#THE CORNERSTONES OF JUDAISM | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

fairuzfan · 1 month

Note

“Temple denialism” as a concept, is made up anon and lacks any coherent internal logic. Why do you think the mosque was built there specifically? Randomly? Do you think the muslims who built it, muslims who acknowledge in their holiest book that their religion is a continuation of Judaism and Christianity, were simply unaware of its religious value? That they picked a spot by random? Absolutely 0 Palestinians meaningfully deny that the temple once stood there. What Palestinians deny and refute is the idea that because an ancient structure once stood there prior to al Aqsa, that it is justification enough for the demolition of their cultural heritage and the erosion of their rights that always follows, which is exactly what every Israeli politician who is rhetorically fixated on the Temple Mount explicitly intends to do.

‘Temple denialism’ is a buzzword intended to illicit the familiar emotional reaction one gets when they encounter atrocity denialism by using disingenuous framing to make them appear comparable. Just because you can google it and get results does not make it any less made up. ‘Temple denialism’ as a framework for discussing Palestinian resistance to cultural genocide is a product of the fact that the demolition of al-Aqsa is a cornerstone goal of right-wing Israeli politics and intends to smear Palestinians as bigots for resisting this. It does not describe a real phenomenon that exists.

As I was looking into denialism I realized they only cite like 2 Palestinians, Arafat and the current Palestinian president that no one likes.

Now I'm not sure islamically why they chose that site.... I can't speak to it. Prophet Muhammad is believed to have ascended up to heaven to speak to God from there actually, which is why it's the third holiest site in Islam. I believe that's the reason AlAqsa was built there... but I don't want to say for certain.

But yes you're completely right, it's intended to erode Palestinian nationhood and also militarize the rest of Palestine. For us, AlAqsa is the last symbol of nationhood and you can't deny that if Israelis were allowed in there, it would become a highly militarized zone.

People always bring up the ummayad dynasty as a way to deligitimize Palestinian ties — as if the concept of Palestine started then but that's completely ahistorical. Palestine was a thing BEFORE Islam and arabization even. Palestine has been a concept for millenia (if you read Palestine: a 4000 year history, this discusses this more) and its the intent to enact the final stages of settler colonialism by denying the concept of Palestine through the settlement of AlAqsa. I think it's a shallow analysis to say "what does the ibrahimi mosque have to do with anything" but Ibrahimi mosque is also one of the most important mosques in Islam and now Muslims are barely allowed there. Many believe it's the template for what they want to do in AlAqsa.

There's more but like, it does feel like saying "Well Muslims built AlAqsa on Temple Mount. It's their fault we want to demolish it." But then ignore the fact that most Islamic and Christian places of worship are essentially confiscated from Palestinians and their existence as Palestinians is criminalized even in their own homes, as theyre under threat of being arrested in the middle of the night. And there's not the same level of outrage for basic apartheid laws. In my opinion, you should be more concerned with that than the one place Israelis are not allowed.

130 notes · View notes

unbidden-yidden · 1 year

Text

Do we all need a refresher on tochecha? I think that the last several days of internet have shown me that perhaps we all might.

Here's an excellent article from Rabbi Freedman of Rodeph Shalom:

Tochecha: How We Rebuke

Picture the scene: The Israelites have been wandering for 40 years in the desert and are finally on the banks of the Jordan river just mere miles from the Holy Land. Moses, knowing that his time as their leader is coming to end, offers one final speech to his people. This not-so-short speech, which is basically the entire book of Deuteronomy, is a look back at their shared history and words of advice for their future. Specifically in this first portion of Deuteronomy, D’varim, Moses does not mince words and offers a harsh rebuke of his people. He says:

…you rebelled against the command of your God. You grumbled in your tents… I said to you, “Do not be terrified; do not be afraid…your God, who is going before you, will fight for you, as God did for you in Egypt…” In spite of this, you did not trust in your God, and when God heard what you said, God was angry and solemnly swore that no one from this evil generation shall see the good land I swore to give your ancestors… And because of you God became angry with me also and said, “You shall not enter it, either.

We have name for this type of unsolicited advice in Judaism – tochecha. Literally, tochecha is a reproof or a rebuke, a spoken frankness that reveals a fixable flaw. The purpose of giving a tochecha is to point out an important truth that someone just seems to keep missing. It is one of Judaism’s most spiritual practices, not to be dished out carelessly or in anger, but with genuine concern for another human being.

In the case of Moses and the Israelites, the tochecha from Moses is related to people’s lack of faith in God. Moses, seemingly coming from a place of love, is worried that if they continue to grumble, and fear, and fail to have faith, then it will not end well for the Israelites; especially without Moses to have their back as has throughout the journey. Moses knows he will no longer be there to help his people and so this final speech, this final rebuke, is an act of love.

Tochecha — the art of giving and receiving honest feedback or rebuke — is part of the biblical formula for sustaining friendships and relationships. According to the talmudic rabbis, it is an integral part of love; without tochecha, love cannot endure. (Bereshit Raba 54:3) I see evidence of this every day while counselling wedding couples. Those who are skilled at giving and receiving feedback are able to sustain healthy relationships over the long term, while those who lack such skills are ill-equipped to deal with relationship challenges when they arise. Tochecha requires great integrity and impeccable communication skills. It also requires the use of an array of psychological capacities and virtues, including humility, empathy, mindfulness, courage, non-defensiveness, and integration. While highly evolved individuals welcome tochecha as an opportunity for self-improvement, most people defend against having their shortcomings pointed out to them, and they will employ a range of psychological defenses, including denial and projection, to protect themselves from the pain of reproof. According to Estelle Frankel, a psychotherapist and Jewish educator, we increase the likelihood that our words will be heard by paying attention to three things: our timing, tone, and intention.

Timing: The rabbis teach that just as it is a mitzvah to offer words of tochecha when our words are likely to be heard, it is a mitzvah to stay silent when our words will not be heard. (Yevamot 65) Before speaking, we need to be mindful of our own emotional state as well as that of the listener. If we are emotionally triggered or angry, or notice that the listener is in a state of agitation, it is better to wait for a more opportune time — one that is mutually agreed upon.

Tone: A voice that is angry, disdainful, blaming, or judgmental can undermine our message. It is better to communicate tochecha with humility and empathy. Remembering that we are all flawed and that we all possess the capacity for wrongdoing is key. When possible, offer feedback and insight as an equally imperfect individual — no better or worse than anyone else. As it says in Pirkei Avot (Chapter 2, Mishnah 5), “Do not judge your neighbors until you have stood in their place.”

Intention: Tochecha is not simply a matter of venting; rather, it involves a conscious effort to heal a breach in a relationship or to help others to awaken to their spiritual and moral deficits. Tochecha is most effective when we make use of our psychological capacity for integration — the ability to see ourselves and others as whole beings with strengths and weaknesses, virtues and vices. With integration, we do not define people by their mistakes and flaws; rather, we point out specific criticisms at the same time that we remember the person’s essential goodness. When giving tochecha, it is helpful to express our loving concern, respect, and appreciation alongside any critique. Doing so reduces defensiveness and any sense that the criticism is an assault on the individual’s character.

Looking back now upon Moses’ words of rebuke in this chapter, we find that perhaps he could have done it a bit better. One of the amazing aspects of our tradition is that our prophets are not perfect and that we actually learn quite a bit from their failings. Moses’ tone seems overly harsh and the setting perhaps not ideal. In addition, I think there is one more major flaw in Moses’ rebuke.

The Baal Shem Tov (c.1698-1760), the founder of Chasidism, taught that if we see another person doing something ugly, we should meditate on the presence of that same ugliness in ourselves. He writes that we should, “know that it is one of God’s mercies that God brought this sight before our eyes in order to remind us of that our own faults, so as to bring us back in repentance…” He then gives examples such as, “if you saw someone desecrating Shabbat, or desecrating God’s name some other way, you should examine your own deeds and you will certainly find among them desecration of the Shabbat and cursing God’s name.”

According to the Baal Shem Tov sometimes when we judge others about a particular character fault, we might actually be subconsciously critiquing a character fault of our own. Since we’re uncomfortable doing a self-critique because it hurts too much, yet at the same time we don’t like that aspect of ourselves, we “project” that unwanted character trait onto another individual and critique the other person—which is a much more comfortable thing to do. What the Baal Shem Tov is asking us to do is to be aware that we might subconsciously do this, and to focus our critique inward instead.

Moses is near the end of his life, knows he won’t be going into the land and is working through some issues – trying to come to terms with his own failings and thus projecting them on others. Yes, the people had anger issues, trust issues and complained a lot during the journey. But so did Moses! Moses claims that he won’t be allowed in the land because of the people’s sin. Here Moses is failing to see his own flaws and projecting them on his people.

When we practice tochecha, who are we doing it for? To what degree do we see our own failings in our loved ones? It is not always so easy in the moment but we most constantly ask ourselves before giving criticism, who is this for? Is the timing and tone right? What are my intentions? Will this person actually listen? How can I give feedback in the most thoughtful, least humiliating way?

I’ll end with a short story about the famous 19th century rabbi, Israel Kagan, also known as the Chofetz Chayim, which illustrates one possible, non-shaming way to give tochecha. A student at the yeshiva was caught smoking on the Shabbat. When he was called into the Chofetz Chayim’s office, he anticipated being harshly rebuked. Instead, the old rabbi took the young man’s hands into his own and gazed into his eyes with loving concern and sorrow. A tear fell from the rabbi’s eyes, landing on the student’s hand as he uttered three words: “Shabbos, Shabbos HaKodesh – Shabbat, Shabbat is holy.” The young man was deeply distressed to have caused his teacher such sorrow. On the spot, he repented and never broke the Sabbath again. The rabbi’s tears, an expression of his love and concern, left an indelible mark on the young man’s soul.

For further reading, Sefaria has you covered.

#jumblr #ahavat Yisrael #tochecha

139 notes · View notes

jewfrogs · 6 months

Note

Yo, Gabriel.🤣Change your blog name or the Cornell students might follow you home and slit your throat like the terrorists told them to. TRAITOR!

this and the incoherent reply you left on my post perfectly prove my point re: zionists living in another fucking universe. for the record, even if the singular cornell student who made those antisemitic threats online was not currently in jail (which he is), i’m not that afraid of cornell students following me specifically home considering that they would have to travel several hours to reach me. seems farfetched.

traitor is such an interesting insult, though—am i supposed to side with jews throughout any atrocity out of blind loyalty? is that my obligation as a jew, to turn a blind eye to suffering when it is inflicted by “my people”? that is not a judaism i want any part in. those who disregard the fundamental fucking commandment to love their neighbors (not to oppress them, not to rob them, not to profit by their blood) are not my people and i bear no obligation to them. antizionism is not a contradiction to but a cornerstone of my morals as a jew. what is hateful to you, do not do to others—that is the torah; the rest is commentary. if i am a traitor for following that, that is fine by me. you can feel free to kill yourself about it if you want.

#ask #anonymous

20 notes · View notes

toa-greatmind-nothingislittle · 2 years

Text

Sherlock Holmes is Jewish

While I know that ACD was deeply antisemitic (as were all British people actually, especially during the Victorian era), that does not deter my personal headcanon of Sherlock Holmes as Jewish and this quote perfectly illustrates why:

“What a lovely thing a rose is!"

He walked past the couch to the open window and held up the drooping stalk of a moss-rose, looking down at the dainty blend of crimson and green. It was a new phase of his character to me, for I had never before seen him show any keen interest in natural objects.

"There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary as religion," said he, leaning with his back against the shutters. "It can be built up as an exact science by the reasoner. Our highest assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers. All other things, our powers, our desires, our food, are all really necessary for our existence in the first instance. But this rose is an extra. Its smell and its color are an embellishment of life, not a condition of it. It is only goodness which gives extras, and so I say again that we have much to hope from the flowers.”

-Sherlock Holmes in the Adventure of the Naval Treaty

Questioning—anything and everything, G-d, fellow Jews, your Rabbi, etc—is a cornerstone of Judaism. The name Israel means “One who wrestles with G-d.” For Holmes to say that not only does he believe in a Divine but that he sees reasoning as being of the utmost importance in that belief is just…so Jewish. Also, the fact that it is the extras of nature, the little things that aren’t necessary for physical survival but are for emotional, mental, and spiritual survival, that make him believe in G-d is also so Jewish. There’s a massive emphasis on nature in Judaism–we have blessings for when we see a rainbow, when we see the ocean, for the moon, etc. Most of our holidays have some kind of plant symbolism. Trees especially are super meaningful and a part of a lot of holidays.

Anyway, Sherlock Holmes is Jewish because I say so.

#sherlock holmes #sir arthur conan doyle #acd sherlock holmes #acd #literature #sherlock holmes novels and short stories #jewish #judaism #jewish theology #headcanon #theory #sherlock holmes is jewish

76 notes · View notes

girlactionfigure · 7 months

Text

Embarking on a journey with David Ben-Gurion, it's fascinating to see how his evolving perspective mirrored Israel's evolution. As secular Zionism shaped his youthful endeavors, a nascent Israel bore the marks of his ideological imprints, cemented in the words, "We do not wish to create a theocracy."

However, the founding of Israel in 1948 served as a cornerstone, laying tangible connections between the political spirit of Zionism and centuries-old Jewish heritage. This juncture perhaps instigated a transformation within Ben-Gurion himself - he found himself entangled in the nuances of Jewish identity, ceaselessly treading the line between the secular and the religious.

With time, he moved noticeably closer to Orthodox Judaism. Leading Israel through the labyrinth of world politics and societal diversity, Ben-Gurion's deepening spiritual connections became more apparent - a testament to the evolving Jewish State's profound influence on its leader.

Israel's fluid and complex journey finds a parallel in Ben-Gurion's own transformation, from a secular visionary to an appreciator of multifaceted Jewish religious identity. His legacy thus is a remarkable cocktail of secularism and faith, serving as a mirror to Judaism's diverse landscape and the dynamic Zionism-Judaism relationship.

Reflecting on his life, lessons from Ben-Gurion's breathtaking physical, mental, and spiritual journey guide us through the current challenges faced by Israel's diverse society. It's a call for introspective exploration of what it means to be Jewish, tearing down the walls of monolithic understanding, and sensitively embracing the pluralistic dimensions of Jewish identity.

Remember, as we navigate the complexities of modern Jewish identity, let us draw wisdom from the profound journey of David Ben-Gurion - from the secular to the religious realm.

grouchomaccabeeand

partisanprincess

#DavidBenGurion #JewishIdentity #Zionism #Secularism #OrthodoxJudaism #IsraeliHistory #ReligiousAwakening #PoliticalZionism #JewishHeritage #SpiritualJourney #Israel #Jew #Judaism #grouchopresents

9 notes · View notes

denimbex1986 · 9 months

Text

'Let's be fair, right off the bat: Christopher Nolan's "Oppenheimer," based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning book "American Prometheus" by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, is a remarkably accurate look into the life of American scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy). It explores both his experiences working as the director of the Manhattan Project, fighting to build an atomic weapon before the Germans could manufacture their own, as well as the character assassination he endured at the hands of Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.) as a result of the left-wing ties he cultivated in his youth. Christopher Nolan brings his reliably detail-oriented vision to the project, endeavoring to get as close to the real version of history as possible.

But even with a three-hour runtime, it's inevitable that some historical facts are left by the wayside, whether timelines are consolidated to account for narrative flow, the roles of certain characters are shifted slightly, or elements of the overarching story are neglected. We expect this from most biopics because, at the end of the day, a movie is its own take on the story. But today, we're putting on our pedantic hats and taking a look at the spots where "Oppenheimer" and history diverge.

1. The J in J. Robert Oppenheimer

Early in the film, one of Oppenheimer's colleagues makes a comment about how the "J" in "J. Robert Oppenheimer" doesn't stand for anything. (This would not be particularly unusual for the time — famously, the "S" in "Harry S. Truman" doesn't stand for anything either.) But according to "American Prometheus," Oppenheimer's birth certificate confirms that the J stands for Julius, which was the name of his German Jewish immigrant father. It is perhaps likely that he never went by Julius or any derivative of that name because it's an uncommon practice in most Jewish communities to name babies after living relatives, at least in the Ashkenazi tradition, as it's considered to be bad luck.

That Oppenheimer's family didn't follow this particular superstition demonstrates their somewhat fractured relationship with Judaism. Raised by parents of a generation and class in which the primary goal was to assimilate to American culture, Robert Oppenheimer was Jewish by birth, but observed few religious practices. He was in fact educated primarily within the Ethical Cultural Society, a non-religious group founded by Jewish-born Felix Adler, who wanted to incorporate the elements of humanitarianism he considered cornerstones to Jewish culture without necessarily embracing Judaic faith.

2. The infamous apple incident

It's no secret to anyone familiar with Robert Oppenheimer's life that he had a hard time when he first left home for Cambridge to study physics in the prestigious Cavendish lab. He was considered by many contemporaries to be a little emotionally stunted and not quite mature enough for life on his own. Adding to these difficulties were the fact that he was training in a lab that focused on experimentation rather than theory, an environment in which the notoriously clumsy Oppenheimer did not thrive. Struggling to cope with stress and mental health issues, Oppenheimer impulsively poisoned an apple on the desk of his supervisor, Patrick Blackett.

In the film, he manages to discard the apple and it appears that no one is any the wiser, but in real life (although no one was actually hurt by his stunt) the school found out about what could be interpreted as attempted murder, and it was only with the swift intervention of Oppenheimer's parents that he avoided being expelled or even arrested. He was allowed to stay at Cambridge only under the condition that he met with a London psychiatrist on a regular basis.

3. The ranch in New Mexico

Ever since his teen years, Oppenheimer had a special affinity for New Mexico, a place where he felt more at home than anywhere else in the world. In the film, he mentions to his European colleagues that he misses New Mexico, and that he and his brother have a ranch there. But actually, although Oppenheimer had visited New Mexico several times before attending university in Germany, he and his brother did not own property there until much later.

Robert and Frank — with the financial support of their father — began leasing a ranch there in 1928, the year after Robert returned to the United States upon receiving his PhD, and Robert didn't actually purchase their small western estate, affectionately referred to as "Perro Caliente," until 1947. Still, the Oppenheimer brothers spent many happy months there, and it was Robert's knowledge of New Mexico that led him to suggest Los Alamos as the eventual site of the Manhattan Project.

4. Oppenheimer's teaching skills

Oppenheimer was by all accounts a unique personality in that social skills did not necessarily come easily to him, but like everything else in his life, he was a quick learner. After receiving his PhD and several offers to teach at various universities, he landed at Berkeley as an extremely green professor with little experience in teaching. "Oppenheimer" shows him connecting with students pretty much immediately, standing at the center of an engaged group of young physicists hanging on his every word. But that wasn't quite the experience that his very first advisees remember.

In "American Prometheus," Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin describe his teaching style as "largely incomprehensible to most students" and "more like a liturgy than a physics lecture." Even Oppenheimer admitted how much he had yet to learn about the art of lecturing. After describing some kindly advice given to him from a fellow professor at the time, he wryly said, "So you can see how bad it must have been."

Nevertheless, Oppenheimer eventually developed an ability to support and educate his students, which made the members of his physics department incredibly loyal to him, a skill that naturally complemented his role as director of the Manhattan Project. It was the strong relationships that he had cultivated as a faculty advisor that helped him recruit so many promising scientists to Los Alamos.

5. Running Los Alamos

Similarly, although Oppenheimer was a good choice to lead Los Alamos as a scientist — he intuitively understood how to assess problems in research and help his colleagues find new paths forward — he had little experience as an administrator. When Colonel Groves (Matt Damon) discusses the potential role with Oppenheimer, they mention the fact that none of his former associates considered him adept at the kind of logistical support such a massive project would require. (According to The Harvard Gazette, one commented that "he couldn't run a hamburger stand."). Still, in the movie Oppenheimer seems to have an innate grasp of how to compartmentalize the research in a way that would expedite the process and keep them ahead of the Germans, who had already embarked upon a similar project.

In reality, Oppenheimer had no clue how to run Los Alamos. John Manley, who worked under Oppenheimer on the Manhattan Project, remembered that he "bugged Oppie for I don't know how many months about an organization chart — who was going to be responsible for this and who was going to be responsible for that," a request that was dodged seemingly until Oppenheimer could avoid it no longer (via Science Madness). But again, the physicist proved to be endlessly adaptable, acquiring the skills and temperament required to head one of the most ambitious scientific endeavors in American history.

6. Opinions on Kitty Oppenheimer

Robert Oppenheimer's wife Kitty (Emily Blunt) is represented as a complicated woman in "Oppenheimer." She drinks too much, has trouble connecting with her children, and has a turbulent yet committed relationship with her husband (no small wonder, considering his affairs). But the film doesn't really address how Kitty was viewed within the Oppenheimer circle, which is that ... well, she wasn't very well-liked.

Their romance came about suddenly, when most of Oppenheimer's friends were still quite attached to Jean Tatlock, with whom he had been in a long-term on-again, off-again relationship. Upon learning that Oppenheimer was engaged to be married, his long-time friend and colleague Bob Serber reportedly wasn't sure if he had proposed to Kitty, or to Jean.

Robert's sister-in-law Jackie did not mince words about her feelings towards his new wife. She allegedly called her "one of the few really evil people I've ever known in my life" (per The Decadent Review). While most of his other friends and family members likely wouldn't have gone that far, many in their circle found her difficult, and were open with their opinion that Robert likely wouldn't have married her if she hadn't become pregnant with their son, Peter.

7. Do you want to adopt him?

In "Oppenheimer," Kitty makes a joke to their family friends, asking if they want to adopt Peter to take him off her hands. (This is after already relying upon the Chevaliers to watch him for a month or two when he was just a toddler.) Kitty's lack of attachment to her two children was well-documented, and the throwaway quip depicted in this scene actually had a much more serious grounding in reality. The only difference is that it wasn't Peter who the Oppenheimers offered up to another family, but his younger sister Toni.

Toni was born in the midst of Robert's work on the Manhattan Project, when he barely had time to sleep, let alone be a father. When Kitty suffered from what was likely postpartum depression and left Los Alamos to spend some time away to recuperate, she had one of her friends, Pat Sherr, take care of her infant daughter. "American Prometheus" recounts a moment when, upon visiting Toni at the Sherrs' home, Robert was struck by the feeling that he could not provide the same amount of love and attention as they could, and Sherr remembers him asking, "Would you like to adopt her?" Although the Oppenheimers maintained custody of both of their children, their home was not particularly emotionally warm, although friends and acquaintances spoke of memories in which both Kitty and Robert expressed great affection for Peter and Toni.

8. Einstein and Oppenheimer's relationship

Although Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer were two of the most important scientific minds of the early 20th century, they weren't necessarily the best of friends. Oppenheimer considered Einstein's contributions, though valuable, entirely of the past by the time he was making his name in physics, and Einstein went on the record as being extremely skeptical about the entire field of quantum physics. Despite this, when they worked together at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, they developed a cordial rapport that was based largely on mutual admiration for each other as men and not as physicists.

The scenes in the film that depict Einstein and Oppenheimer conversing at the Institute largely reflect what their actual relationship probably looked like. However, there's little evidence to suggest that Oppenheimer would have approached Einstein during his work on the Manhattan Project to double-check his math on the probability of the atomic bomb accidentally exploding the world. This is partially because they hadn't gotten a chance to get to know each other as individuals at this point — still several years away from working together at the Institute — and also because they were fairly open with the fact that they considered themselves on very different pages when it came to physics.

9. Wire-tapping Oppenheimer A significant portion of "Oppenheimer" takes place during the closed-door hearing in which Robert Oppenheimer appeals the denial of his top-secret security clearance that would allow him to continue working as a government advisor. During this time, we learn that despite efforts to maintain high levels of security at Los Alamos, there was a German-born scientist employed on the Manhattan Project, Klaus Fuchs, who was reporting directly to the Soviets on their research. The film implies that Oppenheimer's inability to have identified espionage within his ranks was the precipitating factor in his being placed under increased scrutiny from the FBI, with surveillance that included wiretaps on all his phones.

But Oppenheimer ran in a very left-wing crowd before the war, and had been under strict surveillance since he was in his late 20s. The film makes reference to thousands of pages of documents on his past and various audio recordings of his conversations, which is why it seems odd that they choose to focus on this moment with Fuchs as a turning point in the government surveillance of Oppenheimer.

10. Oppenheimer's influence in Washington

The part of "Oppenheimer" that takes place after World War II emphasizes Robert Oppenheimer's inability to get the United States government to deal more openly with atomic energy, sharing their research with other countries and engaging in disarmament talks. It also casts him as a naive victim of Lewis Strauss' political machinations to discredit him, through confidential meetings that drag his name through the mud and prevented him from playing a more active role in the atomic conversation throughout the Cold War. And of course, it features the disastrous real-life interaction between Oppenheimer and Harry S. Truman, with the president of the United States calling the scientist a crybaby. None of this is necessarily untrue: In fact, that's pretty much what happened to Oppenheimer.

But by focusing on these elements of his post-WWII career, the film doesn't do credit to the influence that Oppenheimer actually wielded in Washington after the war. A greatly respected physicist, he had the ear of the most important men in government, even if he wasn't always able to convince them to act in ways counter to their fears about the Soviet Union's nuclear capabilities. He was an invaluable government advisor and was on a first-name basis with the U.S. Secretary of State — that's not nothing.

11. Strauss' nomination hearing

When we see Robert Downey Jr. as Lewis Strauss in the framing story of "Oppenheimer," he might look like he's on trial, but he's cool as a cucumber. The generally accepted wisdom during these scenes, in which Strauss is taking part in a nomination hearing to become the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, is that he's got the cabinet job in the bag. A Senate aide played by Alden Ehrenreich expresses no doubt that this is all just routine, that they have to go through the motions of a hearing, but that he'll eventually be granted the position is never in doubt. It's only when David Hill testifies against Strauss that the Senate reconsiders, narrowly preventing him from being awarded the prestigious role.

In fact, there was a contingent in the Senate that was determined to see him voted down. Strauss had an enemy in Senator Clint Anderson, and their relationship was so acrimonious that it was described in a 1959 Time article as a "blood feud." The result was a prolonged political battle that saw Eisenhower become just the fifth president to suffer the embarrassment of having a cabinet nomination rejected. And although Strauss' treatment of Oppenheimer was one reason why he wasn't confirmed, it was far from the lynchpin in the case.

12. David Hill's testimony

Towards the end of "Oppenheimer," it begins to feel like Lewis Strauss is a Scooby-Doo villain who's just gotten away with his dastardly deeds. His confirmation as U.S. Secretary of Commerce seems all but assured, granting him greater power and prestige in Washington. But then David Hill (Rami Malek) gives a damning character testimonial, accusing him of destroying Robert Oppenheimer's career for personal reasons and therefore lacking the temperament required for such a privileged role. The effect is immediate: Senators, including a young John F. Kennedy, switch their vote, delivering Strauss the comeuppance he desperately deserves.

David Hill did in fact speak out against Strauss during his cabinet hearing, saying that there was "a kind of madness and irrationality which went through the whole case" in Strauss' efforts to have Oppenheimer's security clearance revoked (per CQ Almanac). But Hill was not actually the only scientist who testified against Strauss at this hearing, railing dramatically against his treatment of Oppenheimer. There was another Los Alamos scientist, David R. Inglis, who was then the chairman of the Federation of American Scientists. Inglis spoke critically of Strauss a week earlier at the hearings, referring to his "substantial defects of character" and the "personal vindictiveness" with which he conducted his dealings with Oppenheimer. This stirred senators to doubt Strauss' fitness for the role long before Hill joined the hearing.'

#Oppenheimer #Christopher Nolan #Cillian Murphy #American Prometheus #Kai Bird #Martin J. Sherwin #Emily Blunt #Kitty #Lewis Strauss #Robert Downey Jr.#Jean Tatlock #David Hill #Rami Malek

10 notes · View notes

gayleviticus · 4 months

Text

I think anytime people want to talk about how [group] isn't really [religion]' its quite difficult bc there are at least four different possible levels this conversation could be happening on: (this can probably apply more broadly but I'm most familiar w Christian ones so I use those examples)

Linguistic - "I believe in Christ so I'm a Christian". basic and to the point, you can argue w it by pointing out Muslims also believe in Jesus (and then counterargue he's not the cornerstone of Islam)

Sociological - "even if it diverges from Christian orthodoxy, LDS self identifies as Christian and emerged from the Christian tradition so it is Christian"

Normative theological: "JWs aren't real Christians because they reject the Trinity and believe in falsehood' (or, for that matter "JWs are the only true Christians because we're the only ones who accept the truth")

Community: I don't think people tend to explicitly verbalise this one as much, but it sortve like "we just don't believe the same thing as that group and don't have anything in common."

And I think where it gets especially tricky is the way that 3 and 4 can become quite difficult to unentangle.

let's say there was some kind of gnostic Christian church that believed the God of the Old Testament is a sadistic monster (this might exist but i dont know of any; i pick this as a pure hypothetical). when they self identify as Christian, I would concede 1 and 2, disagree on 3 but accept everyone thinks they're right in life so what are you gonna do about it, but where I would feel uncomfortable is when we get to 4.

I can accept someone might have an interpretation of Christianity that thinks my God is an evil demiurge - but I'm going to feel like we really don't have a shared faith in common. We may both use the language of Christian, but what we mean by that is very different and doesn't necessarily imply unity. That doesn't need to be a bad thing at all, unless you think being of the same religion is necessarily to truly respect others as human beings; if I can respect Islam and Judaism, I can respect Gnostic Christianity as a different faith from mine. and so a lot of people think 'hmm, well my faith is so different from X that it feels wrong for both of us to call ourselves Christians.'

but 4) is more than just a binary of exclusion/inclusion; it's about what actually marks a community in common, and I think that's more, not less pertinent in a society where we understand other people don't have to be your coreligionist to be someone you can respect and love and be in community and solidarity with in other ways.

and its also difficult because people can feel like they have different parts of their faith that are fundamental from others and not understand why there seems to be this one way gap (which can include the liberal not understanding why the conservative cares so much about biblical inerrancy, but it can also include, say, the evangelical not understanding why Jewish people won't accept Messianics). and so debate over who is a true [believer] often just becomes a proxy for 'is this someone with whom my faith is a unifier or a differentiator'. which is then quite unhelpful when someone tries to argue against someone operating on this level with a sociological argument.

#religion #christian #christianity

4 notes · View notes

chattingwiththelightkeeper · 8 months

Text

A Journey to Forgiveness

Hey there, wonderful souls! Today, on Pardon Day, let's dive deep into the profound act of forgiveness – a beacon of light that can transform our lives. 🙏

Forgiveness is more than just a word; it's a profound change of heart. It's about releasing the heavy burden of negative emotions towards those who have wronged us. In this intricate dance of emotions, forgiveness blooms as an act of goodwill, paving the way for healing and harmony. 🌸

In many spiritual traditions, forgiveness stands tall as a cornerstone. For instance, in Judaism, it's a virtuous act, even in the absence of an apology. In Islam, it's a powerful route to inner peace. Yet, let's acknowledge, forgiving is no walk in the park. It's a process, sometimes a lengthy one, demanding considerable effort. 🕊️

But remember, dialogue can be the bridge when forgiveness feels insurmountable. Understanding the motives behind the hurt can guide us towards reconciliation, nurturing empathy and compassion. 💬

💼 In Our Professional Lives: In the professional realm, forgiveness is equally paramount. It fosters a healthier work environment, nurturing collaboration and teamwork. Holding onto grudges can stifle productivity and innovation. By pardoning transgressions, we empower growth and facilitate a positive atmosphere where talents can flourish. 🤝

💖 In Our Personal Lives: On a personal note, forgiveness liberates us from the chains of resentment. It's not about excusing the wrong but about freeing ourselves from the emotional prison. It aids our mental well-being, allowing us to channel our energy towards positivity and self-growth. 🌱

🔟 Tips for Cultivating Forgiveness:

Self-Reflection: Understand your emotions and triggers.

Practice Empathy: Try to see things from the other person's perspective.

Set Boundaries: Establish healthy limits to protect yourself.

Communicate: Open up a dialogue to express your feelings.

Seek Support: Share your struggle with a trusted friend or therapist.

Time & Patience: Allow yourself the grace to heal over time.

Release Expectations: Don't expect an apology for closure.

Focus on Present: Don't let past grievances define your future.

Practice Self-Compassion: Treat yourself kindly in the process.

Learn & Grow: Extract lessons from the experience.

Avoid Blame: Shift from blame to understanding.

Small Steps: Start with small gestures of forgiveness.

Meditation: Meditate on forgiveness to find peace.

Write it Down: Journaling can aid emotional release.

Let Go: Forgive for yourself, not for the other person.

As we remember the controversial origin of Pardon Day, let's use this day to reflect on the power of forgiveness in our lives. 🌟 Let's be the architects of our own happiness, by embracing the journey of pardoning and granting ourselves the gift of peace. 🕊️

Spread love, forgiveness, and understanding. Happy Pardon Day, dear friends! 🌈💕

As with all of my thoughts, please see this disclaimer.

©TLK2023

#PardonDay #ForgivenessMatters #EmbracePeace

3 notes · View notes

brightgnosis · 8 months

Text

Anyone notice that stunning tapestry in the lobby when they walked in this morning [...] What really wowed me were the words. At the top, it says, “Ohev shalom v’rodeph shalom – Love peace and pursue peace" [...] This quote, from Pirkei Avot (Ethics of our Ancestors) was written almost 2000 years ago and still remains at our core today.

At the bottom of the tapestry are the words of Leviticus 19, “K’doshim tih’yu ki kadosh Ani Adonai Eloheichem – You shall be holy for I, Adonai your God, am holy”. This verse is from the Torah portion, K’doshim, often called the Holiness Code, which we will read at the afternoon service. K’doshim is often called the physical and spiritual center of our Torah. Physical – because it is situated almost exactly in the middle of the Torah scroll. And spiritual – because this portion contains the core teachings from our tradition about ethical living [...]

Among the many moral commands in the Holiness Code, there is one that struck me as I looked at the tapestry, “Hochayach tochi’ach amitecha – You will surely reprove your friend” ... Reprove, rebuke, or tochecha, as we call it in Hebrew, is unsolicited advice; a spoken frankness that reveals a fixable flaw. The purpose of giving tochecha is to point out an important truth that someone just seems to keep missing. It is one of Judaism’s most spiritual practices, not to be dished out carelessly or in anger, but with genuine concern for another human being.

This command is the link between between the quote at the top of the tapestry and the quote at the bottom. How shall you be holy? By seeking peace. And how do we seek peace? Through tochecha. Contrary to conventional thinking, tochecha is the path to loving peace and pursuing it.

Fundamentally, tochecha is a mitzvah of connection — a cornerstone of healthy relationships and strong community. If we can trust our neighbors to tell us the truth lovingly, and if we can hear a reprimand with calm consideration, then our path to one of Judaism’s most sought after spiritual destinations, shalom, peace and wholeness, is well paved. As the Talmudic sage, Resh Lakish said, “Reproof leads to peace; a peace where there has been no reproof is no peace”. (Bereshit Rabbah 54:3) [...]

Pirkei Avot tells us to, “Love peace and pursue peace”. Peace does not mean a lack of conflict – in fact, sometimes it requires it. Sometimes to truly rodeph shalom, to seek peace, we must confront our loved ones with hard truths.

From 'Tochecha: The Courage to Give Honest Criticism'; Rabbi Eli Freedman via the Congregation Rodeph Shalom Blog (My Ko-Fi Here)

#Tochecha: The Courage to Give Honest Criticism #Eli Freedman #Congregation Rodeph Shalom #Jewish Studies #Quote

1 note · View note

disgruntled-detectives · 1 year

Text

Reflecting on the fact that twenty years ago I was deeply entrenched in the Catholic Church church that taught me nothing but shame and that abortion was murder in all cases and how justice was only for the unborn and the mother should be willing to sacrifice herself like Mary would’ve done…

Cut to today I went to shabbat services where my rabbi was railing about how justice and equity is a cornerstone of Judaism and that we will not rest until healthcare is a right for all and that the life of the “enwombed” person always takes precedence and I’ve come such a long way.

I love Judaism so much.

#jewish conversion #justice shall you pursue

2 notes · View notes

subjects-of-the-king · 2 years

Photo

The Role of the Church in the Societies of Medieval Europe, Part One

An original essay of Lucas Del Rio

Note: This is the first installment in a two-part essay on how religious institutions affected life in medieval Europe. Part One introduces the subject matter and then gives some historical background on the roots of these medieval institutions. The second installment, which will hopefully be ready next week, shall go into greater detail and provide more analysis on the main topic.

When the modern world looks back on the Middle Ages, some of the first pictures that come to mind are majestic cathedrals with elegant stained-glass windows, monks praying and performing rituals in monasteries, popes making proclamations to be followed by even the most powerful kings and nobles, and the violent bloodshed of the Crusades. All these images, of course, involve religious institutions. It is certainly no secret that the Church was highly influential across a myriad of aspects of life in medieval Europe. Such a statement is commonly accepted, yet there is often less consensus if the conversation changes to determining specifically what these influences and what, in particular, their effects actually were. As there are debates on this matter even in the highest levels of academia and likely always will be, a variety of different opinions are valid. Here is just one view that will briefly analyze the history of Christianity in medieval Europe and how it affected the continent over the centuries. The subject matter is admittedly controversial, as it involves religion. However, the reader should note that any critical comments made about medieval religious institutions are not an attack on faith or spirituality. Criticism is only of aspects of certain individuals within the Church who may have exploited their positions for power or other personal gain.

“The Church” here refers to Christianity. As the era being discussed is that of medieval times, the overall focus can be further narrowed down to Christianity in the Middle Ages. However, it cannot be the sole focus, as thinking of medieval Europe as a time and place that was exclusively Christian is a generalization. Islam and Judaism, the other Abrahamic religions, had footholds on the continent throughout most of the era. So-called “pagan” religions were also present, especially in the earlier centuries and in more remote regions. A good starting point, therefore, is how Christianity spread across the continent, starting in antiquity. Prior to the founding of the religion late in in the classical era, there was an abundance of different polytheistic belief systems throughout Europe. Monotheism had already taken hold elsewhere in the world, such as Persian Zoroastrianism, but over in Europe it remained almost nonexistent. Christianity itself was not present in Europe immediately after the religion had originated, as its roots were in Judaism, also monotheistic but with a small following that was largely elsewhere. Since the Roman Empire at the time dominated large swaths of the land around the Mediterranean and beyond, Christianity perhaps had the advantage of being able to spread great distances within a single political entity.

The entity known as the Roman Empire ruled plenty of Europe in the early days of Christianity gaining its followers. Initially seen as a movement within the much older religion of Judaism, it acquired characteristics of its own that would carry on into medieval times. One of the most important was the cornerstone that differentiated Christianity from Judaism. In the beginning, Christians debated the divinity of Jesus. When this question had been settled, the stage was set for the Christian Church of the Middle Ages. Throughout Europe, a Jesus who was divine would become a foundation of the beliefs of nobility and peasantry alike, and the belief gave the Church credibility. Of course, it took time for this belief to become as widespread as it would be by that point in time. Romans did not abandon their traditional pantheon of gods until late in the history of their empire. During these later years, many converts were won by theologians who managed to reconcile the beliefs of Christians with those of “pagans,” but the former continued to be persecuted by Roman authorities. Everything then changed when the Roman Emperor Constantine I converted to Christianity.

Up until Emperor Constantine I converting, Christianity had remained an underground movement for the sake of its own survival. With the emperor now legitimizing the religion, it was able to become an institution of Roman society. The Council of Nicaea, which was arranged by Constantine I in 325, essentially established the Catholic Church as it would exist for the remainder of Roman history and then in the Middle Ages that followed. Many of the “official” teachings of Christianity were determined, and the Roman Papacy was organized. Now that Rome had officially adopted Christianity as a state religion, it had switched to persecuting “pagans.” Rome fell in 476, but it was far from the end of the Catholic Church. In fact, its importance to Europe had only begun.

8 notes · View notes

questionsonislam · 2 years

Note

How was life in Arabian Peninsula before Islam? Could you please give information about the belief systems of that time?

Arabs lived as nomads in the Arabian Peninsula before Islam. Their livelihood was based on animal breeding, and some Arabs were engaged in farming in oases in the inner parts of Arabia. In addition to this, one of the most important ways of livelihood was also robberies of caravans which were the custom of the desert. The way of being organized of Arabs before Islam was the classical Badawi system (nomadic way of living).

According to that system, there was a committee whose members were respectable persons of tribe. In tribal life, rules were formed according to the ancestors’ way of living and there was no private land. Meadows, waters, and sometimes even herds were common property of the tribe. Makkah turned into a commercial center because of its convenient position and people were settled there. The settled life, development of trade, and private riches earned as a result of it accelerated the collapse of tribal life.

Tribal ties became loose. Economic concerns and the idea of earning more replaced tribal solidarity. The fact that Makkah was getting urbanized more and more and due to the hierarchy among tribes and members of tribes, a new separate regime emerged. According to that regime, the city was governed by a council. As for the council, it consisted of ten leaders who had different roles inside that regime and whose powers inherited from father to son. Thanks to the Kaaba which was worshipped, Makkah was considered as Holy Land. Among tribes, peace was announced by the city government for development of trade and tribes went on pilgrimage by visiting the temple in Makkah in that period. Loots and robberies against caravans which were the cornerstones of trade still went on although if they decreased within that period. The continuing wars and tribalism, though they were about to disappear, were the biggest obstacles to social life and trade. There was a need for an institution which would organize life and relationships among tribes. That would be a state.

Tribal life in Arabia started to be shaken to the foundation. However, there was no slavery in progress. After primitive communal society, the next step as a result of natural development would be slavery society. However, slavery had not developed, that is, labor of slaves had never been crucial to social development and production. Although there were slaves owned by people within the society, they were mostly used for housework, protection of caravans, and as concubines (female slaves). It was rare to see labor of slaves in the production.

Dominant religion before the rise of Islam was paganism. Each tribe had many idols each of whom were symbol of a god. The idols had been sculptured as figures such as a woman, bird, lion etc. the inside Kaaba, which was considered holy by all tribes. It was full of idols and there were also about one hundred temples far from the Kaaba in Arabia. Judaism and Christianity had also entered Arabia through merchants. However, Arabs did not show interest in those religions that they did not see close to themselves. Those religions had very little support within Arabia. Islam, unlike Christianity, arose within those historical conditions. When Christianity arose, the state of Rome was a slavery society. Christianity also existed by rejecting the authority of that state and giving hope to the oppressed class. However, tribal system was still dominant although it was about to collapse in the conditions in which Islam arose. Therefore, Islam’s development process would be different from Christianity.

As it is known, our Prophet was born in 570 (or 571) on the Gregorian calendar, on a Monday corresponding to the twelfth day of the month Rabi al- Awwal . When we search for religions and belief systems, we meet some strange faith types as far as we understand from the Holy Qur’an.

The most important ones of them are as follows:

1. Hanif (monotheism): They were persons who continued the remains of the religion of Abraham. It is accepted that most of Arabs believed in that religion until idolatry was spread. They had accepted the belief in One God via Ismail. When the Prophet (pbuh) was born, those who believed in One God believed in Oneness of Allah and the Day of Judgment, refused to worship idols, and did not accept many customs of Jahiliyya. They had no military or political power.

2. Star-worshipping: There were people who worshipped stars in Yemen, Arab Peninsula (near Damascus according to some), Hurran valleys, and upper parts of Iraq. They were called Sabiis. Although we do not accurately know when and how star-worshipping had begun within Arab society, we can understand that this belief was available in the time of Suleiman from the anecdote of Suleiman and Balkis, the Queen of Sheba, which is mentioned in the Qur’an (The Ant (an-Naml), 27/20-24). They maintained their existence till the time of our Prophet. They are mentioned in the Qur’an as follows: “Among His signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. But do not prostrate yourselves before the sun or the moon; rather prostrate before Allah, who created them both, if it is He whom you worship.” (Detailed (Fussilat), 41/33)

However, those people were in the minority and had no military and political power.

3. Zoroastrianism: There were some groups which believed in Zoroastrianism in Iraq and Bahrain. They worshipped fire. The Iranian emperor who was Zoroastrian protected them. Later on, along with Jewish people, they played a crucial role by setting Muslims against each other and casting doubt on Islamic beliefs.

4. Christianity: There were some Christian groups among Taghlib, Qudaa, and Ghassan tribes in the north of Peninsula and the South of Yemen. They also had no political or military power. Within the Peninsula, there were also some Christian groups but they were very little in number. Christianity entered Arabia as from beginning from the year 340 as a result of the invasions of Romans and Ethiopians. (Mubarakfuri 1980, 47)

5. Judaism: There were Jewish people in Yemen, Wadil Qura, Khyber, Tayma and Yathrib (Madinah’s name before Islam). Jewish people had economic, political, and military power unlike the orher groups. They were predominant. They called themselves as the elite nation of God and believed that God would make them authorize to manage people. Therefore, they expected that the last prophet would be born among their own nation. Upon the invasion of their country by Buhtunnasr in 587 B.C, they had migrated to Arabia. (ibid , 46)

6. Idolatry: It had spread all around Arab Peninsula. It was more effective and more common than all the other belief systems. There are different views about when it had entered Arabia and how it had been common. The most common one of them is that idolatry entered Arabia via a man named Amr Bin Luhai. This person, the leader of the tribe Huzaa, was a person who was famous for his honesty and interest in religions. The people of that time saw him as one of great scholars of his time. Amr who caught a kind of skin disease was recommended to go to Hurran, located in Damascus, and to have a bath with water there. Keeping the advice, Amr went to that place, had a bath and recovered. He saw there that people worshipped idols and he liked it. Taking an idol called Hubal with him, he put into Kaaba and began to worship it. He also wanted his people to worship it. In the course of time, this worshipping had become so common that among Arabs that each tribe had its own idol. When the Prophet (pbuh) conquered Makkah, there were 360 idols in the Kaaba; destroying all them, our Prophet cleaned the Kaaba from idols.

Another account says: “when Ismail’s children grew up and had to go outside Makkah because of lack of enough food, they took some Haram soil with them to remember their father and later showed respect to it very much. In the course of time, it changed into worshipping by accepting it as holy. Thus, idolatry was founded and it developed in the course of time.

Since the most common faith was idolatry in Hejaz District in which the Prophet was actually brought up, the Prophet primarily fought against idolatry. The most well-known ones of idols, some of which are also mentioned in the Qur’an are as follows:

Manat: It was in a place called Al-Musallal between Makkah and Madinah. Ansar tribes such as Saad, Huzaa etc. worshipped it.

Lat : it was in Taif. People of Taif worshipped it. Our Prophet, after the conquest of Makkah, made it break down by sending Abu Sufian bin Harb and Mughira bin Shuba.

Uzza: It was the idol of the tribes Ghatafan, Ghani, and Bahila. Our Prophet made it break down by sending Khalid.

Hubal: it was the biggest idol of Quraysh. It was made of red agate.

Apart from those, they had idols named Isaaf, Naila, Wadd, Suwa, Yaghus, and Yauq etc., some of which have been mentioned in Arabic poems. For example, Amr bin Humama ad-Dusi, when he burnt the idol called Dhulkaffain, read this couplet:

“Oh Dhulkaffain! I am not from the time of your father.. My birth is before your birth. I filled your heart with fire. (Shukri, 2/209)

Arabs made their idols of stone, wood and other; they also made them of food. For example, the tribe Sons of Hanifa ate a big idol that they had made of flour and dates during a famine so they were criticized by the poet of the rival tribe as follows:

Sons of Hanifa ate their gods, when the time of famine came. (Qalaji 1998, 2)

When someone saw that a fox peed on an idol which he built in the garden of his house, he burst with anger by saying how one who could not protect itself in such a condition could be a god and said the following:

“Is he a god over whose head a fox peed? Pay attention; those over whom foxes peed are despised.” (ibid)

As far as we understand from those kinds of verses above and some verses in the Holy Qur’an, idolatry did not satisfy most of the Arabs. Since they originally had the belief of Ismail and Abraham (pbuh), they believed in the existence of an Almighty God. Thus, some verses in the Holy Qur’an refer to it. For example:

If you ask them: 'Who has created the heavens and the earth?' They will reply: 'Allah.' Say: 'Praise belongs to Allah!' But most of them do not have knowledge. (Luqman, 31/25)

“‘We only worship them so that they will bring us near to Allah’ (they say)” (the Troops (az-Zumar), 39/3)

But those whom you invoke, other than Allah do not create anything, they are themselves created. (The Bee, 16/20)

As it is seen, Arabs had some contradiction about that issue. In the Qur’an, that contradiction is mentioned in many verses. For example:

Is He (Allah) who creates as he (idols) who does not create? Will you not remember? (the Bee (an-Nahl), 16/17)

We can shortly classify Arabs’ ways of worshipping and ceremony as follows: begging and praying in front of idols, wishing that they ease their worries when they are in trouble or sick; visiting idols inside the Kaaba, prostrating themselves in front of them, circumambulating them, and praying; sacrificing an animal for them in order to be close to them, which has been banned in the Qur’an by saying “you are forbidden (to consume)………….of animals sacrificed on stones (to idols).” (al-Maida, 5/3)

Idolater Arabs gave a part of their foods or crop and livestock to idols or Allah. The holy Qur’an mentions it and bans it:

They set aside for Allah a share of what He has created of tilth and cattle saying: 'This is for Allah so they claim and this for our associates (gods).' The share of their associates never reaches Allah, but the share of Allah reaches their associates. How evil they judge! (Cattle (al-Anam), 6/136)

Arabs made a vow to idols, too. When they decided to go for a long journey or to start an important work, they came to the Kaaba and sacrificed an animal for idols; the oracle who was there took out a bag in which there were fortune-telling arrows and told their fortunes. On some of those arrows “Do”, over some “do not do”, over some “empty” were written. If it was “do”, they would do what they wanted to do; if it was “do not do”, they gave up; if it was “empty”, they drew again. Islam banned those, too. In Islam, when somebody cannot decide over what he or she will do, there are some methods which are called consultation (istishara) and seeking goodness from Allah (istikhara)

Arabs in that period did not believe in the Day of Judgment and resurrection after death. Thus, someday, one of the notable persons of Quraysh, Umayya Ibn Khalaf, by holding two decayed bones in his hand, came to the Prophet; breaking them into small pieces, he asked: “Oh Muhammad! Do you think that Allah can vitalize these, too?” Replying him, the Messenger of Allah said, “Yes, Allah will kill you, later vitalize, and then burn you in Hell.” That incidence is mentioned in the Qur’an as follows:

“Has the human not seen how We created him from a drop (of sperm)? Yet he is a clear opponent. And he has struck for Us a parable, and forgotten his

own creation. He asks: 'Who will quicken the bones after they have decayed?’ Say: 'He will quicken them who originated them the first

time; He has knowledge of every creation.” (Ya Seen, 36/77-79)

Despite all of the corrupt belief systems, we see that there were those who believed in the Day of Judgment affected by Christianity and Hanif (monotheism). Thus, one of the poets of Jahiliyya Period, Al-Akhnas Ibn Shihab at-Tamimi writes the following in one of his poems:

“There is no doubt that Allah will reward people in the Day of Reckoning because of their good deeds.” (Qalaji, 18)

3 notes · View notes

lunasun1verse · 2 years

Text

Dear witches of the world,

I get it. I truly and honestly do. The religion of Christianity has hurt more people under the banner of their “god” and Jesus than seemingly all of the other religions combined (we’re going to leave out Islam and Judaism for the sake of this open letter). I truly get it.

I personally HATE what the church has done in the name of Jesus, and under the guise of bringing their god to the godless (who incidentally were not godless, but chose to worship another who was not the christian god). The more I read about it, the angrier I get. The more I think about it, the more I feel like crying because folks really think republican Jesus(tm) is who God is (and yeah I called him republican Jesus. Iywykw).

But that’s just it.

THE CHURCH DID IT. MAN DID IT, SPECIFICALLY INDOCTRINATED MEN. I DIDN’T DO IT TO YOU

The institution of the church has hurt everyone, including their own members.

One of the original teachings of Christ, a brown man who is considered by many witches to be one of the greatest sorcerers of His time, and one of the cornerstone that the original Ethiopian Christian church was built on tells us to love own another as we love God (1 John 4:21, Luke 10:27).

White men came and stole the teachings from the Ethiopians. They used those teachings and modified them to fit THEIR barbaric mentality of raping, looting, killing and pillaging in the name of the god they just Columbus’d and colonized. Let me say this again:

White men came to Ethiopia and stole their teachings and bibles, then mistranslated, rewrote, omitted, and added to the Bible to justify their barbaric behavior, only to REPACKAGE it back to their slaves and colonies to justify why it was ok for them to behave as they did.

The Bible should never be taken literally for this reason alone. Example: Exodus 22:18’s “thou shall not suffer a witch to live” is believed to have said originally “poison spitter”. The word witch was added because gay King James (yes the same King James who’s lover is believed to be the inspiration for what is now widely accepted as Charles Manson Jesus Christ) was being threatened by attempted poisonings, so he added it to the Bible to be able to eliminate any threats.

The “christians” you see in church are christofascists. Their god is disgustingly cruel, he’s mean, he’s a slave driver and all he wants is to subjugate folks in “love”. He is NOT the god of Christian witches. He’s the god of men who want power through fear and terrorist. He’s the god of grifters who have no fucking idea that THIS is what the fuck was meant by Exodus 20:7’s and Deuteronomy 5:11’s “you shall not take the Lord’s name in vain”. I mean ffs, they haven’t even read their bibles outside of Bible study…….

Christian witches have decolonized their christianity enough to understand that the shit you see today was NEVER what God wanted. He is love, kindness, and is fine with witchcraft. I mean seriously, one of the seals that supposedly tells us His name is a gd pentagram…… If He wasn’t, why in the WORLD would He have left us the tools to talk to Him? If Christians couldn’t be witches, why are their missing bible books that confirm witchcraft, witches and “lesser gods”??? Hell if witchcraft was bad, why are their books missing….?

A lot of witches also don’t stay Christian witches for long. This can be a transitional period for a lot of us. Anyway, to conclude…..

I am sorry. I truly am that the church has hurt every one it touches. I’m sorry that you can’t let that pain go, but I’m even more sorry that it’s made you hate God, but we are not the church, we aren’t currently doing it to you and I want you to really understand that. I found who God really was under all that colonized, barbaric bullshit that white men added to and omitted from the Bible, I’m happy with being able to worship Him in His entirety and be a witch. I’m happy knowing that I can be with Him, Mother Earth, Nyx and Hecate with no problems. I want you to know that I’m not going to hurt you. I’m not a threat to your beliefs. I’m not gonna convert you; prostelyzing is a christofascist tenant that we don’t believe in. I just want you to let me be, I’ll let you be, and we just be witches. Don’t behave like the christians you hate, because tbh, your hate toward specific types of witches is headed toward the level of how the church hated you you.

Sincerely, we’re both up shit creek in the eyes of the church.

#christian witchcraft #witchblr #christian witch #witchcraft #magick #witches of tumblr #witch #church #the church #love not hate #witches United #open letter

4 notes · View notes

fathergalyn · 1 month

Text

0 notes

meirkalmus · 3 months

Text

The Torah: A Cornerstone of the Fundamentals of Judaism

The Torah, meaning "instruction" or "teaching" in Hebrew, stands as the luminous cornerstone of the Fundamentals of Judaism. Its five books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, not only weave a tapestry of creation, liberation, and law but also meticulously outline the Fundamentals of Judaism upon which Jewish identity and practice are built.

Within the broader landscape of the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, the Torah occupies a unique and elevated space. Often referred to as the Pentateuch ("five scrolls"), it serves as the opening act, setting the stage for the unfolding drama of the Jewish people. Unlike the Christian Old Testament, where the Torah's books are interspersed with other writings, here they stand alone, their profound importance emphasized by their singular placement and focus on the Fundamentals of Judaism.

Genesis serves as the genesis of the Fundamentals of Judaism. It paints the breathtaking canvas of creation, where God's word breathes life into existence, establishing the concept of one all-powerful God. It introduces the covenant with Abraham, laying the cornerstone for the chosen people and their special relationship with the divine, a central tenet of the Fundamentals of Judaism. The story of Jacob's family, with its triumphs and tribulations, lays bare the complexities of human relationships and the enduring power of forgiveness, both crucial aspects of the Fundamentals of Judaism.

Exodus takes center stage, chronicling the Israelites' liberation from Egyptian bondage, a foundational event in the Fundamentals of Judaism. The parting of the Red Sea and the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai stand as monumental landmarks, forever etched in Jewish memory and symbolizing the core principles—the belief in one God, the importance of freedom and justice, and the sacred covenant between God and the Jewish people—all pillars of the Fundamentals of Judaism.

Leviticus, with its meticulous details of rituals and laws, guides the newly formed nation in establishing a just and ordered society, outlining practices that uphold the Fundamentals of Judaism. From dietary restrictions to Sabbath observance, it provides the framework for living a holy life, grounded in respect for God and commitment to ethical conduct. These intricate laws, often misinterpreted as mere restrictions, are in essence instruments for self-improvement and social cohesion, reinforcing the Fundamentals of Judaism within the everyday fabric of life.

Numbers chronicles the Israelites' forty-year journey through the wilderness, a metaphor for the ongoing quest for meaning and purpose, a core theme of the Fundamentals of Judaism. It's a tale of challenges and triumphs, testing their faith and resilience, and highlighting the importance of leadership, perseverance, and the strength of community in navigating life's uncertainties—all central facets of the Fundamentals of Judaism.

Finally, Deuteronomy delivers Moses' final farewell address, a poignant reminder of the covenant and its obligations, underscoring the importance of studying the Torah, practicing its laws, and passing them on to future generations—crucial aspects of the Fundamentals of Judaism. This emphasis on education and continuity ensures that the Fundamentals of Judaism endure, shaping the Jewish identity for millennia to come.

The Torah is much more than an ancient text; it's a living testament to the enduring power of faith, community, and ethical living, all fundamental aspects of Judaism. Its narratives resonate across generations, offering guidance and inspiration to navigate life's complexities. Whether delving into the creation story, witnessing the Exodus triumph, or deciphering the intricate laws, the Torah illuminates the path towards a life guided by the Fundamentals of Judaism. It's an invitation to explore the depths of your own faith, to strengthen your bonds with your community, and to discover the enduring wisdom that lies at the heart of the Jewish tradition. Open its pages and embark on a journey that continues to resonate across time and space, whispering timeless truths for all who seek to live a life of meaning and purpose, grounded in the Fundamentals of Judaism.

#fundamentals of judaism #meir israel #best hebrew language course

0 notes