NEW RULES: Casual sex and hooking up can no longer be discussed on the forum

Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem with Christianity is it fluctuates between--
"This material world doesn't matter, only your eternal salvation does"
While ignoring aspects of the world that can severely harm you.
Poor? It's okay, the rich go to hell.
Ethnic replacement? It's okay, there's an eternal life that's better.
Girl dumps you because your game sucks? It's okay, charisma is superficial, and physical attraction is vanity anyways.

It's like it glorifies losing. Yet oddly, they sure as fuck secure the bag for themselves by securing billions and paying 0 taxes. My local churches have so much money. That's why my first thoughts on this were that Roosh is going to write a Christian book, which is a way larger market.

Normal men bear the burden of needing to WIN to have a decent life. Money, looks, social skills, etc... just to be able to start a family. Women don't really have this burden, and neither does the church.
I have to compete heavily to get anywhere, yet women and the church don't. Lifting weights to look better is "vanity", but you gotta do it to get the best possible mate right? So which is it? Men have the burden of driving the seduction process, women don't.

It's why churches help flood the country with cheap 3rd world labor, they profit off it. They can just dump the burden on you while you're on your knees being meek.

I'm not going to be on my knees watching the priest and church financially secure themselves, then I get judged for competing and having an ambitious drive to attain more in my life.

The Church's indifference towards ethnically replacing it's communities is downright sickening. It's like a meek, good Christian is also "gee shucks" about the whole thing too.


As far as the females,

I went to 12 years of Catholic schools, I can assure you christian girls aren't any different than most other hos out there. I don't know where you get this epiphany that your newly discovered code towards women will get you a loving relationship for life, because it won't. I feel I've been around Christian communities as much as anyone here and I turned to game for a reason.
 

Tail Gunner

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Mage said:
What about fate of stillborn / aborted children? Does orthodoxy explain that in a way that satisfies requirement of God being both loving and just?

What requirement? Humans trying to judge God's dictate as to what is "loving and just" is the absolute height of human arrogance.

Does an ant get to decide whether the inexplicable actions of humans are loving and just? Do humans even care what the ant thinks?
 
Tail Gunner said:
Does an ant get to decide whether the inexplicable actions of humans are loving and just? Do humans even care what the ant thinks?

No-one is telling the ant to worship a human.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
Christians were cutting off foreign heads, conquering foreign lands and ploughing foreign women for centuries.

Claiming Christianity is for cucks because you know a bunch of cucked Christians is like renouncing your American citizenship because all the dudes in your office are nu-male soyboys.

I've been guilty of this backwards thinking before. The entire West is drenched in soy and every organisation of more than 10 paying members has been pozzed. Even your full contact sports organisations embrace faggotry now but that doesn't make Rugby a feminine hobby, does it?

Be a Christian or don't, but don't claim its because Christianity is cucked.

Everything in the West is cucked so if your premise for being a part of something or not is "are there cucks involved" then you forfeit by default and get to be an exile or a hermit, both of which make you a *drum roll* cuck.
 

Mage

 
Disco_Volante said:
Normal men bear the burden of needing to WIN to have a decent life. Money, looks, social skills, etc... just to be able to start a family. Women don't really have this burden, and neither does the church.
Exaxtly!

Disco_Volante said:
I have to compete heavily to get anywhere, yet women and the church don't. Lifting weights to look better is "vanity", but you gotta do it to get the best possible mate right? So which is it? Men have the burden of driving the seduction process, women don't.
Exactly! My wife is wonderful yet she still says "It's great how God brought us together." No he didn't. I did most of the work in shadows. God can get only indirect credit for creating me, and making my IQ high enough to learn Game.

Disco_Volante said:
The Church's indifference towards ethnically replacing it's communities is downright sickening. It's like a meek, good Christian is also "gee shucks" about the whole thing too.

Exactly! I actually spoke with a high ranking Catholic priest, probably going to become a bishop one day, who said that Church has no obligation to preserve European culture and it cares about it's new converts in Africa and China more then about it's old home of Europe.

Priests also have this naive belief that Africans and Chinese can adopt their European born faith without making changes suitable for their IQ level, mentality and traditions. No they cannot. The Aztec/Latino Christianity where Saint Muerte cult is bigger then any other and many people combine Catholicism with drug trafficking is proof of that. It's almost as if they do not care about changes to theology and practice as long as they keep power and numbers of believers and a dumber population is actually better.

Disco_Volante said:
I went to 12 years of Catholic schools, I can assure you christian girls aren't any different than most other hos out there. I don't know where you get this epiphany that your newly discovered code towards women will get you a loving relationship for life, because it won't. I feel I've been around Christian communities as much as anyone here and I turned to game for a reason.

Catholics have better girls then most, but you have to look in Church, not in school. Girl going in Catholic school means that her parents had faith to send her there, tells little about the girl itself. Look not on education, look on attendance.
 

Mage

 
Tail Gunner said:
Mage said:
What about fate of stillborn / aborted children? Does orthodoxy explain that in a way that satisfies requirement of God being both loving and just?

What requirement? Humans trying to judge God's dictate as to what is "loving and just" is the absolute height of human arrogance.

Does an ant get to decide whether the inexplicable actions of humans are loving and just? Do humans even care what the ant thinks?


Sgt Donger said:
No-one is telling the ant to worship a human.

Sgt Donger replied perfectly.

Why worship God if he is not loving and just?

btw orthodox speak of believers literally as "God's slaves". Not Children. Not even servants. Slaves! Rabi Boznji!

Now I understand many of them mean it only rhetorically to show devotion and as remnant of medieval form of talk. But if you take that literally - how are you different from a Muhammadan?
 
Mage said:
Tail Gunner said:
Mage said:
What about fate of stillborn / aborted children? Does orthodoxy explain that in a way that satisfies requirement of God being both loving and just?

What requirement? Humans trying to judge God's dictate as to what is "loving and just" is the absolute height of human arrogance.

Does an ant get to decide whether the inexplicable actions of humans are loving and just? Do humans even care what the ant thinks?


Sgt Donger said:
No-one is telling the ant to worship a human.

Sgt Donger replied perfectly.

Why worship God if he is not loving and just?

btw orthodox speak of believers literally as "God's slaves". Not Children. Not even servants. Slaves! Rabi Boznji!

Now I understand many of them mean it only rhetorically to show devotion and as remnant of medieval form of talk. But if you take that literally - how are you different from a Muhammadan?

"Slave" is one of the many roles which the Bible tells us is the proper dynamic between ourselves and God. Others include child, friend, son, and servant. A person living in proper relation to God is all of these things at once.

"Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?" - Romans 6:12

"And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness." - Romans 6:18

"I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness."
- Romans 6:19

"But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life."
- Romans 6:22

"For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave." - 1 Corinthians 7:22

The difference between our slavery to God and the type exemplified in Islam is that between choice and coercion. We choose to make ourselves slaves (and friends, and children) of God because we love Him and want to spent eternity with Him. Muslims are forced by the fear of death to become slaves to their religion, and many are executed when they try to leave. It is a completely different approach to God, though the more mystical aspects of Islam (Sufism) seem to come closer to the love approach rather than the fear and domination approach. You cannot truly force someone to become a Christian, even if you can force them to do all the "outer stuff."
 

Mage

 
^

Whatever. It's all rhetoric.

Now answer the truly hard question about fate of unborn children. Do not escape from hard question by answering easy ones.
 
Roosh, if you're reading this, then please know that I am an incel.

I was raised in a Christian household, so my parents always made sure to tell me how "evil" sex before marriage was.

Back then, I thought they were crazy, but now when I look at at them, I realize that they are some of the most fulfilled people I know, despite not having it all.

So I know that fucking 100 girls isn't the path to true happiness.

At the same time, I know that if I want to become a more masculine, dominant, and assertive man who knows what he wants in a long-term partner, I'll have to get at least some sexual experience under my belt before I settle down.

Like I look at my dad and he is a complete beta (my mom complains about him all the time). She tells me how he never speaks up, how he always listens to his mom, and how he never wants to do anything exciting. I know it's not all his fault though. His dad died at a young age, so he never really had a father figure growing up. As a result, he was raised by a dominant woman and the fact that he was religious didn't help, because that meant he never had aspirations to become a "player." Therefore, he lived with his mom until he met my mom and they got married. I'm 100% sure he's never slept with anyone else. I'm 100% my mom never slept with anyone else either.

When I think about life, I know that one day I want to have a family. Looking at my dad encourages me to become a father, the father he never was. If I have a son, I want to be able to give him advice on women. I want to be able to give him memorable experiences. And most of all, I want to be able to give him a kind and loving mom.

But I know that if I want to do this, I'll have to sleep with at least SOME women.

And that's why this forum is so valuable to men like me (betas with low or non-existent notch counts).

There's guys here who have the sexual experience to help the less experienced guys.

So if you're reading this Roosh, I beg you please to rethink your decision.

You've done a great favour to humanity... Why stop now?
 
@Mage - Why are you bothering to ask me questions at all, if you're just doing so in bad faith and already have your mind made up? That doesn't sound like a productive use of my time OR yours.
 

Mage

 
I am asking you because you wrote this:

MichaelWitcoff said:
And you know what the weirdest thing is? It keeps proving itself to be true. If you engage with these issues honestly, openly, and with the attitude that you will humbly change your mind if your argument ends up holding no water, then I genuinely believe that you will see Orthodoxy is the purest available form of Christian teaching and is not just some refigured form of paganism as I once believed. Our metaphysics are the “ne plus ultra” of the field: there is nothing beyond it. St. Maximos the Confessor, and St. Dionysius the Areopagite whose work he heavily relied on , have explained the Universe in a God-centered way that accounts for all things and leaves nothing untouched or unaccounted for in any way.

I have great intellectual and spiritual curiosity for everything that claims to give answers to all questions. I am also constantly playing devils advocate to my own beliefs, whatever they might be at any moment, and searching where I might be wrong.

You say there is nothing untouched or unaccounted. Now please explain fate of unborn children then.
 
Mage said:
I am asking you because you wrote this:

MichaelWitcoff said:
And you know what the weirdest thing is? It keeps proving itself to be true. If you engage with these issues honestly, openly, and with the attitude that you will humbly change your mind if your argument ends up holding no water, then I genuinely believe that you will see Orthodoxy is the purest available form of Christian teaching and is not just some refigured form of paganism as I once believed. Our metaphysics are the “ne plus ultra” of the field: there is nothing beyond it. St. Maximos the Confessor, and St. Dionysius the Areopagite whose work he heavily relied on , have explained the Universe in a God-centered way that accounts for all things and leaves nothing untouched or unaccounted for in any way.

I have great intellectual and spiritual curiosity for everything that claims to give answers to all questions. I am also constantly playing devils advocate to my own beliefs, whatever they might be at any moment, and searching where I might be wrong.

You say there is nothing untouched or unaccounted. Now please explain fate of unborn children then.

It is not difficult to find the Orthodox view of what happens to those who die in innocence. The teaching is present in both our iconography and hymns. But given your last response to me, amounting to "whatever, who cares, I already know what I believe," I am not particularly interested in writing you an essay on the topic.

Feel free to Google it, if you're so inclined.
 

Mage

 
MichaelWitcoff said:
Mage said:
I am asking you because you wrote this:

MichaelWitcoff said:
And you know what the weirdest thing is? It keeps proving itself to be true. If you engage with these issues honestly, openly, and with the attitude that you will humbly change your mind if your argument ends up holding no water, then I genuinely believe that you will see Orthodoxy is the purest available form of Christian teaching and is not just some refigured form of paganism as I once believed. Our metaphysics are the “ne plus ultra” of the field: there is nothing beyond it. St. Maximos the Confessor, and St. Dionysius the Areopagite whose work he heavily relied on , have explained the Universe in a God-centered way that accounts for all things and leaves nothing untouched or unaccounted for in any way.

I have great intellectual and spiritual curiosity for everything that claims to give answers to all questions. I am also constantly playing devils advocate to my own beliefs, whatever they might be at any moment, and searching where I might be wrong.

You say there is nothing untouched or unaccounted. Now please explain fate of unborn children then.

It is not difficult to find the Orthodox view of what happens to those who die in innocence. The teaching is present in both our iconography and hymns. But given your last response to me, amounting to "whatever, who cares, I already know what I believe," I am not particularly interested in writing you an essay on the topic.

Feel free to Google it, if you're so inclined.

My response was about how believers call themselves in relation to God. That subject is of much less importance in my opinion. The fate of unborn babies, how God decides afterlife scenario for different people, interest me much more.

What sort of answer is to just google it? There are two things wrong with this answer:

1)You suggest I use a globalist website of google instead of DuckDuckGo or similar.
2)You completely destroy the purpose of this forum, or any forum by suggesting to just use a search engine instead.


Now please stop avoid answering the question. You claimed that your religion has strong answers to all questions. Prove it or admit your religion is not as perfect as you claimed.
 

Lino

Woodpecker
Vladimir Poontang said:
Mage said:
I did sleep around with women for a brief time, about two years but I had my morals:

1) never take a virginity from girl you don't want to marry.
2) never lie that this is serious if you expect it not to be.
3) only oral sex with girls you are not sure about the future plans.

Maybe it would be a good idea to have some sort of unofficial code of conduct. Just something to think about rather than buy into completely if one doesn't want to. A set of principles.

I like where this is going. Educating men to be less assholes with women rather than forbidding them to fornicate, creating a « player code of conduct » to teach them to integrate morals in their interactions with women, many men on this forum are proud to be senseless predators, I have never been like that and I often considered that my morals were limiting me, I often felt naive and dumb for respecting my principles because there is always another dude who is gonna fuck that chick that you didn’t touch out of respect or to respect your morals.

An exemple of the rules I followed:
- never seduce an engaged woman (married or who has a boy friend), because I don’t wanna be the reason of a split up, I don’t want to encourage cheating and I don’t wanna do to a man what I wouldn’t like done to me.
- Never have sex with a woman who seems very fragile mentally when I feel that dumping her would hurt her terribly.
- I often meet girls who used to be very serious but have been so hurt by their last relation that they decide to turn into whores, obviously they don’t phrase it that way but a girl who only had long relationships and says that now she « just wants to have fun » is a whore in construction. I don’t wanna be part of that process.

There are other situations where I would pass, you get the spirit.

A few years ago, I daygamed a girl and a few days later we went for a drink, I brought her back to my place and then she told me she is married but often cheated on her husband, she thought I wouldn’t mind as she cheated already often....I didn’t touch her, she got mad and called me a fag..then the day after she texted me that I was a real man...yeah but that didn’t stop her from fucking the next dude she met.

I followed these rules for a long time but now I can tell you that women are as much players as men and in general way more gifted then men for that because it is part of their mechanism, even between themselves. This is why Learning game is an absolute necessity for men, to keep up with the mind games and manipulations that are natural for most women, yeah we love fucking but the way we function is more simple and straightforward, we need game to decrypt women and handle their vice.

I also think having ethics is important but it is a very personal thing.
This forum is originally for self improvement, it isn’t a religious forum, you can’t force people to be religious, learning game is a necessity in today’s world, you can’t live in a bubble of chastity.

I know that the majority of the forum members are Americans and maybe that explains the adhesion to this new rule, you guys are more puritan than us europeans, no offense to the religious people here but nearly all the ones that I met were narrow minded and stubborn, frustrated, envious, extremely judgemental and very limited, no matter which religion it was.

If this forum turns into a christian forum then I’ll be out as well (the same way I would if it turned into a muslim or judaic forum). What is the next step? Not talking business because lending money with interest is forbidden by god??

Anyway...these were my thoughts, I’m out of this thread.

Peace.
 

Rigsby

Pelican
Gold Member
thot_slayer said:
Nietzsche:

Only if you repent will God forgive your sins! This would have seemed absurd to a Greek. He would have said, "Perhaps slaves feel this way".

Quite fond of quoting Nietzche aren't you 'thot_slayer', or rather, I should call you recently banned member 'alphacentauri' or even longer banned RVF member 'Addonis'.

See this thread for a nightmare scenario with this autistic clown: https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-71889.html

How many other socks do you have La Noblesse?

This is the autistic wannabee child molester over at that 'other' forum - you know - the one that is the 'successor' to RVF.

I take it back about you getting help Nobby boy. Your autism is pretty severe, even if you are HFA (high functioning autistic). It can't be treated. Not when you are comorbid with NPD (narcissistic personality disorder). In short, you are a sociopath/psychopath.

Psychopathy is traditionally a personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, and egotistical traits.

I do genuinely believe you to be dangerous. If you really did spend 16 months in a Swedish prison for armed robbery, that doesn't surprise me. Also the fact you are wanted by the FBI does not surprise me.

But you are still a joke. You claim to have spent time in the hole?

I spent a whole month in solitary confinement in prison. I dealt daily with murderers and drug barons.


What an autistic clown you are. You were in solitary, yet 'dealt daily' with murderers and drug barons. You big baller you!

Admit it Nobby, you are really Little Dark!

You probably chased them down and told them to go home, didn't you?

Fucking clown. (yeah making the most of it till D-Day - Divination Day)


Also, why are you talking to yourself on your forum? Do you not realise everyone can tell that the only other people posting in your little "Incel Palace" is you. It's called Exegesis. Exegesis is not just for the translation and better understanding of religious texts, it's a whole field in itself. Think of it as 'reverse engineering' for text. But it's not difficult with you.

You use the same phrase structures, the same grammar and syntax, the same punctuation, plus you post only minutes apart.

Another thing that shows me that you have serious malice is the hijacking of banned RVF member 'The Father' and his persona. I put it at 70 percent probability that that is you. But the others over at STW have already called you out on this. Same MO: you drone on and on and on, and even a slight challenge causes you to throw your toys out your sperg pram! Clown.

The Father didn't post that much on this forum. He was pretty laid back, and I even repped him at one point. If it really is him (slight chance I'm wrong on this) then he really is a fucking butt-hurt faggot to be spamming your forum with bitching about Roosh and also spamming STW with the same shit. I honestly believe it is you what with your propensity and almost super-natural drive to set up sock accounts.

You set this one up a couple of months ago didn't you thot_boy? Before all this kicked off. How many more do you have? A few I would wager.

...

Roosh, if you're reading this, I considered that I should send you a PM with the proof about thotty being alphacentauri/Addonis/nobby. I'll do that in the future. No need for extra drama and nob boy likes all the attention, don't you nobby?

But I thought this would make a good example to other RVF members to dial it down a bit when interacting with no post/no rep noobs. Nobby is easy to spot because he is a narcissist and just can't help himself. The German philosophers, the Swedish connection, the Greek connection, the little underhanded snarks.

But there will be many more coming out of the woodwork over the next few days, trying to cause disruption. Just be extra on your guard.

thot boy/nobby is a 'speshul' case of sperg. But others will be a bit more canny.

Oh and nobby, if that really is you in the photo you posted, you actually do look like a fucking retard. As do all your sperg retard 'buddies'.

Keep tilting at the windmills nob boy, keep telling everyone that you are prepared and willing to 'break the law'. And keep talking to yourself with your unimaginative sock puppets. You fucking retard.

You are a serious liability to this forum. Any connection with you must be protested in the strongest of terms. As I am doing with you now. Sperg.

Usually I would pity someone like you, or try to help them even, but this narcissistic bent you have coupled with your sociopathy makes me have no liking for you at all. You really are a dangerous and malicious cunt.

I give it a couple of weeks or at the most months, till you mysteriously disappear out of sight (get banged up). You pinged the wrong radars and now you have heat on you and don't even know it.

That's it. Said what I had to say. No more attention for you little nobby.

I can PM you the proof if you like Roosh. Apologies for the 'drama'.

Hopefully this is a gentle reminder for members not to get drawn in to spats with no rep/no post noobs.

D-Day, here we come!
 

thoughtgypsy

Kingfisher
Gold Member
Michael, thanks for the thought out response. It looks as though we agree on most matters from what you've wrote. I think I should give some context behind my reply and why your initial post came across the way it did to me.

In the original post of this thread, it was announced that there will be a rule that pre-marital sex discussion will no longer be allowed. This came as a surprise to many, not because Roosh has become increasing more spiritual, which most people were already aware of, but because of the restriction on discussion of what was previously discussed and debated freely the day before.

From what you've said, it sounds like you would agree that doctrines should be based on reason, and should have an explanation. From what I've seen, there was no explanation behind the new rules, other than that they lead to sin.

The idea that pre-marital sex in and of itself is a destructive, sinful act, is probably a minority viewpoint on the forum, or was a week ago. However, I do think there are a majority of men who are looking for deeper meaning in their relationships, and would be receptive to discussing the merits or dangers of pre-marital sex in our current society.

From what I saw, I could not make out any reasoned support of the merits for preventing its discussion. There was a lot of people throwing in their support, and a lot of people pointing the finger at each other, but if there was a detailed explanation of why these rules would benefit young men, I must have missed it.

To me, this came across as a rule based arbitrarily on the bible, not because the bible is based on reason and thus the rules that stem from it. The silence that followed those who pointed out the possible issues with it seemed to add credence to the idea. The replies were heavy on posturing and light on reasoning, in my opinion.

There was a lot of talk about sin, doing the right thing, living the righteous path, but little talk about why something is a sin, what is a righteous path, and why it is the correct way. This is how your post came across to me, given the context of the discussion in the thread so far. I understand now that I saw it in the wrong light, but the reasons above are why it struck me that way.

MichaelWitcoff said:
There is a number of problems with that approach, though. The primary one, of course, is that Christ and the Apostles very clearly and explicitly said that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament God’s covenant with the people of Israel. Over and over in the New Testament you see the authors and speakers talking about this in its various aspects; so to believe that the Old and New Testament God are somehow different is to essentially deny the very teachings of both.

How do you know this for a fact? These supposed events happened over 2000 years ago, and they fit a narrative that would benefit the people who are trying to reconcile two separate works. That seems to raise a conflict of interest, so the historical basis seems pretty important to establish.

I’m not sure what you mean by priests practicing human sacrifice or the later parts of the Bible being written by “enlightened Greeks;”

There are some passages related to the Levitical preisthood that are seem to speak to the practice of human sacrifice amongst them. There are later passages that contradict them, which raises more questions of the credibility and coherence of different ideas mashed together.
https://www.rationalchristianity.net/human_sacrifice.html

Tail Gunner said:
This is one of the central themes of the Old Testament and the central theme in the Book of Judges and the Book of Kings. If I had to choose only one Bible verse that explains most of the societal problems that mankind now experiences it is this one: "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25 (KJV)

Yes, there are some good gems in the Old Testament. Another one I recall is in Isaiah, I think, where it's mentioned that the most fulfilling use of one's time is to filling your day with honest work. It's always been a reminder to me that men thrive when they're busy, engaged in activities that are for the good of their family, without conflict to mankind.

However, I'd say that 90% of the content is either pointless (And then Mahaleel, son of Hashem, son of Methusallah, son of Noah, son of Enoch, son of Adam went forth to.. etc). Or downright psychopathic (The lord said he would deliver us these lands, and so we killed every last man, woman, child, and livestock in the sum of 7000 on that day.)

The historical context of the verse is very important. Until this time, Israel was not ruled by a king. It was ruled by a loose cadre of judges (wise elders guided by God). Israel did not need a king, because God was its King (through the elders). But the people of Israel demanded a king, because all the other kingdoms had a king.

In essence, the people of Israel turned their back on their one true king (God) in exchange for weak vain fallible human kings. By turning their back on God, the people of Israel became untethered from God and from His law -- and "every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Sound familiar?

Speaking of historical context, many of the narratives from the bible, particularly the old testament, appear to be fabricated when compared against the historical record. There is no support for the narrative that Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt. Hebrews, or Jews, are not mentioned in any historical records until roughly 1000BC.

There is however a time when Egypt was invaded by Hyksos, or shephard kings, who were eventually driven back after some years. Rather than victims, the Hyksos were aggressors, and it wouldn't be surprising if they tried to reinvent themselves and push a narrative that was more geopolitically flattering.

Prior to the Hyksos, there was a group of lawless wanderers in the region called the Habiru:

Habiru (sometimes written as Hapiru, and more accurately as ʿApiru, meaning "dusty, dirty"[1]) is a term used in 2nd-millennium BCE texts throughout the Fertile Crescent for people variously described as rebels, outlaws, raiders, mercenaries, bowmen, servants, slaves, and laborers.

The word Habiru, more properly 'Apiru, occurs in hundreds of 2nd millennium BCE documents covering a 600-year period from the 18th to the 12th centuries BCE and found at sites ranging from Egypt, Canaan and Syria, to Nuzi (near Kirkuk in northern Iraq) and Anatolia (Turkey), frequently used interchangeably with the Sumerian SA.GAZ, a phonetic equivalent to the Akkadian (Mesopotamian) word saggasu ("murderer, destroyer")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habiru

Another thing to keep in mind is that Israel and Judea were two separate things. Judea was more of a small polity, whereas Israel was a kingdom further to the north.

Truth is eternal. There is no need to deviate from it. It is the questioning of that eternal truth that leads to arrogance, which leads to ruin.

Every group claims a monopoly on the truth. Eternal truth is not destroyed when questioned, only lies are.
 

loremipsum

Kingfisher
I very much agree with Mage about deflowering and dumping. If there is a sin for karmic debts thats one right there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top