For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
One reads these "prophetic" statements and one is prompted to amazement by the very fact that they seem so true. As if it was all seen before-hand. But the key to understanding them is to see them as having been written at later dates by crafty men who had lived through exiles and banishments. They then created 'original documents' that purposed to come from a far earlier time in order to augment the sense of 'prophetic seeing'.Deuteronomy 28: You shall be left a scant few, after having been as numerous as the stars in the skies, because you did not heed the command of your God יהוה [YHVH].
And as יהוה once delighted in making you prosperous and many, so will יהוה now delight in causing you to perish and in wiping you out; you shall be torn from the land that you are about to enter and possess.
יהוה will scatter you among all the peoples from one end of the earth to the other, and there you shall serve other gods, wood and stone, whom neither you nor your ancestors have experienced.
The larger meaning? Once the story-line is punctured, once the thread is pulled, the story and its function can be better seen. And when seen there lies the possibility that one could become 'free' from its power.The subsequent “Deuteronomic history” in Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings is manufactured history and never happened
These books also went through various editions, but the general consensus is that for the “final edition” the language and outlook seems to point to a post exilic period of composition, that is after 586 BCE. Although overlaid with theological spin, much of I and II Kings is historical: thus, the fall of Israel (II Kings 17); the fall of Judah and the deportation of the Jews into exile in Babylon (II Kings 25).
However, the rest is manufactured history designed to create a strict theology depicting the Jews as God’s chosen people and explaining why they had lost the land God had given them. The Scribal School of Deuteronomy who wrote it is identified as having its origins in Israel and the priests of Shiloh were its advocates. As in the case of Josiah, their message was that the people had worshipped other gods and failed to implement the covenant and obey the law. They therefore deserved punishment and the loss of their heritage, principally the land. The YHWH alone movement had been a minority tradition in the North, but it metamorphosed when the Shiloh priests moved south and interpreted their experience through the lens of the exile.
That you think that is the least surprising revelation on record.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 4:03 pm You have surely gathered that I regard Yahweh as a 'fake' and as a literary-divine figure animated by a priest-class.
One additional note. The recent re-conquest of Israel by the European exiles of the Diaspora played upon, indeed imitated, the false histories of the Bible. It was an enactment, a rehearsal, a sort of scam that portrayed the invaders as 'righteous' and 'noble' and, all this is implied, set in motion by god himself.However, the rest is manufactured history designed to create a strict theology depicting the Jews as God’s chosen people and explaining why they had lost the land God had given them.
You have already made your choice Mr Immanuel. It is not a choice that I make.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 4:28 pmThat you think that is the least surprising revelation on record.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 4:03 pm You have surely gathered that I regard Yahweh as a 'fake' and as a literary-divine figure animated by a priest-class.
Be careful in your conversation here, if you wish it to continue. I recommend you don't advance as fact that which is merely a hypothesis or question on your part, or you cross the line between inquiry and blasphemy. And if you do choose to blaspheme, then I will, for your own safety and the future of your soul, have to withdraw from speaking with you. I have to take thought for your welfare here, and do the moral thing, even if you choose not to.
So pick what you say next accordingly. I shall reply according to your choosing.
No. All you're actually showing me is how easy it is to construct your own elaborate evasions by "co-opting the narrative." There's no "demonstration" going on...not even a basic definition going on.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 4:39 pm What I am doing here is demonstrating how it is possible, carefully and rationally, to dismantle 'constructed views'.
What is the point of anything if there's absolute foreknowledge of how everything will unfold and absolute foreknowledge of what anyone will ever think and do from their birth through their death? It makes no sense that a supreme being would go through all the motions of creation knowing how it was all going to play out.
There has not been a Jewish state before the 20thC since Hadrian. Were we to take all "ethnicities" from the time of Hadrian and offer them a homeland the world would immediately fall in to WW3. Do I think that it was wise of the British EMpire to create Israel? NO.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 2:08 pmWell, there are different brands of "Zionist," if you want to expand the definition.Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 11:17 amThat is Zionist by definitionImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 1:00 am
No, not really. And even were it so, it does not make me one. You may not find it easy to detect the difference, because you may think that anybody who has even a vaguely positive attitude to Israel's right to exist is automatically a "Zionist." I can't say what your definition will be. But I don't call myself a Zionist.
There are some who advocate the State of Israel in its present form, and advocate its policies. I do not. But if you count those who think Jews have a right to exist and not to be slaughtered, then sure, I'm one of them.
It all depends on where you pick your lines.
...unless He were creating free will beings.Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 5:11 pmWhat is the point of anything if there's absolute foreknowledge of how everything will unfold and absolute foreknowledge of what anyone will ever think and do from their birth through their death? It makes no sense that a supreme being would go through all the motions of creation knowing how it was all going to play out.
Yes...
He would be subject to made-up terms. Yes, that's right.
Want to know what else Bobby Fisher couldn't do?Bobby Fischer couldn't do it. Certainly no god could do it.
AJ doesn't agree. He thinks the self-identification criterion is just dandy, apparently.promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 4:56 pm I believe it wuz sir atto of fishpi who established that the most necessary, fundamental and essential feature of a genuine Christian is the belief in the resurrection.
As I said, had you been bothered to read my post.