writing of the first apostolic generation that Church received was by John, and has indicated present corruption that they had, and also the future corruptions of the Christians that will be. Now days when one looks at spiritual context of the Church (in total) with an all branches and denominations, and we can see ungrafted tribes in their spiritually ancient context (not in Spirit that is Church valid). There is so many things to Church matters, and one can write about that for days. They deal with all kind of issues when they do not do ordinations within the Church in a valid way, and with that they paralyze their Church-mission.
K.F.
Since I said farewell to all religious beliefs, so I could embrace the logical interpretation of humanism and its explanation for the essence of being, I have felt a tremendous liberation.
Religions are not living up to what the ‘believers’ claim them to stand for.
To avoid the illogics of their reasoning in defense of their claimed religious views, many keep pulling the same string on their religious harp, so as to not get caught in the many religious contradictions.
There was a time, that I also fervently believed in religious belief system, that was indoctrinated into me since birth and which I never dared question in fear of eternal damnation as so clearly described by Dante Alleghieri in his inferno. To me the biggest crime one can commit is, if one knowingly tries to instill religious ideas in whatever form, kind or quantity into one`s children, be they their own, or those placed in their care. Religion should be kept away from children, until they can decide for themselves, which way they like to go, as well as to avoid making oneself guilty of child abuse, that religious indoctrination can be construed as. At least then their decisions will be solely theirs.
But we will not see that happen any time soon, because religion is the weapon of choice for the politicians, with whom they seem to maintain a symbiotic relationship.
In what other way could the masses be moved to go and murder innocent people in far away lands, while at the same time risking their own in the process? Look at what the Christian religious beliefs did to the Jews in WW II and look at what is being done to the Muslims lately in the name of Judaism. To call Israel a Jewish state is a misnomer. It should be called a Zionist state, because it was Zionism, that initiated that endeavor.
Monalisa pointed out some facts, that have their foundation in reality, not religious fanaticism, one of which is the description of the events around Horus, the son of Isis and Osiris, who were ascribed identical attributes as was to Jesus, Mary and Joseph. The similarities are scary for the religious believers and flabbergasting for the enlightened among us.
It took me many extra years to overcome years of indoctrination as a seminarian beyond that, which I was unwittingly subjected to as a child.
The plus side of it is however a better understanding of and experience in the intricate workings of religious brainwashing.
I have a copy of the Bible, which seems to have no problem sharing space with the Qur`an. I read both and could not miss noticing the similarities between the two. To the point, that the one could be a plagiarized version of the other and the same can be said for the Bibles compared to older Egyptian writings.
Evolution and religion are as incompatible as a metric bolt and an Imperial nut. The first is based in provable scientific facts and the other in emotional feelings.
My God is represented by nature, not some religion and the laws of my God are the laws of nature, that rule this universe in every little detail.
Albert,
That which you are suggesting you are not discerning (nor have the ability) to look at things spiritual, discern right from wrong.
However, when kids are traumatized with cult—that is quite bad. When you look at US churches, the only one that is valid/ not destroyed is in Spirit of God, meaning Charismatic with Church order and a teaching office. When they have not that unity they are cults in demonic spirits and are spiritually abusive. They destroy their children—that is why humanitarian setting and oversight is so hoped for kids in US. Wicked-hypocrite-church is vast; it is abounding. I am sure that there are other cults that are quite bad, as well.
You really can not shut down their churches—or religious places, or dictate non-indoctrination by some kind of law…and all that what is going on (that would be irrational–not in justice of God). I mean, you would abuse the will-power of choice to believe whatever they want. (It is good to allow to let them be in their free-will).
I had no spiritual abuse while growing up (as you have had). Your household was religious and without Love. Religion without love is like a stench of death. It is false, and it is all death.
Likewise, some tales are inspired by demons (those to which you and Mona-Lisa are referring to). That is a tale (a myth of demons). During Church age we had all kinds of false writing that was demon-inspired—those who are in Spirit can look at that and dismiss without difficulty.
It is impossible to separate spiritual essence from within humanity (Jews and non-Jews). Meaning, that which is under/in demonic possessing (not clean) remains as it is without Spirit of God.
I hope that this was helpful,
K.F.
@Albert
When Albert Einstein was asked if he believed in God, he said, my god is the god of Spinoza. Spinoza’s philosophy is exemplified by your last sentence. I don’t know whether or not you have read him, but if not, I highly recommend him.
Dear Albert
Religion is one of many reasons why nations make war. The Jews have not made war for religious reasons since biblical times, if at all (you seem to be reading the Bible literally only when it suits your purposes); Christians have not made war for religious reasons since the 17th century; and Muslims are making war for religious reasons to this very day.
The comparison of what the Nazis did to the Jews and what the Jews have done to the Palestinians has been worked to the bone and derives either from ignorance or malice.
I have a reflection:
It seems that many people look at religion from one perspective: how bad it is, and damage that it causes, all together. Then based on that conclusion they give up on Faith of their family line, and start falling off from Faith. They received religion of man and not the Scripture, by Spirit of God. Religion of man is, was, and always will be in a dead-end.
Many swop religious setting—or believes, as restaurants, according to their likes. Some dismiss God and His Special Revelation of Himself to mankind due to some bizarre issues.
Natural Revelation is limited but will sustain one for a period of time, and has power to give one excuse, as well. All one needs to do, in fact is, just to answer to the law of their healthy conscience. It is better to step out from bad religions (as Albert has done) than to be in one.
These who are anchored in Spirit by Faith are either immature or unshakable. I believe that Albert will do well (he lacks Spiritual Gifts in a mature development); though that has nothing to do with his Faith. Some will walk away from Faith of their family line, but God will reason with them in due time. There must be time for healing, as well as understanding by Spirit of God, by Faith.
I saw bad religion, evil members at their best, as well; however, I was always remained in Spirit (which came through other Spirit filled believers–when not directly) that God is faithful and that he cannot lie, and He is faithful to Himself, regardless what is taking place with different religions that believers and non-believers see and do not like (religion of man).
All God’s children are taught by Him—that is written.
I have another reflection:
Our education has nothing to do with our Faith.
Why should one allow for himself/herself to compete with education/philosophy against their Faith—or other way around? There is no use for this behavior.
A have a note: there are some strange things taking place lately.
I got some phone calls that are irrational: they would call me from the same number (different individuals), and they would ask for me, or just say something odd, and then they would drop the call.
Also, there was a fraudulent charge at our CC from a transaction that took place trough Western Union, as the funds were picked up in Illinois. (I had to be distracted by unbelievable things).
Also, we have received the mail from our internet service saying that some kind of program is sending computer viruses from our IP address. This we have to figure out with technicians how to fix that…I do not even understand what all that is.
I am swamped with school work, and other things that are not avoidable. I have to schedule that into my time to go about that. I am not sure why Internet Companies can do that them self’s. (They have awful security service toward their consumers).
The last two calls that I have received today from the number 702-997-4166 was just, and just few minutes ago, I really feel that is very demonic—just by the way that the person spoke, and then hang up the phone (as phone calls from that number always have had…this is a third-fourth time pattern when I picked it up).
I have feeling that this is some kind of sick joke, but I am not sure. This may be the case just by the issues that we are discussing, in general, (right here).
I am sure that are many sick people who would have in their time to hinder private associations that are in nature ecclesiastical/Church Charismatic work because this is how this situation looks to me, more and more.
I have a request:
Can someone find out about that number, and what do they want (I am not sure who would be appropriate to deal with that), but I am sure someone here would know, and be able to deal with that. Likewise, I do not like to deal with things in my will-power (I may not have spiritual authority to go after them in natural). If is US government, or illuminati (just hilarious, who would know all evil in the land). I just give over this situation to God.
It is like some sort of the psychological annoyance that they are practicing.
I somewhat think that I may be harassed along with my family. I am not sure, but this is the first unconformable feeling I have about that since that demonic phone-call. Until now, I have not even had a single impression about it.
Otherwise, I have no further concern, at all. I do not think that we need Pope involved-or anything like that, since we are not dealing with valid believers, just lawless in the land.
K.F.
Kata,
If you are receiving unwanted calls, have you not thought of blocking them?
I do not know your location. In the U.S> in the front of the phone directory are tips on unwanted sales and survey calls.
Here it is called Call Rejection Enhanced. It may be included, or not, in your phone service, in which case it needs to be added.
Here you call the update service *78 from your home phone and select “Call rejection” from the main menu.
Instructions are in the phone book. But depends on your phone company.
You can enter the phone numbers, up to 25, including mobile, and add the last number that called to your Call Rejection list, even if it’s listed as private on caller i.d.
Unknown calls can, sometimes, feel creepy.
I hope you can do this to relieve your concern.
jg
Dear jg,
I believe that I have overreacted, since I have received one call from that number that was marketing company, just doing their business. It was an interesting call, as I was almost entertained due to the nature of the individual that was very chatty, and in good spirits.
I no longer have any concerns since that last phone call.
I cannot explain prior instances, which were definitely strange.
My number is private, and I hardly ever receive calls that are not expected. I was thrown off in my thoughts for a while with these strange instances that do not look to be connected in a tree-fold way, as they are separate in occurrence.
Also, the mail that we were receiving was not from the Internet service provider. It was falsifying the report of the company, while contacting the customer with their information. It is interesting that this is so. The internet company must have been hacked, and they got all access to their customers. I understand that thus happens quite often.
Thank you,
K.F.