The Biden's Israel bashing thread
Josh said:
I always get a bit agitated when I read a reference to "the Holocaust", as if it was the only one, and exclusively a Jewish tragedy. There have been over 50 official Holocausts, involving the death of many many millions of people all over the world. The 1930s/40s 2nd World War Holocaust in Germany/Poland was just one of them, albeit as unacceptable as any other.
So it is also intriguing to know how and why the word 'holocaust' has been appropriated as only a Jewish thing ... and likewise I am also curious to know why the word 'anti-semitic' is automatically associated as 'anti-Jewish', especially at the current time given that the Palestinians are a Semitic people, as are many other Arabs in other countries in the Middle East. (This is just an observation, not a blame thing).
You might find this interesting, I'm reading it at the moment.
sorry about the lighting. the data which has been put together in the book is pretty impressive. I'll post a couple of pages.
I'll just leave that there for a minute
Ajay, good fellow I believe we were both wrong about the extent of presidential alone, it too's and fros, is why the supreme Court and placement of is so very important. terms of the military the joint chiefs advise and lobby, same as the intelligence agencies. they both need the presidential nod. Its the president holds the codes for the nukes and so forth. has a cabinet of course but again as we saw with Trump so clear
The brittish Royal family... there's no real comparison. they're Cromwells bitches
why wouldn't a Jewish god choose the Jews as his people. It would be a bit of an insult to them if he didn't.
I think God became a little disillusioned with the narrative. and Jesus Christ was born because holy Mary done her thing, God bless her
Then the Jews gave the death-nod to him
I personally don't wish for or want people dying. There was a time when both those peoples lived together. the right people, the right words and gestures / actions would go a long way.. I would say that has not happened. It is a tangled Web
lepperochan said:I'll just leave that there for a minute
Ajay, good fellow I believe we were both wrong about the extent of presidential alone, it too's and fros, is why the supreme Court and placement of is so very important. terms of the military the joint chiefs advise and lobby, same as the intelligence agencies. they both need the presidential nod. Its the president holds the codes for the nukes and so forth. has a cabinet of course but again as we saw with Trump so clear
The brittish Royal family... there's no real comparison. they're Cromwells bitches
why wouldn't a Jewish god choose the Jews as his people. It would be a bit of an insult to them if he didn't.
I think God became a little disillusioned with the narrative. and Jesus Christ was born because holy Mary done her thing, God bless her
Then the Jews gave the death-nod to him
I personally don't wish for or want people dying. There was a time when both those peoples lived together. the right people, the right words and gestures / actions would go a long way.. I would say that has not happened. It is a tangled Web
Jesus was an anarchist and the Jews killed him after he beat them and turned the money tables over.
Ajay, good fellow I believe we were both wrong about the extent of presidential alone, it too's and fros, is why the supreme Court and placement of is so very important. terms of the military the joint chiefs advise and lobby, same as the intelligence agencies. they both need the presidential nod. Its the president holds the codes for the nukes and so forth. has a cabinet of course but again as we saw with Trump so clear
The brittish Royal family... there's no real comparison. they're Cromwells bitches
why wouldn't a Jewish god choose the Jews as his people. It would be a bit of an insult to them if he didn't.
I think God became a little disillusioned with the narrative. and Jesus Christ was born because holy Mary done her thing, God bless her
Then the Jews gave the death-nod to him
I personally don't wish for or want people dying. There was a time when both those peoples lived together. the right people, the right words and gestures / actions would go a long way.. I would say that has not happened. It is a tangled Web
Jesus was an anarchist and the Jews killed him after he beat them and turned the money tables over.
lepperochan said:
You might find this interesting, I'm reading it at the moment.
sorry about the lighting. the data which has been put together in the book is pretty impressive. I'll post a couple of pages.
Thanks Lepp; all power to revisionist/real historians and here's hoping they avoid getting labelled as conspiracy theorists
You might find this interesting, I'm reading it at the moment.
sorry about the lighting. the data which has been put together in the book is pretty impressive. I'll post a couple of pages.
Thanks Lepp; all power to revisionist/real historians and here's hoping they avoid getting labelled as conspiracy theorists
lepperochan said:I'll just leave that there for a minute
.....
The brittish Royal family... there's no real comparison. they're Cromwells bitches
......
If you've not done so already, you might like to read Heathcote Williams' book-length investigative poem "Royal Babylon: The Case Against The Monarchy"
(https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29236849-royal-babylon)
It's also narrated on youtube, with picture-montage, under the title
"Royal Babylon: The Criminal Record of the British Monarchy".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIukrdRhnpw
.....
The brittish Royal family... there's no real comparison. they're Cromwells bitches
......
If you've not done so already, you might like to read Heathcote Williams' book-length investigative poem "Royal Babylon: The Case Against The Monarchy"
(https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29236849-royal-babylon)
It's also narrated on youtube, with picture-montage, under the title
"Royal Babylon: The Criminal Record of the British Monarchy".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIukrdRhnpw
Carpe_Noctem said:
Jesus was an anarchist and the Jews killed him after he beat them and turned the money tables over.
I'm going to have to refute that based on what is written ( I mean no one knows because we weren't there ):
Jesus Cleanses the Temple
(Matthew 21:12-17; Mark 11:15-19; Luke 19:45-48)
And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence;make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
Anarchy means no government, no law, and no authority over people or nations. Jesus acknowledged his Father, God: "[M]ake not my Father's house an house of merchandise."
Jesus' message was Love and healing. He came to free the people with a message and was killed for "blasphemy", not anarchy.
Jesus was an anarchist and the Jews killed him after he beat them and turned the money tables over.
I'm going to have to refute that based on what is written ( I mean no one knows because we weren't there ):
Jesus Cleanses the Temple
(Matthew 21:12-17; Mark 11:15-19; Luke 19:45-48)
And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence;make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
Anarchy means no government, no law, and no authority over people or nations. Jesus acknowledged his Father, God: "[M]ake not my Father's house an house of merchandise."
Jesus' message was Love and healing. He came to free the people with a message and was killed for "blasphemy", not anarchy.
Josh said:
Interesting article thank you.
The bit I highlighted whilst reading was the last sentence of what you highlighted:
"I am by no means saying that the Jewish Holocaust was not one of humanity’s darkest hours, but I believe that we must put down our measuring stick of who had it worse."
Sane words, and I hope they go far.
There are many brave Israelis (I admire their stance) who stand in solidarity with Palestinians, especially in the West Bank, and have faced violence from their own kin (settlers).
You are right about the role of religion. From yesterday's Guardian ...
(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/18/these-are-biblical-lands-promised-to-us-jewish-settlers-in-west-bank-hope-gaza-conflict-will-help-their-cause)
... with enough settlers (over 1 million now) who have an implacable belief (ideology) that God gave them a certain piece of turf, and it is their duty is to reclaim it, I can't see a way forward to peaceful co-existence.
Extremists on both sides want 'the other / the enemy' eradicated - and extremists seem to be in charge despite the many other sensible people and brave actions of solidarity.
Indeed. The misinterpretation of religion to be the defining dictate of the land has caused more deaths throughout history regardless of what religion. I was thinking last night how the U.S. is becoming the monster it hated and fled from: The Church of England due to its corruption.
And now, we have the extremists who are acting the exact same way. I'm not saying liberals are perfect. The entire system is corrupt. What I'm saying is that one side is doing it in the name of religion ( right ) and the other in the name of democracy ( left ). The two voices as a whole are definable in their own terms, and the right has adopted an authoritarian view because they feel it's the only path to control their environment.
Interesting article thank you.
The bit I highlighted whilst reading was the last sentence of what you highlighted:
"I am by no means saying that the Jewish Holocaust was not one of humanity’s darkest hours, but I believe that we must put down our measuring stick of who had it worse."
Sane words, and I hope they go far.
There are many brave Israelis (I admire their stance) who stand in solidarity with Palestinians, especially in the West Bank, and have faced violence from their own kin (settlers).
You are right about the role of religion. From yesterday's Guardian ...
(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/18/these-are-biblical-lands-promised-to-us-jewish-settlers-in-west-bank-hope-gaza-conflict-will-help-their-cause)
... with enough settlers (over 1 million now) who have an implacable belief (ideology) that God gave them a certain piece of turf, and it is their duty is to reclaim it, I can't see a way forward to peaceful co-existence.
Extremists on both sides want 'the other / the enemy' eradicated - and extremists seem to be in charge despite the many other sensible people and brave actions of solidarity.
Indeed. The misinterpretation of religion to be the defining dictate of the land has caused more deaths throughout history regardless of what religion. I was thinking last night how the U.S. is becoming the monster it hated and fled from: The Church of England due to its corruption.
And now, we have the extremists who are acting the exact same way. I'm not saying liberals are perfect. The entire system is corrupt. What I'm saying is that one side is doing it in the name of religion ( right ) and the other in the name of democracy ( left ). The two voices as a whole are definable in their own terms, and the right has adopted an authoritarian view because they feel it's the only path to control their environment.
Ahavati said:
I'm going to have to refute that based on what is written ( I mean no one knows because we weren't there ):
Jesus Cleanses the Temple
(Matthew 21:12-17; Mark 11:15-19; Luke 19:45-48)
And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence;make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
Anarchy means no government, no law, and no authority over people or nations. Jesus acknowledged his Father, God: "[M]ake not my Father's house an house of merchandise."
Jesus' message was Love and healing. He came to free the people with a message and was killed for "blasphemy", not anarchy.
A pure anarchist abhors violence. Lots of terms get mislabelled and misappropriated these days. Eg throwing nazi or antisemitic about.
However as the story goes, which none of us happened to be present for.
After Jesus turned the tables over and beat those offenders. He was killed not long after.
The moral of what happens when one opposed the state.
Why are all of our supposed democratic leaders of western society, crying questioning government and its a threat to our very democracy?
I'm going to have to refute that based on what is written ( I mean no one knows because we weren't there ):
Jesus Cleanses the Temple
(Matthew 21:12-17; Mark 11:15-19; Luke 19:45-48)
And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence;make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
Anarchy means no government, no law, and no authority over people or nations. Jesus acknowledged his Father, God: "[M]ake not my Father's house an house of merchandise."
Jesus' message was Love and healing. He came to free the people with a message and was killed for "blasphemy", not anarchy.
A pure anarchist abhors violence. Lots of terms get mislabelled and misappropriated these days. Eg throwing nazi or antisemitic about.
However as the story goes, which none of us happened to be present for.
After Jesus turned the tables over and beat those offenders. He was killed not long after.
The moral of what happens when one opposed the state.
Why are all of our supposed democratic leaders of western society, crying questioning government and its a threat to our very democracy?
Carpe_Noctem said:
A pure anarchist abhors violence.
Which proves my point. Jesus was not an Anarchist. His destruction of the temple was in his Father's ( God's ) name.
Again, the definition of Anarchy means no government, no law, and no authority over people or nations. It's the furthest from Jesus' message. He wholly recognized God as the Father and his commandments as the law, adding another:
“The most important [Commandment],” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” ( Mark 12: 29-31 )
I can't answer for the Democratic leaders of Western society, and frankly, I don't really understand your question. What are you asking?
A pure anarchist abhors violence.
Which proves my point. Jesus was not an Anarchist. His destruction of the temple was in his Father's ( God's ) name.
Again, the definition of Anarchy means no government, no law, and no authority over people or nations. It's the furthest from Jesus' message. He wholly recognized God as the Father and his commandments as the law, adding another:
“The most important [Commandment],” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” ( Mark 12: 29-31 )
I can't answer for the Democratic leaders of Western society, and frankly, I don't really understand your question. What are you asking?
Ahavati said:
Which proves my point. Jesus was not an Anarchist. His destruction of the temple was in his Father's ( God's ) name.
Again, the definition of Anarchy means no government, no law, and no authority over people or nations. It's the furthest from Jesus' message. He wholly recognized God as the Father and his commandments as the law, adding another:
“The most important [Commandment],” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” ( Mark 12: 29-31 )
I can't answer for the Democratic leaders of Western society, and frankly, I don't really understand your question. What are you asking?
This verse more acurately should read "Love your neighbour as part of yourself", which for me emphasises the importance of social and spiritual connectedness - what we do to others we do to ourselves (a statement of fact of how things work) -- and this shifts the balance from merely obeying a command (negative reinforcement) and more towards it's just a sensible thing to do (positive reinforcement).
Regarding anarchy, it's a question of definition. Anarchy has come to mean 'lawlessness and chaos'. It has become a useful enemy-label for authoritarians to throw at anyone who disagrees with them.
But digging a little deeper ...
... 'An' means 'not' --
and 'archon' carries the primary meaning 'primeordial'/very ancient/primitive/thefirst, or 'to begin, to be the first'. It's secondary meaning is 'to lead' and 'to rule' - but someone who leads the way does not necessarily have to rule as well. The 'wise ones' of the past were rarely the executive branch as well.
So we could say that 'anarchy' means "The refusal of being told what to do".
This does not have to lead to lawlessness and chaos IF people en-mass were mature enough to handle differences between themselves. Not an easy task, even within smallish puposeful communities. And given our technologically connected world on a grand scale, laws are needed, if only to agree on which side of the road we should drive
Authoritarians of course believe people are way too stupid to make decuisions for the collective good, so the masses need to be surveilled and told what to do in every minute detail of their lives. And it is this overbearing 'being told what to do with their lives' (much of it technologically structured within culture) that 'anarchists' (including myself) rebel against.
Power is far too centralised, and a much more decentralised socio-political structure would go a long way to people not feeling disenfranchised with how they are governed, and resorting to anarchic tendecies as a protest to try and maintain some sense of self on in an overly-centrally-organised world. ...
... which is perhaps comes full circle to the verse the verse of loving one's neighbour as part of oneself.
I might also add that Nature exudes "self-organising systems" at every level, but this is incompatible with our dear leaders' centralised command-and-control mindsets.
If power were devolved, we would have a much kinder and more engaged world - and 'anarchy' would have found its rightful place.
Which proves my point. Jesus was not an Anarchist. His destruction of the temple was in his Father's ( God's ) name.
Again, the definition of Anarchy means no government, no law, and no authority over people or nations. It's the furthest from Jesus' message. He wholly recognized God as the Father and his commandments as the law, adding another:
“The most important [Commandment],” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” ( Mark 12: 29-31 )
I can't answer for the Democratic leaders of Western society, and frankly, I don't really understand your question. What are you asking?
This verse more acurately should read "Love your neighbour as part of yourself", which for me emphasises the importance of social and spiritual connectedness - what we do to others we do to ourselves (a statement of fact of how things work) -- and this shifts the balance from merely obeying a command (negative reinforcement) and more towards it's just a sensible thing to do (positive reinforcement).
Regarding anarchy, it's a question of definition. Anarchy has come to mean 'lawlessness and chaos'. It has become a useful enemy-label for authoritarians to throw at anyone who disagrees with them.
But digging a little deeper ...
... 'An' means 'not' --
and 'archon' carries the primary meaning 'primeordial'/very ancient/primitive/thefirst, or 'to begin, to be the first'. It's secondary meaning is 'to lead' and 'to rule' - but someone who leads the way does not necessarily have to rule as well. The 'wise ones' of the past were rarely the executive branch as well.
So we could say that 'anarchy' means "The refusal of being told what to do".
This does not have to lead to lawlessness and chaos IF people en-mass were mature enough to handle differences between themselves. Not an easy task, even within smallish puposeful communities. And given our technologically connected world on a grand scale, laws are needed, if only to agree on which side of the road we should drive
Authoritarians of course believe people are way too stupid to make decuisions for the collective good, so the masses need to be surveilled and told what to do in every minute detail of their lives. And it is this overbearing 'being told what to do with their lives' (much of it technologically structured within culture) that 'anarchists' (including myself) rebel against.
Power is far too centralised, and a much more decentralised socio-political structure would go a long way to people not feeling disenfranchised with how they are governed, and resorting to anarchic tendecies as a protest to try and maintain some sense of self on in an overly-centrally-organised world. ...
... which is perhaps comes full circle to the verse the verse of loving one's neighbour as part of oneself.
I might also add that Nature exudes "self-organising systems" at every level, but this is incompatible with our dear leaders' centralised command-and-control mindsets.
If power were devolved, we would have a much kinder and more engaged world - and 'anarchy' would have found its rightful place.
I always enjoy your etymology, Josh.
You're right in that a "commandment" barely leaves wiggle-room, if any at all. It further validates my point to Carpe that Jesus, by virtue of commandments ( law ), was in no way an anarchist. He was acting contrary to the corruption by supping with "sinners" ( biblical term ) and "publicans" rather than the elite of the era. He outwardly condemned the corruption of his Father's word/laws; however, he upheld and believed in their original intent. I'm uncertain what to call him, as even the rebel archetype doesn't fit. Rebels adhere to their own code that conforms to the way they believe the world should ideally work. In this case, Jesus wasn't rebelling to invoke his personal code of ethics. Rather, he advocated against the hypocrisy of corruption of the moral code set forth by his Father.
Jesus wasn't against "being told what to do", but, rather, those who had corrupted the moral code telling others what to do.
I concur with your utopian vision: A world where money ( the root of all evil ) wasn't needed due to a return to bartering that everyone had exactly what they needed. I remember doctor's accepting pies or homemade meals for home visits. Even chickens in some cases. Community gardens instead of manicured lawns would be a start. I knew man who, for decades, would put all the extra garden vegetables he couldn't eat in a basket beside the road for anyone who needed them. One of the saddest things I saw was his garden growing over after he passed on.
As far as the commandments, I view them as a guideline to moral ethics. But I've always preferred Universal Laws myself: http://www.inspiritualservice.com/universal-laws
You're right in that a "commandment" barely leaves wiggle-room, if any at all. It further validates my point to Carpe that Jesus, by virtue of commandments ( law ), was in no way an anarchist. He was acting contrary to the corruption by supping with "sinners" ( biblical term ) and "publicans" rather than the elite of the era. He outwardly condemned the corruption of his Father's word/laws; however, he upheld and believed in their original intent. I'm uncertain what to call him, as even the rebel archetype doesn't fit. Rebels adhere to their own code that conforms to the way they believe the world should ideally work. In this case, Jesus wasn't rebelling to invoke his personal code of ethics. Rather, he advocated against the hypocrisy of corruption of the moral code set forth by his Father.
Jesus wasn't against "being told what to do", but, rather, those who had corrupted the moral code telling others what to do.
I concur with your utopian vision: A world where money ( the root of all evil ) wasn't needed due to a return to bartering that everyone had exactly what they needed. I remember doctor's accepting pies or homemade meals for home visits. Even chickens in some cases. Community gardens instead of manicured lawns would be a start. I knew man who, for decades, would put all the extra garden vegetables he couldn't eat in a basket beside the road for anyone who needed them. One of the saddest things I saw was his garden growing over after he passed on.
As far as the commandments, I view them as a guideline to moral ethics. But I've always preferred Universal Laws myself: http://www.inspiritualservice.com/universal-laws
Ahavati said:I always enjoy your etymology, Josh.
You're right in that a "commandment" barely leaves wiggle-room, if any at all. It further validates my point to Carpe that Jesus, by virtue of commandments ( law ), was in no way an anarchist. He was acting contrary to the corruption by supping with "sinners" ( biblical term ) and "publicans" rather than the elite of the era. He outwardly condemned the corruption of his Father's word/laws; however, he upheld and believed in their original intent. I'm uncertain what to call him, as even the rebel archetype doesn't fit. Rebels adhere to their own code that conforms to the way they believe the world should ideally work. In this case, Jesus wasn't rebelling to invoke his personal code of ethics. Rather, he advocated against the hypocrisy of corruption of the moral code set forth by his Father.
Jesus wasn't against "being told what to do", but, rather, those who had corrupted the moral code telling others what to do.
I concur with your utopian vision: A world where money ( the root of all evil ) wasn't needed due to a return to bartering that everyone had exactly what they needed. I remember doctor's accepting pies or homemade meals for home visits. Even chickens in some cases. Community gardens instead of manicured lawns would be a start. I knew man who, for decades, would put all the extra garden vegetables he couldn't eat in a basket beside the road for anyone who needed them. One of the saddest things I saw was his garden growing over after he passed on.
As far as the commandments, I view them as a guideline to moral ethics. But I've always preferred Universal Laws myself: http://www.inspiritualservice.com/universal-laws
Thank you for the link to the 12 Universal Laws - a helpful reminder.
I think it's the love of money that's the root of all evil - but anyway, it's good to experience things/('commerce') happening with no money involved. We have a regular food-swop here where people bring surplus and leave/take whatever they want. Of all the groups of people I mix with, this group seems to be the most on-the-same-pageness. I think the 'no-money' aspect of the swops help shape a ceraitn mindset of trust and acceptance. It gives me hope.
Ideally Laws have a basis in Universal Laws and need to be respected but with so many "illegal/Lobby-funded laws" being put in place, creating unfairness and asymmetrical power-stuctures, it's not surprising there is a growing rebellion against 'the rule of law' in general.
One of my main guidance take-homes from the bible is Matt 7:16, "By their fruit shall ye know them".
You're right in that a "commandment" barely leaves wiggle-room, if any at all. It further validates my point to Carpe that Jesus, by virtue of commandments ( law ), was in no way an anarchist. He was acting contrary to the corruption by supping with "sinners" ( biblical term ) and "publicans" rather than the elite of the era. He outwardly condemned the corruption of his Father's word/laws; however, he upheld and believed in their original intent. I'm uncertain what to call him, as even the rebel archetype doesn't fit. Rebels adhere to their own code that conforms to the way they believe the world should ideally work. In this case, Jesus wasn't rebelling to invoke his personal code of ethics. Rather, he advocated against the hypocrisy of corruption of the moral code set forth by his Father.
Jesus wasn't against "being told what to do", but, rather, those who had corrupted the moral code telling others what to do.
I concur with your utopian vision: A world where money ( the root of all evil ) wasn't needed due to a return to bartering that everyone had exactly what they needed. I remember doctor's accepting pies or homemade meals for home visits. Even chickens in some cases. Community gardens instead of manicured lawns would be a start. I knew man who, for decades, would put all the extra garden vegetables he couldn't eat in a basket beside the road for anyone who needed them. One of the saddest things I saw was his garden growing over after he passed on.
As far as the commandments, I view them as a guideline to moral ethics. But I've always preferred Universal Laws myself: http://www.inspiritualservice.com/universal-laws
Thank you for the link to the 12 Universal Laws - a helpful reminder.
I think it's the love of money that's the root of all evil - but anyway, it's good to experience things/('commerce') happening with no money involved. We have a regular food-swop here where people bring surplus and leave/take whatever they want. Of all the groups of people I mix with, this group seems to be the most on-the-same-pageness. I think the 'no-money' aspect of the swops help shape a ceraitn mindset of trust and acceptance. It gives me hope.
Ideally Laws have a basis in Universal Laws and need to be respected but with so many "illegal/Lobby-funded laws" being put in place, creating unfairness and asymmetrical power-stuctures, it's not surprising there is a growing rebellion against 'the rule of law' in general.
One of my main guidance take-homes from the bible is Matt 7:16, "By their fruit shall ye know them".
You're welcome for the 12 Laws. And that scripture is one of my favorites as well.
It's definitely "the love of money":
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs ( Timothy 6:10 ).
The "love of" becomes a master, and as Matthew, 6:24 says: “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money."
Getting back to the heart of the topic of this thread, it's the very love of money, oil, possessions, control, and desecration of the scriptures that has corrupted our "system" and created a quagmire when it comes to intervention against Israel.
It's definitely "the love of money":
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs ( Timothy 6:10 ).
The "love of" becomes a master, and as Matthew, 6:24 says: “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money."
Getting back to the heart of the topic of this thread, it's the very love of money, oil, possessions, control, and desecration of the scriptures that has corrupted our "system" and created a quagmire when it comes to intervention against Israel.
