Yada Yahweh Forum
»
»
Seekers, Skeptics, and Inquirers
»
Religionised, understood. Politicised, not understood.
Joined: 9/26/2007(UTC) Posts: 258 Location: ohio
|
YY mentions that Yah's word has been religionised and politicised. Not certain how the politicised issue applies. Could use some assistance on this. Some examples would help. TIA |
If not us, who? If not now, when? |
|
|
|
Joined: 9/5/2007(UTC) Posts: 641 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
|
Quote:pol·i·tics (pŏl'ĭ-tĭks) Pronunciation Key n. (used with a sing. verb) The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs. Political science. The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party: "All politics is local" (Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.) "Politics have appealed to me since I was at Oxford because they are exciting morning, noon, and night" (Jeffrey Archer). The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government: The politics of the former regime were rejected by the new government leadership. If the politics of the conservative government now borders on the repressive, what can be expected when the economy falters? (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party: "All politics is local" (Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.) "Politics have appealed to me since I was at Oxford because they are exciting morning, noon, and night" (Jeffrey Archer). The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government: The politics of the former regime were rejected by the new government leadership. If the politics of the conservative government now borders on the repressive, what can be expected when the economy falters?
Certainly Yah's word has been used in these ways throughout history. My mother sent me a forward today that was very political and was from a pastor who was stressing the importance of "christians" being in politics. Frankly, the two terms are nearly interchangable.
|
|
|
|
Joined: 9/26/2007(UTC) Posts: 258 Location: ohio
|
Neither of you understand where I'm coming from. Notice I said Yah's word, not it's application. Which passages in Yah's Word have been politicised. As in, how was it corrupted from the original, by which political, (vs religious), entity, (such as King James?), and why? Or perhaps I misunderstood the original assertion that His Word had been politicised. I thought this meant the actual words of scripture had been changed to support a political position just as they had been changed to support a religious position. Examples of these politically motivated changes are what I'm looking for.
I understand that I ask the tough questions but I'm not trying to be a fly in the ointment. When taking Yah's Word to the streets, one must have the evidence to support statements made in some of the extra scriptual assertions. This support is lacking and is actually the only beef I have with YY. For example, the Catholic priest/preists who killed 100,000's of EO's and Jews. I personally believe Yada when he says this, but I need hard evidence to support this assertion when informing others, such as verifiable eyewitness accounts or correlation from the Simon Wiesenthal organisation. Assertions such as this are construed as merely anti-catholic internet hearsay without verifiable supporting evidence. Hopefully this can be corrected in the YY remake. |
If not us, who? If not now, when? |
|
|
|
Joined: 9/5/2007(UTC) Posts: 641 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
|
Steve,
I did misunderstand you, it would take some research to find what you are looking for. The question intrigues me though, so I will try to find an answer.
I do agree with you about the evidence missing in YY. But, I think that is just where we need to do research. Yada filled YY with so much scriptual evidence (and that is really all he needed to do) that there wasn't really time or room left for the rest. If he would have provided all of the historical evidence for everything that is not of Yahuweh, then the book would have been at least 2 or 3 times larger and it probably would have been distracting from the real important stuff. He gave us the thread, now we just have to pull it and see where it goes. I do think a bibliography of sorts would be helpful though.
|
|
|
|
Joined: 9/26/2007(UTC) Posts: 258 Location: ohio
|
Icy said, "I do agree with you about the evidence missing in YY. But, I think that is just where we need to do research. Yada filled YY with so much scriptual evidence (and that is really all he needed to do) that there wasn't really time or room left for the rest. If he would have provided all of the historical evidence for everything that is not of Yahuweh, then the book would have been at least 2 or 3 times larger and it probably would have been distracting from the real important stuff. He gave us the thread, now we just have to pull it and see where it goes. I do think a bibliography of sorts would be helpful though."
Thanks for the reply Icy and your point's well taken. That being said, footnotes/bibliography, although time consuming, I believe would inhibit sceptics looking for any excuse to demean the credibility of YY's message. As I'm sure we're all aware, it's a tough crowd out there. When discussing scripture/YY on the atheist/christian sites/forums, every assertion must be verified to counter the omnipresent disingenuousness. Although rational debate/discussion probably won't deter those who refuse to accept Yah and His Word, there are many who are not part of the debate/discussion but do read the thread/posts at the above mentioned forums. I figure they are the ones most likely to eventually acknowledge Yah through His Word rather than those who actively engage, (via disingenuousness/half truths), in attempts to discredit Yah's Word. However, once again I agree with your assertion that Scripture is most important and indeed a double-edged sword, (Dan 9 really gets 'em). Hahahahaha..... |
If not us, who? If not now, when? |
|
|
|
Joined: 7/24/2007(UTC) Posts: 160 Location: Texas
|
What is your approach with Dan 9 if you don't mind me asking? |
-- Shohn of Texas
|
|
|
|
Joined: 9/26/2007(UTC) Posts: 258 Location: ohio
|
Hi shohn, Basically it's simply a matter of posting/conveying the info at book IV, (Salvation) chap. one. of YY, particularly as pertains to 9:24. "Seventy weeks of years (shabuwa') are decreed for your people and for your set-apart city to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring forth everlasting righteousness, to seal up the revelation and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Set-Apart." (Daniel 9:24) and 9:25-26 "Know and understand that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Ma'sehyah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks of years. The way shall be built again, and the means of separation, even in troublesome times. And after the sixty-two weeks Ma'sehyah shall be cut off, but not for Himself." (Daniel 9:25-26) Once the timeline is explained with the actual dates and the precise number of days, it's impossible to rationally refute. Review that chap and you'll see what I mean. |
If not us, who? If not now, when? |
|
|
|
Joined: 9/10/2007(UTC) Posts: 735 Location: Penna
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
|
I know this really has nothing to do with the question and I'm not really trying to answer it here, but here's something that's humorous for all of you prowling around the forum...
The Ten Commandments display was removed from the Alabama Supreme Court building. There was a good reason for the move: You can't post Thou Shalt Not Steal, Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery and Thou Shall Not Lie, in a building full of politicians and lawyers without creating a hostile work environment. ---- from anonymous Email
As to the question, I can't really say. I think we can all agree however that Yahuweh's word has been misused for political purposes...and if we can't agree to that what can we agree on?
And to that end does anyone remember September 11th and Yeshayahu 9:10? |
YHWH's ordinances are true, and righteous altogether.
|
|
|
|
Joined: 7/24/2007(UTC) Posts: 160 Location: Texas
|
That actually brings up a couple of points I think.
With my skeptic hat on, one of the big things that makes the scriptures easy to believe is the prophecies. Now I suppose one could argue that the various letters and testimonials were just "made up" to match, but there are so many others that is just seems hard to make that arguement once you see much of the light that is hidden under the words. That timeline reminds me of another one I read somewhere once, but have not been able to find since.
It had something to do with one of the prophets being told to lie on his side for X number of days, and that number of days would be equivalent to the number of years that Judah would be kicked out of the land. Someone had calculated the number of years from the either the destruction of the temple or the bablyonian exile (I can't remember which) and tied it to nearly the day that Israel came back around in 1948. If memory serves, there was a counter argument because the guy's calculations were off by a year or something. In addition, this same line of reasoning was used to argue that the establishment of Israel as a nation would "unseal" the book of Daniel, because that date could then be used to reverse engineer other dates. I'm curious if something like this would align with the 1000 year milestones and Dan 9:25.
Maybe this is a topic for another post. |
-- Shohn of Texas
|
|
|
|
Joined: 9/5/2007(UTC) Posts: 234 Location: Eretz Ha'Quodesh
|
To get back to the question - the politicization of the word starts way back - an example is the Pharasee/Saducee dispute at the time of Yahushua These were poligeous parties battling it out for what little control the Romans allowed them, the Saducees had control of the Sanhedrin, and thus the Temple. but the Pharisees had considerable influence in the synagogues. The Saducees were the 'rational scientific' (humanist) group whilst the Pharisees were the legalistic group. Each put their own emphasis on the scriptures - the Saducee position of no life after death was scriptually unsupportable so we can assume that they had a 'we can change the scriptures' view much like the C of E (Episcopalian) mob. The Pharisees 'enhanced' the tora to suit their need for political control. This all comes out in the various encounters between Yahushua and the factions. Closer to home - we get the Vienna circle around 1775, this group of 'philosophers' came up with the 'God is dead' theory which then freed man to cherry pick the Word. This cherry picking lead to Marx, Engels and Lenin turning selected teachings of Yahushua into Communism, and the likes of Nietzsche gave root to that other socialist form 'naziism' (liberalism in US). Whilst it sometimes seeems as if Socialist Humanism has been with us for ever, it is relatively new, and needed the impetus of Darwin, Freud and Einstein to really take hold. The Roman Catholic doctrine evolved down a different route, started by Constantine as a purely political instrument - read YY - its all in there. The RC theology absorbed Aristotle largely under the guidance of Thomas Aquinas in the 12th century. This lead to the definition of the 'Just War' and the root of modern diplomatic philosophy etc. Again a cherry pick of Torah and the sermon on the mount. Thus the good works gospel became part of the RC tradition replacing belief and salvation as the favoured route to heaven. In more modern times we have the 'social gospel' which is a good works movement based upon the usual cherry pick, it was introduced into UK in the 1930's and picked up by Archbishop Temple (c of e) in the 1940's and is now the de facto standard of 'good' in UK (it should be remembered that the Bishops are appointed by the prime minister). Temple got the Social Gospel from his friend Dulles who was pushing the 'one world' order in NY and Washington at the time. Most modern (western) political trends have their roots in selective interpretations of the word of 'god' (sic) If you have trouble with the relationships between socialism, naziism and the liberal clique take a look at this web site:- http://constitutionalistnc.trip.../hitler-leftist/id9.html
|
|
|
|
Joined: 9/26/2007(UTC) Posts: 258 Location: ohio
|
Thanks J&M. Btw, "If you have trouble with the relationships between socialism, naziism and the liberal clique..." Never had probs there, (Hahahaha). The correlation between these isms has been/is very clear to me. Notice how the sosechum's, (socialist secular humanists), always place nazism on the right, never on the left with communism.
Once again, thanks for the very informative reply.
|
If not us, who? If not now, when? |
|
|
|
Yada Yahweh Forum
»
»
Seekers, Skeptics, and Inquirers
»
Religionised, understood. Politicised, not understood.
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.