Belinda wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2024, 6:49 am
Gertie wrote: ↑March 21st, 2024, 5:11 pm
Belinda wrote: ↑March 21st, 2024, 10:32 am
Gertie wrote: ↑March 19th, 2024, 12:49 pm
Belindi
We have a pretty good history (at least partly mythologised) of the Jewish people as an ethno-religious tribal group. I don't know how common it was in the times of the ancient Hebrews, but they had a sad record of being invaded and occupied, or exiled and enslaved by their invaders. They did a bit of that themselves too. Their ''Promised Land'' was Canaan, it was promised by Yahweh to Abraham and his descendents, and it's where Moses led the Jews to after exile in Egypt.
Jerusalem was made the site for Solomon's original Temple, which contained the Holy of Holies, a sort of holiday home for Yahweh's visits to his Chosen People. Babylonian invaders destroyed Solomon's Temple, but it was re-built, and the Second Temple was at the centre of the great Jewish religious festivals - like how Jesus came to Jerusalem for the Passover and turned over the outer Temple money-lenders' tables causing a ruckus- the rest as they say, is Christianity. The Romans destroyed the Second Temple during a rebellion a bit after Jesus' time (around the time of the first Gospel, Mark's, in AD 70), causing yet more dispersion, but the ruins are still venerated. Anyway, one way or another the Jewish diaspora made them an ethno-religion of immigrants dispersed all over the place. And they were often treated with suspicion and animosity as immigrants still are, with the extra burden of being the 'Christ killers'.
Lots of myths grew up about Jews as the immigrant 'other', like the medieval 'Blood Libel' that they sacrificed Christian babies in rituals, and the cursed Wandering Jew. And there are more trendy ones like the Jewish conspiracy to rule the world, going back at least to The Protocols of Zion. And today when you see neo-fascists and anti-immigrant marchers chanting 'They will not replace us' and 'Blood and Soil' they're directly mimicking Nazi nationalists.
Zionism is understandable given that history, and finally the genocidal displacement of WWII led to Britain deciding to give a chunk of modern day Palestine to the Jews. Like you do. Jerusalem is still the holiest place on earth for Christians and Jews, and Mohammed has some important connection too, and the sacred Dome of the Rock Islamic temple was built on the old Hebrew Temple Mount (rude!).
So Jerusalem in particular is a religious as well as territorial hot potato. You also have a bunch of evangelical Christians who've convinced themselves that it's prophesied Jesus's second coming can only happen when the Jews re-occupy the Promised Land. These are Christian Zionists. I don't know how much sway they have in American politics, but it doesn't help. Biden is a disgrace in his own right. And Trump moved the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as an FU to Palestine, as was his Jewish son-in-law's proposed 'peace plan'. The same bloke now in the midst of a genocide -
''Jared Kushner has praised the “very valuable” potential of Gaza’s “waterfront property” and suggested Israel should remove civilians while it “cleans up” the strip.
The former property dealer, married to Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka, made the comments in an interview at Harvard University on 8 March.''
- Guardian.
Thanks Gertie. I read the article several times.
Hi Belindi, just to clarify that's my own attempt at a relevant potted history - not to be taken as 'gospel' 
. I studied the Old Testament and have retained an interest in theology. Only the last two lines about the ghoul Kushner are quoted from The Guardian. (Ironically The Guardian site often deletes my comments on the current genocide!).
I understand from the article how the Promised Land myth pertains to Judaism and that the myth is justifiable for Jews by Jahweh's propensity for helping Jews to settle and prosper. I also understand that not every Christian nation is bent on colonising foreign lands.
Right. I'd say by and large trade has superceded invasion as an obviously better way of getting your hands on other peeps' resources, and that if you have trade dominance you can 'peacefully' exploit. The Middle East sits on a ton of oil, which keeps dominant interests greedy eyes' fixed on it. Giant multinationals are the new colonisers. When 'we' invaded Iraq, the idea was it would be ''settled'' by our corporations.
However I still think that established sects of Judeo-Christianity such as the Church of England, and RC , are proponents of colonialism whenever colonialism would be to the advantage of the establishment.
How do you mean?
Moreover I think that we could fit statistics of established religious affiliation , political afilliation, and preferred moral system into a single mind set which pertains to conservative political establishments.
I think you're broadly right.
Thanks for your elucidation. I cannot imagine why The Guardian would delete your comments.
For a while at least,any comment using the words ''ethnic cleansing'', ''anti-semitism'' or ''genocide'' seemed to be auto-deleted. The Guardian is sensitive to racism, and especially anti-semitism since it went gung-ho after Corbyn for that like the rest of the media. Of course now with what's going on in Gaza becoming more obscene by the day, it's getting increasingly harder to disappear such terms and opinions about Israel. But the attitude that it's a worse crime to say something which could be interpreted as anti-semitic than to silently watch the mass slaughter of civilians, including thousands of children, is out there. Which suits Israel of course.
What I mean by my second last paragraph is unclear because my thinking on the topic is a little muddled, and that is why I read others' posts, to try to find ideas that make sense to me.
The connection between my last paragraph and the penultimate one is that Judeo-Christianity is strongly doctrinal especially its moral code.['quote]
I'd say Judaism (and Islam from the little I know) more-so in principle than Christianity. Paul's version of Christianity, which largely won the day, moves away from endless Judaic laws and prescription, to a relationship with Jesus as saviour. Salvation by Faith in the resurrection, rather than through 'moral' Works/Law. But when it comes to Church history, that's a different matter. With Jesus's prophesied imminent transformational institution of Yahweh's Final Judgement and the institution of Yahweh's Kingdom on Earth ruled from Jerusalem never showing up, they've fallen back on interpretation and doctrine. In the end it's always down to the people who run and constitute the religions, and doctrine becomes the religion.
Doctrines can be and are interpreted liberally or conservatively , and the several interpretations are reflected in the various religious dogmas of the different sects. Insofar as I'm a follower of Jesus of Nazareth I interpret the Gospels liberally , bearing in mind that Jesus of Nazareth was a human being not a supernatural god. So people today fall into one of two broad categories: The followers of old and often outworn traditions, or dissenters to old traditions i.e. liberals and pragmatists.
These two categories of moral mind sets are reflected by political parties and their respective home and foreign policies.
Ah I'm with you now. Yes I'd agree that there tend to be certain broad dispositions where-by you can make a pretty good guess that if someone is dispositionally religiously conservative they'll tend to be socially conservative too, and drawn to Right leaning politics. And vice-versa. My view of Jesus largely fits my own dispositions too
and it boggles my mind how people get some interpretations. That room for interpretation is part of what makes for a successful, lasting religion I suppose.
By the way, is it true that in the USA there is no proper Labour party , and US Democrats are equivalent to UK Conservatives?
Historically I think so. But I'd say the same for the UK at the mo. Since Clinton and Blair came up with their pragmatic centrist Third Way doctrine the voting choice in both countries has pretty much become a failing neo-con status quo or an ever-more radical right. There looked to be a moment when Corbyn and Sanders could have offered a real Leftist alternative, but both were effectively stomped out by their own parties, as much as the other vested interests which they threatened. Now we're left with defending the status quo again, which won't hold long term imo, while the Far Right continues its rise across the wealthy west. The nationalist UK Reform party, which is becoming mainstream, isn't much different to the ''The Jews will not Replace us!'' neo-fascists.
What do you think?
Referring to your reply to me regarding trade. Can we accept that trade brings peace as much as it brings exploitation? What is it exactly about multi -national corporations that is 'unchristianly' ?
Yep. Trade can be ethical or exploitative, but it beats invasion.
I didn't say multinationals are unChristianly, I said they've largely replaced colonisation as a way of aquiring the Others' resources. I'm on dodgy ground here but my view is multinationals tend to get to be multinationals often through under-cutting competitors and using their financial power to exploit weaker workforces and influence governments. Like powerful trading blocs use deals and tariffs to exploit weaker nations. It's better than armed colonisation of course, but 'free-marketism' is essentially Might makes Right. Now globalisation and emerging blocs are threatening the hegemony the rich 'west' had. We're in ''interesting times'', and we're seeing how wealthy 'western' nations are responding in real time.
Is there a modern interpretation of the story of Jesus and the money changers in the Temple and their misuse of traditional Jewish temple behaviour ? I admire Jesus for his initiative to clean up traditional Judaism when some Jews profiteered from the Roman occupation.
There are always interpretations! From did it happen at all, to it being an accurate account which was a significant step towards execution, resurrection and all that entails. But you always have to bear in mind the people writing the gospels had a very different world view to ours, had their own proseletysing mission, and a way of telling stories which fit into (and was 'credentialled' by) allusions to historical and theological context. The money-changer story is in all four gospels, so there's a good chance something like that happened imo. But what the gospel writers hoped people will get from the story will be part of their overall message about who Jesus was and his life and death meant theologically, rather than social commentary.
Having said that Liberation Theology takes this approach seriously as relevant to the here-and-now.
The connection between the political situation in Palestine at the time of Jesus, and the exploitation of peoples in modern times is not that Jews are all guilty but that some people of all ethnicities are not attached to the Golden Rule.
Absolutely.
A version of the Golden Rule is found in Leviticus btw, along with all the shellfish eating, sacrifice making, menstruating Sabbath resting, etc stuff. And Jesus is reported as saying “'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: 'Love your neighbor as yourself. ' The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.” (Tho 'Love your neighbour/friend' would likely have meant fellow Jew to them then).