#Ancient Israelite laws

[the-catboy-minyan]

Atheist here asking questions about the Moses story, could g*d have found a better way of punishing the pharaoh then killing their children? I feel like there could have been better options?

Mostly I’m curious as to what the interpretation of that is.

well I'm an atheist as well so keep that in mind, but I have no idea.

the story is from thousands of years ago, and many stories from that era include bloodshed (in ways we in the modern world may consider unnecessary).

you have to keep in mind that this punishment was the last one of 10, after 9 other plagues to pressure the pharaoh to release the Israelites. those were: turning the river to blood, a bunch of fucking frogs everywhere (or a giant frog, jumblr had a debate about it), lice, invasion of wild animals, a disease on their livestock, scabies, hail, locusts, and total darkness for three days.

Moses went to Pharaoh after every plague, but he didn't budge until the last one, the death of the firstborns in eygypt. and even after he agreed, he changed his mind and sent his army after the escaping Israelites (which lead to the miracle of the parted sea).

that was not Moses's decision to kill the firstborns, the Israelites didn't cheer for their deaths, and we don't celebrate it. I'd like to remind the audience at home of the start of the story, where the Israelites where slaves to the Egyptians, and the (previous) Pharaoh passed a law to throw every male baby to the nile river, that was a human decision enforced by humans.

many other cultures have their fair share stories of bloodshed being presented as good or even heroic, Judaism shouldn't be expected to be an outlier when it's one of the more ancient religions. not to mention the 10 plagues were never really presented as positive in my opinion, they were a necessary evil to free them from slavery.

thanks for the ask! i hope my answer makes sense. again I'm not religious so I may have gotten some things wrong.

[crystalis]

twitter thread by Mouin Rabbani

March 14, 2024

Who was there first? The short answer is that the question is irrelevant. Claims of ancient title (“This land is ours because we were here several thousand years ago”) have no standing or validity under international law.

For good reason, because such claims also defy elementary common sense. Neither I nor anyone reading this post can convincingly substantiate the geographical location of their direct ancestors ten or five or even two thousand years ago.

If we could, the successful completion of the exercise would confer exactly zero property, territorial, or sovereign rights.

As a thought experiment, let’s go back only a few centuries rather than multiple millennia. Do South Africa’s Afrikaners have the right to claim The Netherlands as their homeland, or even qualify for Dutch citizenship, on the basis of their lineage?

Do the descendants of African-Americans who were forcibly removed from West Africa have the right to board a flight in Atlanta, Port-au-Prince, or São Paolo and reclaim their ancestral villages from the current inhabitants, who in all probability arrived only after – perhaps long after – the previous inhabitants were abducted and sold into slavery half a world away?

Do Australians who can trace their roots to convicts who were involuntarily transported Down Under by the British government have a right to return to Britain or Ireland and repossess homes from the present inhabitants even if, with the help of court records, they can identify the exact address inhabited by their forebears? Of course not.

In sharp contrast to, for example, Native Americans or the Maori of New Zealand, none of the above can demonstrate a living connection with the lands to which they would lay claim.

To put it crudely, neither nostalgic attachment nor ancestry, in and of themselves, confer rights of any sort, particularly where such rights have not been asserted over the course of hundreds or thousands of years.

If they did, American English would be the predominant language in large parts of Europe, and Spain would once again be speaking Arabic.

Nevertheless, the claim of ancient title has been and remains central to Zionist assertions of not only Jewish rights in Palestine, but of an exclusive Jewish right to Palestine.

For the sake of argument, let’s examine it. If we put aside religious mythology, the origin of the ancient Israelites is indeed local.

In ancient times it was not unusual for those in conflict with authority or marginalized by it to take to the more secure environment of surrounding hills or mountains, conquer existing settlements or establish new ones, and in the ultimate sign of independence adopt distinct religious practices and generate their own rulers. That the Israelites originated as indigenous Canaanite tribes rather than as fully-fledged monotheistic immigrants or conquerors is more or less the scholarly consensus, buttressed by archeological and other evidence. And buttressed by the absence of evidence for the origin stories more familiar to us.

It is also the scholarly consensus that the Israelites established two kingdoms, Judah and Israel, the former landlocked and covering Jerusalem and regions to the south, the latter (also known as the Northern Kingdom or Samaria) encompassing points north, the Galilee, and parts of contemporary Jordan. Whether these entities were preceded by a United Kingdom that subsequently fractured remains the subject of fierce debate.

What is certain is that the ancient Israelites were never a significant regional power, let alone the superpower of the modern imagination.

There is a reason the great empires of the Middle East emerged in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, and Anatolia – or from outside the region altogether – but never in Palestine.

It simply lacked the population and resource base for power projection. Jerusalem may be the holiest of cities on earth, but for almost the entirety of its existence, including the period in question, it existed as a village, provincial town or small city rather than metropolis.

Judah and Israel, like the neighboring Canaanite and Philistine entities during this period, were for most of their existence vassal states, their fealty and tribute fought over by rival empires – Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, etc. – rather than extracted from others.

Indeed, Israel was destroyed during the eighth century BCE by the Assyrians, who for good measured subordinated Judah to their authority, until it was in the sixth century BCE eliminated by the Babylonians, who had earlier overtaken the Assyrians in a regional power struggle.

The Babylonian Exile was not a wholesale deportation, but rather affected primarily Judah’s elites and their kin. Nor was there a collective return to the homeland when the opportunity arose several decades later after Cyrus the Great defeated Babylon and re-established a smaller Judah as a province of the Persian Achaemenid empire. Indeed, Mesopotamia would remain a key center of Jewish religion and culture for centuries afterwards.

Zionist claims of ancient title conveniently erase the reality that the ancient Israelites were hardly the only inhabitants of ancient Palestine, but rather shared it with Canaanites, Philistines, and others.

The second part of the claim, that the Jewish population was forcibly expelled by the Romans and has for 2,000 years been consumed with the desire to return, is equally problematic.

By the time the Romans conquered Jerusalem during the first century BCE, established Jewish communities were already to be found throughout the Mediterranean world and Middle East – to the extent that a number of scholars have concluded that a majority of Jews already lived in the diaspora by the time the first Roman soldier set foot in Jerusalem.

These communities held a deep attachment to Jerusalem, its Temple, and the lands recounted in the Bible. They identified as diasporic communities, and in many cases may additionally have been able to trace their origins to this or that town or village in the extinguished kingdoms of Israel and Judah. But there is no indication those born and bred in the diaspora across multiple generations considered themselves to be living in temporary exile or considered the territory of the former Israelite kingdoms rather than their lands of birth and residence their natural homeland, any more than Irish-Americans today feel they properly belong in Ireland rather than the United States.

Unlike those taken in captivity to Babylon centuries earlier, there was no impediment to their relocation to or from their ancestral lands, although economic factors appear to have played an important role in the growth of the diaspora.

By contrast, those traveling in the opposite direction appear to have done so, more often than not, for religious reasons, or to be buried in Jerusalem’s sacred soil.

Nations and nationalism did not exist 2,000 years ago.

Nor Zionist propagandists in New York, Paris, and London incessantly proclaiming that for two millennia Jews everywhere have wanted nothing more than to return their homeland, and invariably driving home rather than taking the next flight to Tel Aviv.

Nor insufferably loud Americans declaring, without a hint of irony or self-awareness, the right of the Jewish people to Palestine “because they were there first”.

Back to the Romans, about a century after their arrival a series of Jewish rebellions over the course of several decades, coupled with internecine warfare between various Jewish factions, produced devastating results.

A large proportion of the Jewish population was killed in battle, massacred, sold into slavery, or exiled. Many towns and villages were ransacked, the Temple in Jerusalem destroyed, and Jews barred from entering the city for all but one day a year.

Although a significant Jewish presence remained, primarily in the Galilee, the killings, associated deaths from disease and destitution, and expulsions during the Roman-Jewish wars exacted a calamitous toll.

With the destruction of the Temple Jerusalem became an increasingly spiritual rather than physical center of Jewish life. Jews neither formed a demographic majority in Palestine, nor were the majority of Jews to be found there.

Many of those who remained would in subsequent centuries convert to Christianity or Islam, succumb to massacres during the Crusades, or join the diaspora. On the eve of Zionist colonization locally-born Jews constituted less than five per cent of the total population.

As for the burning desire to return to Zion, there is precious little evidence to substantiate it. There is, for example, no evidence that upon their expulsion from Spain during the late fifteenth century, the Sephardic Jewish community, many of whom were given refuge by the Ottoman Empire that ruled Palestine, made concerted efforts to head for Jerusalem. Rather, most opted for Istanbul and Greece.

Similarly, during the massive migration of Jews fleeing persecution and poverty in Eastern Europe during the nineteenth century, the destinations of choice were the United States and United Kingdom.

Even after the Zionist movement began a concerted campaign to encourage Jewish emigration to Palestine, less than five per cent took up the offer. And while the British are to this day condemned for limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine during the late 1930s, the more pertinent reality is that the vast majority of those fleeing the Nazi menace once again preferred to relocate to the US and UK, but were deprived of these havens because Washington and London firmly slammed their doors shut.

Tellingly, the Jewish Agency for Israel in 2023 reported that of the world’s 15.7 million Jews, 7.2 million – less than half – reside in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

According to the Agency, “The Jewish population numbers refer to persons who define themselves as Jews by religion or otherwise and who do not practice another religion”.

It further notes that if instead of religion one were to apply Israel’s Law of Return, under which any individual with one or more Jewish grandparent is entitled to Israeli citizenship, only 7.2 of 25.5 million eligible individuals (28 per cent) have opted for Zion.

In other words, “Next Year in Jerusalem” was, and largely remains, an aspirational religious incantation rather than political program. For religious Jews, furthermore, it was to result from divine rather than human intervention.

For this reason, many equated Zionism with blasphemy, and until quite recently most Orthodox Jews were either non-Zionist or rejected the ideology altogether.

Returning to the irrelevant issue of ancestry, if there is one population group that can lay a viable claim of direct descent from the ancient Israelites it would be the Samaritans, who have inhabited the area around Mount Gerizim, near the West Bank city of Nablus, without interruption since ancient times.

Palestinian Jews would be next in line, although unlike the Samaritans they interacted more regularly with both other Jewish communities and their gentile neighbors.

Claims of Israelite descent made on behalf of Jewish diaspora communities are much more difficult to sustain. Conversions to and from Judaism, intermarriage with gentiles, absorption in multiple foreign societies, and related phenomena over the course of several thousand years make it a virtual certainty that the vast majority of Jews who arrived in Palestine during the late 19th and first half of the 20th century to reclaim their ancient homeland were in fact the first of their lineage to ever set foot in it.

By way of an admittedly imperfect analogy, most Levantines, Egyptians, Sudanese, and North Africans identify as Arabs, yet the percentage of those who can trace their roots to the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula that conquered their lands during the seventh and eighth centuries is at best rather small.

Ironically, a contemporary Palestinian, particularly in the West Bank and Galilee, is likely to have more Israelite ancestry than a contemporary diaspora Jew.

The Palestinians take their name from the Philistines, one of the so-called Sea Peoples who arrived on the southern coast of Canaan from the Aegean islands, probably Crete, during the late second millennium BCE.

They formed a number of city states, including Gaza, Ashdod, and Ashkelon. Like Judah and Israel they existed primarily as vassals of regional powers, and like them were eventually destroyed by more powerful states as well.

With no record of their extermination or expulsion, the Philistines are presumed to have been absorbed by the Canaanites and thereafter disappear from the historical record.

Sitting at the crossroads between Asia, Africa, and Europe, Palestine was over the centuries repeatedly conquered by empires near and far, absorbing a constant flow of human and cultural influences throughout.

Given its religious significance, pilgrims from around the globe also contributed to making the Palestinian people what they are today.

A common myth is that the Palestinian origin story dates from the Arab-Muslim conquests of the seventh century. In point of fact, the Arabs neither exterminated nor expelled the existing population, and the new rulers never formed a majority of the population.

Rather, and over the course of several centuries, the local population was gradually Arabized, and to a large extent Islamized as well.

So the question as to who was there first can be answered in several ways: “both” and “irrelevant” are equally correct.

Indisputably, the Zionist movement had no right to establish a sovereign state in Palestine on the basis of claims of ancient title, which was and remains its primary justification for doing so.

That it established an exclusivist state that not only rejected any rights for the existing Palestinian population but was from the very outset determined to displace and replace this population was and remains a historical travesty.

That it as a matter of legislation confers automatic citizenship on millions who have no existing connection with the land but denies it to those who were born there and expelled from it, solely on the basis of their identity, would appear to be the very definition of apartheid.

The above notwithstanding, and while the Zionist claim of exclusive Israeli sovereignty in Palestine remains illegitimate, there are today several million Israelis who cannot be simply wished away.

A path to co-existence will need to be found, even as the genocidal nature of the Israeli state, and increasingly of Israeli society as well, makes the endeavor increasingly complicated.

The question, thrown into sharp relief by Israel’s genocidal onslaught on the Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip, is whether co-existence with Israeli society can be achieved without first dismantling the Israeli state and its ruling institutions.

[magnetothemagnificent]

Why aren't ostriches kosher? A case-study for Kashrut laws

Unlike mammals and fish, the Torah does not provide a list of signs that identify a bird as kosher or non-kosher. Instead, it provides a list of non-kosher birds in Leviticus 11:13-19, and they are:

נֶּ֙שֶׁר֙- Eagle

פֶּ֔רֶס- Vulture (or Kite)

עׇזְנִיָּֽה- Black vulture (or Osprey)

דָּאָ֔ה- Kite (or Kestrel)

אַיָּ֖ה לְמִינָֽהּ- Falcon (or Vulture) of every variety

כׇּל־עֹרֵ֖ב לְמִינֽוֹ- All varieties of Raven

בַּ֣ת הַֽיַּעֲנָ֔ה- Ostrich

תַּחְמָ֖ס- Nighthawk (or Jay, or Goatsucker, or some species of Owl)

שָּׁ֑חַף- Gull (or Sparrow hawk)

נֵּ֖ץ לְמִינֵֽהוּ- Hawks of every variety

כּ֥וֹס- Little owl (or just Owl)

שָּׁלָ֖ךְ- Cormorant (or Gull)

יַּנְשֽׁוּף- Great owl

תִּנְשֶׁ֥מֶת- White owl

קָּאָ֖ת- Pelican (or Starling)

רָחָֽם- Bustard (or Magpie)

חֲסִידָ֔ה- Stork

אֲנָפָ֖ה לְמִינָ֑הּ- Herons of every variety

דּוּכִיפַ֖ת- Hoopoe

עֲטַלֵּֽף- Bat

The Torah repeats this list in Deuteronomy 14:11-18. As you can see, most of the species on this list are uncertain in translation (which is why I offered alternate translations), although you can see the general idea. But, we know 100% that ostrich is explicitly forbidden in the Torah, we don't even need to derive anything. The birds that are kosher are generally regarded as kosher based on unbroken tradition that they are (they are cases of birds no longer being considered kosher by most Jews despite them once being considered kosher, because the tradition was broken, but we'll get to that later).

Of course, there are many more birds species besides those listed, and very early on the Sages figured signs of kosher and non-kosher birds based on the list. First, as you can see, many of the birds on the list are birds of prey, so any birds of prey are automatically non-kosher. That was easy for them to figure out.

But what about anatomical signs?

Well, they figured that out, too. (Chullin 59a)

A bird that claws its prey and eats is non-kosher (such as birds of prey).

A kosher bird has a digit seperated slightler higher behind the other three toes, a crop, and/or a gizzard that has a membrane on the inside that can be peeled. Below is a comparison of raven feet and a parrot's foot, versus duck feet and chicken feet. On the left, the raven and parrot's feet have all their toes branching out of the same level. On the right, the duck and chicken feet's back toe is slightly elevated and seperate from the other toes.

A bird that perches on a wire with two toes in the front and two in the back is non-kosher, as demonstrated below by a close-up of a parrot's feet while perching. You can see that there are only two toes in the front, while the other two are in the back.

So, in order for a bird to be considered kosher, it must not be on the list of non-kosher birds provided in the Torah, must fulfil the anatomical descriptions outlined later by the Sages, and must have a tradition of being kosher.

Israel is the largest consumer of turkey meat per capita. This is because Jews eat a lot of turkey, including kosher-keeping Jews. But.....turkey is a New World bird! How can there be a tradition of turkeys being kosher if the ancient Israelites would have never encountered turkeys???

So this is where it gets even more interesting. When turkey was first introduced to Jews, it became widely popular. It's thought that Jews first started eating it because of its similarity to chicken, and assumed it must be kosher. Eventually, the Rabbis realized they had to make a decision about the status of turkeys. If they ruled turkeys as non-kosher, then all the Jews who had already been eating turkeys would be ruled as eating non-kosher, which y'know as a Rabbi you really don't want to declare a whole bunch of Jews as doing the wrong thing. So, most Rabbis relied on a passage in the Talmud stating that a non-kosher animal cannot become pregnant by kosher animals (Bekhorot 7a). Since turkeys and chickens can hybridize, Rabbis relied on this passage to declare turkeys as kosher. There are still some Jews today that don't regard turkey as kosher, but it is accepted as kosher by the majority of world Jewry and is a very popular meat.

What about peacocks? Well, peafowl are mentioned numerous times in the Tanakh and in Jewish history as being eaten, but today, the Orthodox Union does not certify them as kosher. Peafowl are genetically related to other kosher birds and have all the necessary signs.....but they are no longer considered kosher by major Orthodox opinions. This is because the last record of peafowl being considered kosher and eaten by a Jewish community was in the mid 19th century. The tradition was broken, and therefore peafowl aren't eaten or certified, despite the fact that they technically are kosher.

Now here's where is gets fun- somehow, the distinctions between kosher and non-kosher birds fit really neatly within our modern understanding of bird phylogeny. Most kosher birds fall under the Galliformes (chickens and friends) and Anseriformes (ducks and friends) Orders, which are more closely related to eachother than they are to any other Orders, and make up the Superoder Galloanserae. The only kosher birds that don't fall into that Superorder are pigeons and doves, but pigeons and doves are already considered a little different by the Sages- they're the only birds that can be used as offerings in the Temple. This is yet another example of how well the ancient Jewish animal classifications fit with out modern phylogenetic understanding, it's super cool. Because grebes and gallinules look a lot more similar to ducks than chickens do, but nope, they are not kosher while ducks and chickens are, and indeed, ducks and chickens are more closely related to each other than ducks are related to grebes and gallinules.

So, in conclusion- ostriches aren't kosher because

1) They are listed among the non-kosher birds in the Torah

2) They are missing toes- their toes are not in the configuration outlined in the Talmud, and in fact they only have two very large toes, as you can see below:

3) They do not have a crop (all ratites do not have crops)

Hope you enjoyed this long-winded way of answering why ostriches aren't kosher :)

Further Reading:

A Peafowl by any other Name

What Are the Signs of a Kosher Bird?

The Liberated Bird: Let’s Talk Turkey

[eretzyisrael]

by Sophie Kalmin

The Roman period left various indelible marks on the Jewish psyche, further exhibited by the remains of the Masada fortress. Excavated in the 1960s, King Herod’s first-century BCE stronghold serves as a powerful symbol of Jewish resilience. It was at Masada that Jewish rebels stood firmly against the Romans before the fortress was destroyed, and the Romans marked another victory over the land’s people. Today, Masada serves as one of the most popular tourist sites in Israel, in which visitors can interact with ancient cisterns, pottery, and engineering feats completed by Jewish architects. With areas of the fortress still yearning to be excavated, Masada prevails as one of the most poignant reminders of the Jewish connection to the Land of Israel — Jewish people died defending it thousands of years ago.

Historians say…

Beyond archaeology, the writings of Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, provide an insider experience of Jewish life and Roman governance in Judea. In his work Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus details the Roman administrative presence in the region, including the taxation policies implemented by the governor of Syria, Cyrenius. Flavius notes, “Moreover Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus’s money.” This account emphasizes both Jewish property and economic activities in Roman Judea. Josephus’s comprehensive records serve as a critical source, underscoring the continuous Jewish involvement in this land across millennia. 

Benjamin Tudela, the 12th-century author of The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, records Jewish activity at the Cave of Machpelah. Tudela, a Jew living in the Middle Ages, describes the religious practices being exercised distinctly at this place. He writes that casks of generations of Israelites are buried within the cave and that our forefathers constructed “a gate of iron” to protect those visiting their loved ones’ remains. Because of Tudela, the stories of connection between Jewish people and their ancestors buried in the Land of Israel resonate more deeply.

Lasting Jewish Practice 

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the early 20th century provides arguably the most compelling evidence of the Jewish people’s enduring connection to their land and heritage. These ancient manuscripts, which date back to the last three centuries BCE and the first century CE, include the earliest known copies of the Hebrew Bible, providing invaluable insights into Jewish life, law, and beliefs during the Second Temple period. Written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, these scrolls are a powerful symbol of Jewish spiritual and intellectual resilience. Their survival over two millennia affirms the enduring legacy of Jewish scholarship and the community’s unwavering commitment to preserving their sacred texts.

Israel is the Jewish Homeland

When British ships landed in North America in the late 16th century, they didn’t dig up Shakespeare plays and find ancient coins minted in English. By definition, colonial powers are not indigenous to the places they colonize. Jews have maintained a continuous presence in Israel since Judaism’s inception, despite numerous conquerors that have come along and expelled the Jews from their land. These exiles are not only thoroughly documented in Jewish literature and cultural evolution, but in continuous archaeological findings. Failed attempts to eradicate the Jewish people from their land have reinforced the urgency of the lasting existence of a Jewish country.

[dragoneyes618]

If one could speak of Biblical verses as being vilified, then "an eye for an eye" would be the most vilified verse in the Bible. It is commonly cited to "prove" the existence of an "Old Testament" ethic of vengeance, and then contrasted with the New Testament's supposedly higher ethic of forgiveness. "An eye for an eye" is often associated with modern Jews as well, and invariably in a pejorative manner. Israel's critics, for example, commonly accuse her of practicing "eye for an eye" morality when she retaliates against Arab terrorist acts.

In actuality, the biblical standard of "an eye for an eye" stood in stark contrast to the legal standards prevailing in the societies that surrounded the ancient Hebrews. The Code of Hammurabi, a legal code hundreds of years older than the Torah, legislated retaliation even against innocent parties. Thus, if A constructed a building for B, and the building collapsed and killed B's daughter, then A's daughter was put to death (Law number 229). The biblical law of "an eye for an eye" restricted punishment solely to the perpetrator. Furthermore, unlike Hammurabi's code, one who caused another's death accidentally was never executed.

"An eye for an eye" also served to limit vengeance; it did not permit "a life for an eye" or even "two eyes for an eye." The operative biblical principle was that punishment must be commensurate with the deed, not exceed it. Blood feuds and vendettas were long practiced among the Israelites' neighbors - indeed, they have persisted in the Middle East until this century - and revenge was often carried out without restraint.

Christian often contend that Jesus went beyond the standard of "an eye for an eye," that he advocated forgiveness and saw retaliation as unworthy of man. Yet the New Testament records Jesus saying, "But the one who disowns me in the presence of men, I will disown in the presence of my Father in heaven" (Matthew 10:33). In other words, Jesus seems to advocate treating others as they have treated him; a standard of justice that is perfectly commensurate with the demand of "an eye for an eye."

In the time of the Talmud, "an eye for an eye" was not carried out literally, and Orthodox Jewish scholars teach that it was never practiced. The Talmud's rabbis feared that the very process of removing the perpetrator's eye might kill him as well, and that, of course, would be forbidden (Bava Kamma 84a). "An eye for an eye" was therefore understood as requiring monetary compensation equivalent to the value of an eye. The same understanding was applied to almost all the other punishments enumerated in the same biblical verse, "a tooth for a tooth, a wound for a wound."

The only punishment in this set that was not converted to a monetary fine was capital punishment for murderers, "a life for a life." Because the Torah believed that premeditated murder deserved the death penalty, there was obviously no fear of punishing the killer excessively. Jewish law did dictate, however, that murderers be executed in the quickest manner possible. Hence, later Jewish law forbade the Roman punishment of crucifixion.

Torah law also forbade remitting a murderer's sentence with a monetary fine. Life and money, according to the biblical ethic, are incommensurate; one can never atone for murder by paying money. In this regard, too, Torah law differed from the laws of the ancient Jews' neighbors, which would sometimes fine those who had murdered people belonging to a lower social class and which made certain property crimes (for example, looting at a fire) capital offenses. In Jewish law, property crimes could never be punished with death, and murderers could never be let off with payment of money, even if the family of the victim were willing to accept it (see Numbers 35:31, and Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, "Laws Concerning Murder," 1:4).

Both in its insistence that evil must be punished and in its equal insistence on setting limits to that punishment, "an eye for an eye" is a basic principle of biblical justice.

- Jewish Literacy, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, pages 558-560

[portraitsofsaints]

 Our Lady, Star of the Sea (Stella Maris)

Feast day: September 27

Patroness of the Catholic missions to seafarers

Our Lady, Star of the Sea is an ancient title for the Virgin Mary. The words Star of the Sea are a translation of the Latin title Stella Maris. The title was used to emphasize Mary's role as a sign of hope and as a guiding star for Christians, especially gentiles, whom the Old Testament Israelites metaphorically referred to as the sea, meaning anyone beyond the "coasts", or, that is to say, sociopolitical, and religious (Mosaic law), borders of Israelite territory. Under this title, the Virgin Mary is believed to intercede as a guide and protector of those who travel or seek their livelihoods on the sea.

Prints, plaques & holy cards available for purchase here: (website)

[fdelopera]

musings on Judaism in Good Omens...

Neil has written about Crowley being one of his most Jewish characters, and i was thinking about that while watching season 2 of Good Omens, especially episode 3.

in ep 3, during the "resurrectionist" flashback, there is a discussion between Aziraphale and Crowley that exemplifies the argument between Christianity and Judaism regarding poverty.

medieval Catholicism in particular believed that the poor are potentially more holy because they have further to "climb" on the social ladder, so we shouldn't give them "handouts" (unless of course it's as a way to buy favor with the church, since Catholics believed that charitable giving could buy them a reduced sentence in purgatory). Catholicism taught that we should let the poor “pull themselves up by their bootstraps”, because that would make them more virtuous and bring them closer to God, blah blah blah (you hear the same arguments in right wing political circles).

Judaism on the other hand takes the approach of the mitzvah of tzedakah (tzedakah is charitable giving that advances social justice -- the word comes from the Hebrew word “tzedek”, which means “justice”). Jews believe that it is our our moral and ethical duty to help disenfranchised people, and that it's ethically wrong to allow people to live in poverty for our own gain. it's the "we're all in this together so we have to help each other out" approach to society.

incidentally, that also relates to why pork is treyf in Judaism. it's not because the ancient Israelites knew that uncooked pork contained trichinella and that it could be dangerous to eat if not cooked properly. no one back then understood germ theory. instead, Jews are forbidden from eating pork because pigs can eat food that people also eat (they don't chew a cud, i.e. they don't solely survive on grass and ruffage that people can't digest). so if Jews raised pigs, they would potentially be taking food away from other Jews, and so the raising and keeping of pigs had to be banned for the good of Jewish society (since it was always hanging on by a thread).

Jews wrestle with G-d. that’s the meaning of what it is to be Jewish. Jacob was given the name “Israel” when he wrestled with the Angel, meaning “he who wrestles with G-d”.

in Crowley, there is an echo of Rabbinic and Talmudic thought, in terms of being able to use "fences" to shape our interpretation of the Torah. unlike with the Christian interpretation of the Bible, the Jewish relationship to our texts is not set in stone. Rabbis get around problematic passages by writing “fences”, or exceptions to the text. in essence, a “fence” says, “this law cannot be enacted, unless a series of completely improbable things were to happen first”. this allows the text to remain as it is, while removing the parts that we don’t agree with anymore (like stoning people to death as punishment etc).

watch the Job flashback in ep. 2 with this in mind.

this is part of how Jews wrestle with G-d, and it's an expression of our free will -- our texts can be addended to in order to reflect a modern understanding. (that's also why there are queer Rabbis in most Jewish denominations. most of the Jewish movements realized in the 20th century that barring queer people from being Rabbis wasn't in the interests of anybody, and so Judaism evolved.)

but while Rabbinic Judaism focuses on free will, many Christian movements (such as Calvinism) maintain a belief in a deterministic universe. 

and that's also part of the struggle between Crowley and Aziraphale.

so Crowley is figuring out how to say, "these laws don't serve me, so i'm not going to follow them as they’re written. i’m going to come up with my own interpretations". and he's just hoping that Aziraphale will catch up.

let’s just hope we get a Season 3, so Aziraphale has a chance to get there... come on, dude .. i know you can do it...

[evilwickedme]

Hey, next time we can ask you questions for free - you reblogged something about how people don't understand what Zionism is. I thought I did, but now I'm pretty sure I don't, and for obvious reasons I am having trouble finding reliabe information on it on the internet. What IS modern Zionism?

There were several rounds of foreign powers conquering and colonizing ancient Israel, causing several rounds of diaspora to match.

The history of the Jewish people goes back 3500+ years. Our creation myth, if you will, starts with Abraham, but our existence as a people starts with the story of exodus. Returning to the place where Abraham and his descendants made their home. That is where we start.

From then on, there has always been an Israelite, later Jewish, presence in our ancestral home. And yet so many of us were spread across the world. Over 2000 years ago we were settled in Italy and in Persia; some of us made it all the way to China and Ethiopia. We were no strangers to religious persecution - from Haman to the inquisition. Christians hated us, Muslims either tolerated us or persecuted us. And always we prayed, prayed to return to rebuilt Jerusalem.

In the 19th century, following the enlightenment, countries began to emancipate Jews. They lifted nearly every law that forced us to live apart, to look different. Many Jews took the opportunity to join western society, becoming indistinguishable from Christians. During this same time period was the rise of race science. The fear of Jews didn't go away. We were among them.

This is how racialized antisemitism was born. No longer could you stop being a Jew by converting to another religion; being Jewish was in your blood.

Frankly, Jews have always believed this to some degree. But this is what leads us, eventually, to the Holocaust.

It was already before this that we saw the signs. Racialized antisemitism was spreading throughout the world - not just in Europe, but in the US and MENA as well. Nationalist movements were popping up all over the place. It became clear that these nationalist movements excluded Jews. Thus was born Zionism: the natural result of thousands of years of yearning for our homeland, the natural result of antisemitism, the natural result of 3500 years of history.

Zionism initially wasn't necessarily about returning to Israel, strangely enough. But that aspect was rather quickly abandoned. As it was, throughout our history whenever there was a pogrom some groups of Jews would leave for Israel. Following the rise of racialized antisemitism, pogroms were happening throughout eastern Europe, and as Zionism spread, more and more Jews were doing aliyot - traveling in large groups to Israel. The Arab population - then still considered simply one part of the ottoman empire - did not approve, and several pogroms were committed against the local Jewish population, whether they were new arrivals or, like my own recent ancestors, had been living in Israel the entire time. And yet they kept coming.

Jumping ahead. What the Zionist dream would look like was not necessarily universally agreed on, but following the atrocities of the Holocaust and the world wide fall of the British empire an awkward decision of the holy land was proposed and agreed upon in the UN. It was understood that Zionism was not, as is presented now, racism. It was a move by an indigenous population to have self determination.

The Jews agreed to the plan. The Arab population did not. War broke out between Israel and every neighboring country, but Israel won. In 1948, a year after the UN resolution, Israel declared independence. 75 years later, we're still here.

In the 90s it looked like piece with the Palestinians would finally happen. Tragically, following terrorist actions from both Palestinians and Israelis, especially the assassination of itzhak rabin, the peace talks failed.

What is modern Zionism? That depends which Jew you ask. Some will say it's violent colonialism. Some will say it's racism. Some will say it's blind support for any action the Israeli government takes.

That is, frankly, bullshit. There are definitely Zionists who are violent, Zionists who are racist, Zionists who support the Israeli government. But there are also antizionists who are violent, who are antisemitic, who are blind supporters of Hamas. Claiming that that is representative of every Palestinian is ridiculous, as is so often parroted on this website. Practically every Israeli leftist who spent the last eight months protesting our government is a Zionist.

I will tell you what Zionism is to me. Zionism, to me, is the end of the Passover Seder, where we have, for 2000 years, called for the rebuilding of Jerusalem. It is praying at the western wall. It is Jewish existence in our homeland. It is self determination and land back for an indigenous population.

I am tired of apologizing for my existence. I am tired of saying "antizionism isn't antisemitism!!!" when so many antizionists refuse to unpack their antisemitism. I am tired of pretending Judaism wasn't always calling for our return to this homeland.

It is incredibly easy for outsiders to say that the only solution is a one state solution. But the truth is most Israelis *and* most Palestinians do not support it, because there is simply so much bad blood between us. Where did this cycle of violence begin? People who say 1948 do not understand how long the Jewish view of history is. The cycle of violence began during the first time Israel was conquered by a foreign power. The cycle of violence began when the Islamic empire colonized the entire middle east. The cycle of violence began during the rise of racialized antisemitism. The cycle of violence began when Jews illegally settled in Israel. The cycle of violence began when Arabs committed pogroms. The cycle of violence began when the war of independence broke out. The cycle of violence began when Israel conquered the west bank and Gaza strip in the six day war.

To me, the cycle of violence starts 3500 years ago, when the Israelites said, "we will not be slaves". To me, Zionism began when we spent 40 years in the desert, trying to reach what would be, for the next 3500 years, our home.

I cannot separate modern Zionism from that.

[factoidfactory]

Random Fact #6,493

"The god of Christians, Jews, and Muslims made only two genders" is not a sound claim even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that God exists and created genders.

Israelite society had several genders, not just two.

Ay’lonit [איילונית]

A person who is identified as “woman” at birth but develops “man” characteristics at puberty and is infertile. 

There are 80 references to this gender in the Mishna and Talmud and 40 in the classical midrash and Jewish law codes.

Androgynos [אנדרוגינוס] (Ancient Israel, from at least 1st century CE to 16th century CE)

A person who has both “male” and “female” sexual characteristics. 

There are 149 references to the gender in the Mishna and Talmud and a whopping 350 mentions in classical midrash and Jewish law codes.

Saris [סריס:] (Ancient Israel)

A person who is identified as a “man” at birth but develops “woman” characteristics at puberty and/or is lacking a penis. 

A saris can be “naturally” a saris (saris hamah), or become one through human intervention (saris adam). 

There are 156 references to this gender in mishna and the Talmud and 379 in classical midrash and Jewish law codes.

Tumtum [טומטום] (Ancient Israel)

A person whose sexual characteristics are indeterminate or obscured.

According to Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, Mada, Avoda Zara, 12, 4 Tumtum is not a separate gender exactly, but rather a state of doubt about what gender a person is (kind of like a Schrödinger’s gender?).

[todaysjewishholiday]

7 Sivan 5784 (12-13 June 2024)

Chag Shavuot Sameach! Today is the second and final day of the festival. In the diaspora a communal reading of Megillat Ruth is often held on the second day of Shavuot. And the seventh of Sivan is somewhat different than other added festival days for the diaspora because there is a makhlokhet in the Talmud over whether the presence of HaShem descended on the mountain in the sight of the Israelite camp on the sixth of Sivan or the seventh, when our progenitors left behind bondage in Egypt and found a covenant in the wilderness. So Shavuot is in some ways Schrödinger’s Chag. The correct observance is either the sixth of Sivan or the seventh so we might as well enjoy both!

It is a common Jewish belief (and even for those for whom it is not an literal belief, a potent communal metaphor) that the souls of all Jews who have ever lived and will ever live were present at Har Sinai when HaShem and the house of Israel swore their great covenant to one another there. We were there and accepted it as well. And it is said that all converts to Judaism have Jewish souls, and were also there. Judaism is ethnic and can be received as an inheritance but it can also be joined by all who are drawn to it, because at its heart Judaism is this great promise to HaShem and one another. We argue about how to understand it and we often fall short of applying even the knowledge we have of how to keep it but being Jewish is to admit that we are bound to each other and to the whole world. And a convert has every bit as much a claim to this covenant as any other Jew.

We read the Book of Ruth at Shavuot partly to carry this truth home. Ruth is from Moab— a people the ancient Israelites had repeated conflicts with and entrenched prejudices against— but she tells her Jewish mother-in-law “where you go I go, where you live I live, your people are my people, and your g-d my g-d” and from that moment forward Ruth is understood as a full member of the community. She is one of the direct lineal ancestors of Dovid HaMelekh. Rather than attempt to create a spotless noble pedigree for our most famous king ancient Jewish writers emphasized multiple women from marginalized backgrounds in his ancestry. We are a people shaped from the start by a mixed multitude and by welcoming fully those who are willing to join in Jewish life. It is worth remembering that always.

The book of Ruth’s emphasis on tzedekah and compassion and not only meeting but eagerly fulfilling mitzvot of care for the poor and for marginalized community members also encapsulates Shavuot’s reminder to recommit ourselves to the Torah and to the pursuit of justice that HaShem enjoins upon us.

[dailydemonspotlight]

Baal - Day 5

Race: Deity

Alignment: Light-Law

March 25th, 2024

Today's demon of the day belies himself as a god in the bible, though is truly a forgotten deity in his own right- Baal, Canaanite god of rain and fertility.

Baal, known by his true name of Hadad only to the priests and leadership of the religion, was a leading deity of the ancient Canaanite and Mesopotamian pantheons, given the title of 'Prince of the Earth,' a god commonly worshipped to bring about rains to the arid lands of Mesopotamia. Derived from the god Ishkur from Sumerian myth, Baal's role differed greatly from most storm gods, instead being a savior of sorts, a man who brought rain to dry lands and painted them in fertile grass instead of breaking things apart with storms and thunder.

In his main myth, Baal came into conflict with the god of Death and Sterility in Canaanite myth, Mot, and was locked in eternal conflict for years- each time he would fall, crops would wither away, and each time Mot would fall, they would spring to life. This eternal cycle known as the Baal cycle would become a focal point for Mesopotamian mythology, and Baal was a beloved deity...

Until Christianity attacked.

Unfortunately for Baal, his time in the limelight would soon give way to biblical stories about the Canaanite cults, and as the story would go, Baal was unable to complete the tasks set before him that the Israelite YHWH was able to complete. The prophet Elijah's altar was torn, a mastery over the weather was shown by YHWH, and this oddly spiteful tale that seems to come down to 'oh, my god is cooler than yours' comes to a bloody end as the cultists of Baal are soon brought to a bloody end by the blades of the priesthood.

Due to this, several demons were given epithets derived from Baal, such as Bael or Beelzebub, and Baal fell into a hole of obscurity, as would myths of Canaanite origin in general. In my opinion, a frankly somewhat tragic tale coming down to spite, but aside from that...

Baal's story makes him a perfect fit for a demon, one who rebels against god, mayhaps as a story of revenge for the death of his followers. In gameplay, he's a very powerful magic-focused demon with a specialty in, you guessed it... wind skills. The connection is obvious- he's a god of weather, after all. His design is very, very unique, as there isn't much to go off of for Baal's design in the mythos on account of only a few damaged art pieces surviving.

Baal's headdress remains, though changes to a more webbed design, his outfit resembling a traditional one of a middle-eastern culture, at least stereotypically speaking. He also appears as a... twink. I think? I dunno what he'd really count as. One of my friends referred to him as an otter? Regardless of all this, though, what's most notable with him are the fins adorning so many pieces of his armor, something which I... actually am not sure of the significance of. If anyone is more knowledgeable about this subject, please tell me in the notes! The same goes for the rest of this rundown, as I'm honestly not very familiar with Biblical stories or Canaanite mythology.

[writingwithcolor]

Culture based on ancient Israelites, but they worship the sun and have tattoos

@mangomura asked:

Hello there!I’m writing a fantasy ethnoreligious group based off of the Ancient Israelites and Illyrian sun worshipers. In my story, these people are a nomadic group that worship a sun god known as “Shemesh.” (the Hebrew word for sun) They generally have light olive skin and wavy dark brown hair. As part of their culture, women and men tattoo their hands and foreheads with sun symbols. (This is based off the traditional tattoos among Catholic Croatian women that originated from old Illyrian and Celtic tribes.)

From what I’ve researched, tattoos are sometimes considered taboo in Judaism. I know it’s a fantasy culture, but I still want to be respectful to Judaism since I’m drawing some inspiration from the Israelites. With that being said, would tattoos be offensive in this setting? Is drawing from two cultures with different views on tattoos problematic?

For reference, I’m a Japanese, Mexican, and Black Catholic. So I’m not personally familiar with Judaism. Online research and articles have been my only resource.

I appreciate this blog so much and would value any opinions you could give. Thank you!

I’m not sanguine about having something coded as ancient Israelite that worships observable natural phenomena. A great deal of our cultural narratives about our early development specifically places us in contrast to cultures that worship something other than a formless, omnipresent God, and often specifically sun worship. Many Jewish people, both who do and who do not believe that Torah is divinely inspired or historical truth, believe that the intent of many of the laws, especially ones like the law against tattooing one’s body, may have been intentionally designed to set us apart from neighboring cultures, to create a cultural identity that was not compatible with assimilation with cultures that ate pork, had religious tattoos, or worshiped the sun. 

Many people credit that distinctness of identity, that separateness, with the survival of our culture through the centuries, so to see something coded Jewish, that is, implied to be us in some meaningful way, mixed together with those opposing attributes, would not feel like positive representation.

You don’t say a lot in your ask about what aspects of Jewish or ancient Israelite culture you’re using to code this group, other than a generally Mediterranean phenotype and your use of the Hebrew word for sun as the name of their god--if that’s about the extent of it, then you don’t have a lot of revision to do to keep the bones of your idea without directly associating recognizable Jewish coding with sun worship. What if you name the sun-god something else, and include inspiration from other Bronze Age cultures along with the foundation you drew from Jewish, Croatian, and Celtic sources, to create something that skips the discomfort of muddling Jewishness together with other systems? 

Basically, I don’t think it’s necessary to tear your idea down and start from scratch, just make it not overtly Jewish and you’ll have avoided a discomfort I’m sure you didn’t even know to look out for. Good luck!

Meir 

[trendingtattoo]

Are Tattoos Banned by the Bible? Exploring the Scriptural Perspective

Tattoos have become increasingly popular in contemporary society, serving as a form of self-expression and personal adornment. However, questions often arise about whether tattoos are permissible according to religious beliefs, particularly in relation to the Christian faith. In this article, we will explore the topic of tattoos in the context of the Bible and delve into the scriptural perspective to gain a deeper understanding of the subject.

The Historical Context:

To understand the biblical viewpoint on tattoos, it is essential to consider the historical context of the verses commonly referenced in this discussion. The books of the Bible were written thousands of years ago, primarily within the cultural milieu of ancient Israel and surrounding nations.

The Scriptural References:

The primary biblical passage that is often cited regarding tattoos is found in Leviticus 19:28, which states, "You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord." This verse has led some to conclude that tattoos are categorically prohibited by the Bible.

Interpreting the Verse:

When interpreting any biblical passage, it is crucial to examine the verse within its broader context and consider its intended audience. Leviticus is part of the Old Testament's Mosaic Law, a collection of commandments given to the ancient Israelites as a guide for their moral and religious conduct. It covered various aspects of life, including dietary restrictions, clothing regulations, and rituals.

Understanding the Context:

It is important to note that the prohibition against tattoos in Leviticus 19:28 was closely linked to specific cultural and religious practices prevalent during that time. Pagan religions often employed tattooing and self-mutilation as acts of mourning or as expressions of allegiance to false gods. The Israelites were instructed to refrain from these practices as part of their distinct religious identity.

The New Testament Perspective:

When examining the broader Christian perspective on tattoos, it is necessary to consider the teachings of the New Testament, which provide additional insight. The arrival of Jesus Christ marked a new covenant, shifting the focus from strict adherence to ceremonial laws to matters of the heart, faith, and righteousness.

The New Covenant emphasizes the principles of love, grace, and freedom in Christ. Unlike the Mosaic Law, which regulated external practices, the New Testament teachings prioritize the internal transformation of individuals through faith in Jesus.

Freedom and Personal Conviction:

Based on the New Testament teachings, Christians are encouraged to consider their actions in light of the principles of love, respect, and self-control. While the Bible does not explicitly mention tattoos in the New Testament, it provides a framework for personal conviction and discernment.

Christians hold diverse perspectives on tattoos, and personal decisions about getting tattoos or not are often influenced by cultural, societal, and personal considerations. Some Christians choose to avoid tattoos due to a desire to maintain modesty, cultural sensitivity, or to prevent potential negative impacts on personal relationships.

Historical and Cultural Significance of Tattoos:

Tattoos have been a part of human history for thousands of years, with evidence of their existence in various ancient cultures worldwide. In some societies, tattoos held religious or spiritual significance, symbolizing one's connection to deities or ancestral spirits. They were also used to denote social status, tribe affiliation, or acts of bravery.

Cultural Relevance in the Modern Era:

In contemporary society, tattoos are predominantly seen as a form of self-expression and personal artistry. People choose tattoos to commemorate significant life events, express their passions, or simply as a means of aesthetic enhancement. The cultural significance of tattoos has evolved, and societal acceptance of body art has become more commonplace.

Individual Interpretation and Religious Beliefs:

Within the realm of Christianity, different denominations and individual believers have varying perspectives on tattoos. Some Christians interpret the Leviticus passage as a timeless commandment that prohibits tattoos outright, while others view it as specific to the cultural and religious practices of ancient Israel. They argue that the verse should be understood within its historical context and not necessarily applicable to Christians today.

The Role of Personal Conviction:

For Christians grappling with the question of tattoos, personal conviction plays a significant role. Many believe that since the New Testament does not explicitly address tattoos, it allows for greater freedom of choice. However, they also emphasize the importance of exercising discernment, considering the motives behind getting a tattoo, and ensuring it aligns with biblical principles.

Emphasis on the Heart and Inner Character:

Central to the Christian faith is the belief that God examines the heart and inner character rather than outward appearances. The New Testament encourages believers to focus on cultivating qualities such as love, humility, compassion, and integrity. Therefore, some Christians may prioritize the development of these inner virtues over external practices like tattooing.

Engaging in Dialogue and Respectful Discourse:

Given the diversity of beliefs among Christians regarding tattoos, it is essential to engage in respectful dialogue and understanding. Christians should approach the topic with an attitude of love, grace, and mutual respect, recognizing that personal convictions may differ while still maintaining a shared commitment to faith in Jesus Christ.

Conclusion:

While the Bible does contain a verse in Leviticus that is often interpreted as a prohibition against tattoos, it is important to understand its historical and cultural context. The New Testament teachings emphasize the principles of love, grace, and personal freedom in Christ. Consequently, Christians have varying perspectives on tattoos, with personal conviction and discernment playing a significant role in decision-making.

[bills-bible-basics]

WITHOUT ANY APOLOGIES

I am pro-life 100% with no apologies, because God is pro-life. If you are a Christian, think about this, folks. Is modern abortion that much different from the ancient Israelites who shed the innocent blood of their very own sons and daughters, when they sacrificed them to the false gods of ancient Canaan? God HATES the shedding of innocent blood:

"Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And SHED INNOCENT BLOOD, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood."

Psalms 106:37-38, KJV

"These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and HANDS THAT SHED INNOCENT BLOOD."

Proverbs 6:16-17, KJV

Abortion is nothing new. People have been killing babies for thousands of years. Their methods have just gotten “better”. Consider this verse from the Book of Enoch. Kasdeja is a fallen angel:

". . . And the fifth was named Kasdeja: this is he who showed the children of men all the wicked smitings of spirits and demons, and the smitings of the embryo in the womb, that it may pass away . . ."

Book of Enoch 69:12

The Bible tells us that children are a blessing from God, and NOT a curse or an inconvenience:

"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and THE FRUIT OF THE WOMB IS HIS REWARD."

Psalms 127:3, KJV

God was in fact aware of our existence, and even designed us, BEFORE we were physically formed in the womb. Check out these verses:

"Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and HE THAT FORMED THEE FROM THE WOMB, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"

Isaiah 44:24, KJV

"BEFORE I FORMED THEE IN THE BELLY I KNEW THEE; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

Jeremiah 1:5, KJV

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."

Psalms 139:13-16, KJV

Here is more proof that God foreknew us:

"FOR WHOM HE DID FOREKNOW, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."

Romans 8:29, KJV

"According as he hath chosen us in him BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love . . . Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will . . . In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:"

Ephesians 1:4-5, 11, KJV

Because of our stance regarding abortion, some liberals are quick to label Bible-believing Christians as "religious zealots". Well, let me say this: If "religious zealot" means someone who places God’s Laws and God’s Word above the corrupt laws of men which condone killing unborn babies, then, yes, go ahead and label Christians such as myself as zealots. I will wear the label as a badge of honor. Let me also add that someday when pro-abortionists stand before the Judgement Seat of the God of the Universe, they will finally understand their grave error; but by then, it may be too late!

For additional reading regarding this topic:

Article: "Abortion: The Slaughter of the Innocent":

https://billkochman.com/Articles/abort-01.html

Article: "Murdering Millions by Mail: The Abortion Controversy":

https://billkochman.com/Articles/murdering-millions-by-mail.html

Article: "The Fruit of the Womb":

https://billkochman.com/Articles/fruitwm1.html

[transgenderer]

¹ The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: ¹² Speak to the Israelites and say to them: If any man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, ¹³ if a man has had intercourse with her but it is hidden from her husband, so that she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her since she was not caught in the act; ¹⁴ if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself; or if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself; ¹⁵ then the man shall bring his wife to the priest. And he shall bring the offering required for her, one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour. He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance.

¹⁶ Then the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord; ¹⁷ the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. ¹⁸ The priest shall set the woman before the Lord, dishevel the woman’s hair, and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. In his own hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. ¹⁹ Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, “If no man has lain with you, if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while under your husband’s authority, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings the curse. ²⁰ But if you have gone astray while under your husband’s authority, if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your hus- band has had intercourse with you,” ²¹ —let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse and say to the woman—“the Lord make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge; ²² now may this water that brings the curse enter your bowels and make your womb discharge, your uterus drop!” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.” ²³ Then the priest shall put these curses in writing, and wash them off into the water of bitterness. ²⁴ He shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter her and cause bitter pain. ²⁵ The priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand, and shall elevate the grain offering before the Lord and bring it to the altar; ²⁶ and the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering, as its memorial portion, and turn it into smoke on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water. ²⁷ When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall dis- charge, her uterus drop, and the woman shall become an execration among her people. ²⁸ But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be immune and be able to conceive children.

²⁹ This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband’s authority, goes astray and defiles herself, ³⁰ or when a spirit of jealousy comes on a man and he is jealous of his wife; then he shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall apply this entire law to her. ³¹ The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity.

for some reason this kind of wacky guilt ritual seems out of place in the bible to me. like it should be medieval. but of course the wacky medieval rituals are the distant descendants of the wacky ancient rituals. anyway. really love that the drink is tabernacle dust. thats desert floor dust! gross!

[portraitsofsaints]

Happy Feast Day Our Lady, Star of the Sea (Stella Maris) Feast day: September 27 Patroness of the Catholic missions to seafarers

Our Lady, Star of the Sea is an ancient title for the Virgin Mary. The words Star of the Sea are a translation of the Latin title Stella Maris. The title was used to emphasize Mary's role as a sign of hope and as a guiding star for Christians, especially gentiles, whom the Old Testament Israelites metaphorically referred to as the sea, meaning anyone beyond the "coasts", or, that is to say, sociopolitical, and religious (Mosaic law), borders of Israelite territory. Under this title, the Virgin Mary is believed to intercede as a guide and protector of those who travel or seek their livelihoods on the sea. {website}