I don't care what you call or count yourself as, a Messianic Gentile, an Evangelical Christian or something else... I say you are a Christian Zionist.
The state of Israel can be praised or criticized; it's in a nadir
Did you know the word nadir has Arabic roots? the source of nadir is na?hir, meaning "opposite", that is the opposite of the zenith. (The word zenith itself is a modification of another Arabic word that means "the way over one's head.")
Interesting choice of words for the artificial nation mostly owned by a satanist family, the Rothschilds, committing genocide of Arab Palestinians. Right in front of our eyes.
Well, it's not very useful to answer questions if you're going to reject self-identification and claim to define all the terms, is it? What do you think I do that's Zionist? I don't have to have the same views as Scott Lively, though I don't think he's that Zionist either. Are you just larping to get me to criticize Israel? Why would Israel be such an important issue to you? You know we have a lot of people here larping to make certain things (usually Israel) look good indirectly by making their opponents look really stupid, right?
I cited people because they say reasonable things; you rejected the people without commenting on the merits of the reasonable things. If I had said the same things without quoting the people you might have interacted with the reason, but instead I thought it important to quote my sources, and you showed an ad hominem debate style twice in a row.
I agree with you that Christian Zionists, defined as favoritists toward the Jews and Israel, have been an important driver in creating Israel, so I didn't comment on it. But you act as if I didn't answer the question of why I'm a supporter when I'm not a "supporter" of the state. It stands or falls on its actions like any other nation, and I said (happening to select an Arabic word, for which I don't follow your tangent at all) that it's actions are in a low point lately (you seem not to have noticed the definition when you quoted the etymology).
So if your plan is to double down with wifebeater fallacies, refusal to agree on definitions, and ad hominems, I'm not sure this board is the place for you. I asked you what you believe about Jesus and your answer amounts to "not that" but you cannot give a positive overview of what you're committed to. A lot of people here are committed to seek the truth at all costs, and some decline to make that commitment and they wind up trusting themselves while believing they trust nobody, or committing some other basic logic contradiction. But if your arguments are full of logical fallacies why would I seek evidence that your foundational position isn't a contradiction?
I asked you what you believe about Jesus and your answer amounts to "not that"
I tried to avoid discussing Jesus because I'm convinced we have two different views on this. Very well, I'll share this with you, but I'm not sure how helpful it will be.
Let's first talk about the historical Jesus, because indeed we have evidence that this man existed.
Two billion people believe Jesus is God (you included), not a prophet, not a teacher, but literally God in human form. But, IMO, the Jesus that billions worship today is not the Jesus who actually lived and taught in1st century Palestine. That gap between the historical Jesus and the religious icon reveals something profound about how power works and how empires shape narratives. It was exactly the same 2,000 years ago as it is today.
Scholars are also reasonably certain Jesus studied under John the Baptist, an apocalyptic preacher who taught that God was coming to destroy evil and establish his kingdom. Jesus was one of his disciples but at some point in time broke away and started his own following. And here I think is where the extraordinary happened. To me the baptism of Jesus, the ritual purification of Jesus with water by John the Baptist allowed Jesus to awaken the inner self. Similar in many ways to Buddha’s enlightenment, but not the same. All the Buddha recognized was the nature of his being. Same with Jesus, but more, at that moment he was able to merge his consciousness with the consciousness of the Universe. In that moment Jesus knew what John the Baptist didn't.
I looked into the historical Jesus and I don't want any other. If the historical Jesus were not God in the flesh, I'd be wrong, and I'd want to know I was wrong. I don't see anything directly wrong with your last paragraph, although it neglects the phase that happened before the baptism which I don't believe in neglecting. Anyway, so we're looking at a historical Jesus who merged his consciousness with the consciousness of the universe over a certain period of time; please go on.
Add: All told, in one sense Jesus never claimed to be God on his own. In another sense there's evidence Jesus made lots of divine claims typical for being one with (God the Father) the consciousness of the universe, and so people can twist the meaning of "claiming to be God" on both sides of the question. I'm pretty comfortable with the meaning I understand about the divine claims and I love to hear new takes on them.
If the historical Jesus were not God in the flesh, I'd be wrong, and I'd want to know I was wrong
And if I agree with you, we'd both be wrong. There is a divine spark within all of us. The jews claim this divine spark or spark of the Moshiach, as they call it, gives them alone the power to be united to God. That's why they rejected Jesus, because his God and their God was not one and the same. That's where they're wrong, they're worshiping to wrong God. But, it feels good for them since this is the creator of everything material, including MONEY.
Jesus isn't saying "follow me" or "worship me." He's saying find your own divine spark and each one of us must discover it. That's what we should focus on, not the religious icon called Jesus.
Jesus who merged his consciousness with the consciousness of the universe over a certain period of time; please go on
We must do the same thing as Jesus did. He showed us the way, we must follow. But, no one can do this work for you. You must do it yourself.
"I found all of them intoxicated. I found none of them thirsty. For empty they came into the world, and empty too they seek to leave the world."
People are drunk on wealth, power, status, and pleasure. They came with nothing and will leave with nothing, yet they chase illusions. Eventually they'll sober up and realize what's truly important.
All told, in one sense Jesus never claimed to be God on his own
That's right Jesus never claimed to be God. Because he knew very well the people in Judea were worshiping a lesser God. You probably know this, according to the gnostics this God is the Demiurge, or Yaldabaoth, who is identified as the creator of the physical universe, asserting that he single-handedly established the world. This Demiurge is the creator of this evil world, the God of the jews; "for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, inflicting the punishment of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me". The Demiurge is also responsible for the flood of Noah, or the great flood present in every civilization.
When Jesus declared, “I and the Father are one,” he was not claiming to be Yahweh, he was talking about the consciousness of the universe, for gnostics this is the Monad.
But, before you label me a gnostic, I will tell you I believe the gnostics don't go all the way either. They also stop short with their revelations. Jesus taught that a divine spark exists within each person, a responsibility to let it grow, bringing happiness and connection with the divine. But this freedom comes with a burden: individual responsibility, mistakes, and suffering. What about those who lack the courage to follow this path? What about millions who simply want to live normal lives without the weight of freedom?
I don't care what you call or count yourself as, a Messianic Gentile, an Evangelical Christian or something else... I say you are a Christian Zionist.
Did you know the word nadir has Arabic roots? the source of nadir is na?hir, meaning "opposite", that is the opposite of the zenith. (The word zenith itself is a modification of another Arabic word that means "the way over one's head.")
Interesting choice of words for the artificial nation mostly owned by a satanist family, the Rothschilds, committing genocide of Arab Palestinians. Right in front of our eyes.
Why would I care what another satanist jew, his real name is Robert Allen Zimmerman, has to say?
Also I don't care what Ann Coulter has to say. Ann Coulter is a rabid Zionist, and neocon heroine. She is just another "useful idiot", according to Netanyahu. "I don't believe the Jewish state and modern Zionism would have been possible without Christian Zionists." - Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu
Having said all that, what is your answer to my question?
Well, it's not very useful to answer questions if you're going to reject self-identification and claim to define all the terms, is it? What do you think I do that's Zionist? I don't have to have the same views as Scott Lively, though I don't think he's that Zionist either. Are you just larping to get me to criticize Israel? Why would Israel be such an important issue to you? You know we have a lot of people here larping to make certain things (usually Israel) look good indirectly by making their opponents look really stupid, right?
I cited people because they say reasonable things; you rejected the people without commenting on the merits of the reasonable things. If I had said the same things without quoting the people you might have interacted with the reason, but instead I thought it important to quote my sources, and you showed an ad hominem debate style twice in a row.
I agree with you that Christian Zionists, defined as favoritists toward the Jews and Israel, have been an important driver in creating Israel, so I didn't comment on it. But you act as if I didn't answer the question of why I'm a supporter when I'm not a "supporter" of the state. It stands or falls on its actions like any other nation, and I said (happening to select an Arabic word, for which I don't follow your tangent at all) that it's actions are in a low point lately (you seem not to have noticed the definition when you quoted the etymology).
So if your plan is to double down with wifebeater fallacies, refusal to agree on definitions, and ad hominems, I'm not sure this board is the place for you. I asked you what you believe about Jesus and your answer amounts to "not that" but you cannot give a positive overview of what you're committed to. A lot of people here are committed to seek the truth at all costs, and some decline to make that commitment and they wind up trusting themselves while believing they trust nobody, or committing some other basic logic contradiction. But if your arguments are full of logical fallacies why would I seek evidence that your foundational position isn't a contradiction?
I tried to avoid discussing Jesus because I'm convinced we have two different views on this. Very well, I'll share this with you, but I'm not sure how helpful it will be.
Let's first talk about the historical Jesus, because indeed we have evidence that this man existed.
Two billion people believe Jesus is God (you included), not a prophet, not a teacher, but literally God in human form. But, IMO, the Jesus that billions worship today is not the Jesus who actually lived and taught in1st century Palestine. That gap between the historical Jesus and the religious icon reveals something profound about how power works and how empires shape narratives. It was exactly the same 2,000 years ago as it is today.
Scholars are also reasonably certain Jesus studied under John the Baptist, an apocalyptic preacher who taught that God was coming to destroy evil and establish his kingdom. Jesus was one of his disciples but at some point in time broke away and started his own following. And here I think is where the extraordinary happened. To me the baptism of Jesus, the ritual purification of Jesus with water by John the Baptist allowed Jesus to awaken the inner self. Similar in many ways to Buddha’s enlightenment, but not the same. All the Buddha recognized was the nature of his being. Same with Jesus, but more, at that moment he was able to merge his consciousness with the consciousness of the Universe. In that moment Jesus knew what John the Baptist didn't.
I looked into the historical Jesus and I don't want any other. If the historical Jesus were not God in the flesh, I'd be wrong, and I'd want to know I was wrong. I don't see anything directly wrong with your last paragraph, although it neglects the phase that happened before the baptism which I don't believe in neglecting. Anyway, so we're looking at a historical Jesus who merged his consciousness with the consciousness of the universe over a certain period of time; please go on.
Add: All told, in one sense Jesus never claimed to be God on his own. In another sense there's evidence Jesus made lots of divine claims typical for being one with (God the Father) the consciousness of the universe, and so people can twist the meaning of "claiming to be God" on both sides of the question. I'm pretty comfortable with the meaning I understand about the divine claims and I love to hear new takes on them.
And if I agree with you, we'd both be wrong. There is a divine spark within all of us. The jews claim this divine spark or spark of the Moshiach, as they call it, gives them alone the power to be united to God. That's why they rejected Jesus, because his God and their God was not one and the same. That's where they're wrong, they're worshiping to wrong God. But, it feels good for them since this is the creator of everything material, including MONEY.
Jesus isn't saying "follow me" or "worship me." He's saying find your own divine spark and each one of us must discover it. That's what we should focus on, not the religious icon called Jesus.
We must do the same thing as Jesus did. He showed us the way, we must follow. But, no one can do this work for you. You must do it yourself.
"I found all of them intoxicated. I found none of them thirsty. For empty they came into the world, and empty too they seek to leave the world."
People are drunk on wealth, power, status, and pleasure. They came with nothing and will leave with nothing, yet they chase illusions. Eventually they'll sober up and realize what's truly important.
That's right Jesus never claimed to be God. Because he knew very well the people in Judea were worshiping a lesser God. You probably know this, according to the gnostics this God is the Demiurge, or Yaldabaoth, who is identified as the creator of the physical universe, asserting that he single-handedly established the world. This Demiurge is the creator of this evil world, the God of the jews; "for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, inflicting the punishment of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me". The Demiurge is also responsible for the flood of Noah, or the great flood present in every civilization.
When Jesus declared, “I and the Father are one,” he was not claiming to be Yahweh, he was talking about the consciousness of the universe, for gnostics this is the Monad.
But, before you label me a gnostic, I will tell you I believe the gnostics don't go all the way either. They also stop short with their revelations. Jesus taught that a divine spark exists within each person, a responsibility to let it grow, bringing happiness and connection with the divine. But this freedom comes with a burden: individual responsibility, mistakes, and suffering. What about those who lack the courage to follow this path? What about millions who simply want to live normal lives without the weight of freedom?