[Verv]

I watched the Aaron Bushnell immolation - specifically sought out an uncensored version. I believe that it was not the FULL full version of it, as I later accidentally saw a still not from it that was beyond really what I wanted to see.

The reason I sought it out was because I believe in the old imperative from Thich Nhat Hanh to not turn away from suffering, and my general lesson from this has been that war and violence in general are such profound hells that glorifying them even indirectly is a mistake. I never seek out gore - only once, while intoxicated and with a woman who wanted to see it, did I actually look for one, specific thing... But, nonetheless, I have seen it unwillingly from time to time, and now I see it in the reporting on Ukraine and Palestine from uncensored channels and it is truly difficult.

But going through those difficulties has been enlightening.

... and when it is relevant politically, I don't know, I guess I just wanted to see it.

It was, to be sure, difficult, and upsetting, and I think that @annatar1914 has said it best...

Death should be seen as natural but also as something we should not willingly wish upon anyone, including ourselves, and it cannot be used at will as some tool of protest for us Westerners who have no belief set that condones it. But, I now balk at saying that, because I think an increasing amount of Westerners are raised outside of the church and are alienated from traditional views of this, and so they are developing their own parallel culture which can include these elements...

But that culture is, to some degree, alien to me, and I do not think it has the metaphysical depth that the Buddhists have when they have done this in the past.

[annatar1914]

I watched the Aaron Bushnell immolation - specifically sought out an uncensored version. I believe that it was not the FULL full version of it, as I later accidentally saw a still not from it that was beyond really what I wanted to see.

The reason I sought it out was because I believe in the old imperative from Thich Nhat Hanh to not turn away from suffering, and my general lesson from this has been that war and violence in general are such profound hells that glorifying them even indirectly is a mistake. I never seek out gore - only once, while intoxicated and with a woman who wanted to see it, did I actually look for one, specific thing... But, nonetheless, I have seen it unwillingly from time to time, and now I see it in the reporting on Ukraine and Palestine from uncensored channels and it is truly difficult.

But going through those difficulties has been enlightening.

... and when it is relevant politically, I don't know, I guess I just wanted to see it.

It was, to be sure, difficult, and upsetting, and I think that @annatar1914 has said it best...

Death should be seen as natural but also as something we should not willingly wish upon anyone, including ourselves, and it cannot be used at will as some tool of protest for us Westerners who have no belief set that condones it. But, I now balk at saying that, because I think an increasing amount of Westerners are raised outside of the church and are alienated from traditional views of this, and so they are developing their own parallel culture which can include these elements...

But that culture is, to some degree, alien to me, and I do not think it has the metaphysical depth that the Buddhists have when they have done this in the past.

@Verv

It's is true what you say my friend, because I believe that most people tend towards infidelity. Christian societies that are falling away from Christ gradually and theologically express this as Pelagianism and Unitarianism , ultimately as Islam in my opinion.

[Godstud]

I heard it said, recently, I can't remember by whom, that Western society was created alongside Christian morality and ethics. It has prospered because of this. The only reason Western society is having problems now, is because we are abandoning that morality and system of ethics for hedonism, self-gratification and decadence. I don't think that this is far off the mark.

I often have considered myself an agnostic atheist, but honestly I am not sure that I am not simply a lost Christian. Regardless, I have always lived by the Christian morality that my parents instilled upon me(I see a lot of it in most religions, actually), and am passing that onto my son. It's not in religious form, as he's culturally exposed to Buddhism, as a matter of life. I can still add in some good teachings from Christianity, without changing anything, and at 13 your beliefs tend to change, daily.

Anyways, just tossing that out there.

[Potemkin]

I heard it said, recently, I can't remember by whom, that Western society was created alongside Christian morality and ethics. It has prospered because of this. The only reason Western society is having problems now, is because we are abandoning that morality and system of ethics for hedonism, self-gratification and decadence. I don't think that this is far off the mark.

I often have considered myself an agnostic atheist, but honestly I am not sure that I am not simply a lost Christian. Regardless, I have always lived by the Christian morality that my parents instilled upon me(I see a lot of it in most religions, actually), and am passing that onto my son. It's not in religious form, as he's culturally exposed to Buddhism, as a matter of life. I can still add in some good teachings from Christianity, without changing anything, and at 13 your beliefs tend to change, daily.

Anyways, just tossing that out there.

You can’t be an agnostic atheist, @Godstud - an agnostic reserves judgement on whether or not God exists, whereas an atheist is certain God doesn’t exist. But if you’re an atheist, then you’re clearly a Christian atheist. And that’s not a contradiction in terms - you grew up, as I did, in a culture which was shaped by Christian beliefs and values. We cannot escape from that fact, and nor should we try to do so.

[Verv]

I heard it said, recently, I can't remember by whom, that Western society was created alongside Christian morality and ethics. It has prospered because of this. The only reason Western society is having problems now, is because we are abandoning that morality and system of ethics for hedonism, self-gratification and decadence. I don't think that this is far off the mark.

I often have considered myself an agnostic atheist, but honestly I am not sure that I am not simply a lost Christian. Regardless, I have always lived by the Christian morality that my parents instilled upon me(I see a lot of it in most religions, actually), and am passing that onto my son. It's not in religious form, as he's culturally exposed to Buddhism, as a matter of life. I can still add in some good teachings from Christianity, without changing anything, and at 13 your beliefs tend to change, daily.

Anyways, just tossing that out there.

It is actually the case that I know several men who have returned to Christianity because they view the decline of Western society as directly linked to how crazy it became when unmoored from Christianity, just as you said. It was like proof to them that these values are real, and also that some kind of blessing has been removed...

Ayan Hrsi Ali famously has announced she is no longer an atheist specifically because she finds a godless world so empty and unprincipled. Of course, this is VERY complicated and I respect the interplay between religion and politics and people's conclusions...

But I guess it's just that you get this respect for immortal principles when you see they play out in a way that is not even "logical," and that disembodied logic is so untenable. Humans without God fail - perhaps not even because they are actually "irrational" and selfish and immoral, but because rationality by itself becomes a weight around our neck when it doesn't have faith in God accompanying it.

[Potemkin]

But I guess it's just that you get this respect for immortal principles when you see they play out in a way that is not even "logical," and that disembodied logic is so untenable. Humans without God fail - perhaps not even because they are actually "irrational" and selfish and immoral, but because rationality by itself becomes a weight around our neck when it doesn't have faith in God accompanying it.

Who is more logical or more rational than a sociopath? Pure rationality is the royal road to hell on Earth.

[Verv]

Who is more logical or more rational than a sociopath? Pure rationality is the royal road to hell on Earth.

This is exceedingly true - it reminds me of how removing the strings of commitment in any sexual transaction becomes a recipe for hell... Prostitution, for obvious reasons... But even a single one-night stand can leave a great wound on the soul while being completely transitory...

Because it is so rational.

You can almost hear the nasally sophist saying how is it any different than paying a person money for any other service...

What's so wrong about anything two consenting adults do...

People shut up - the logic is wrapped so tight, too. There's no wiggle room beneath it... This is because, without any obvious values informing the decisions, how do you debate it?

You can't...

Yet sexual libertinism is a grave that swallows people daily - as is alcoholism and substance abuse, another purely "free people doing what they wish with their own bodies" situation.

[Tainari88]

This is exceedingly true - it reminds me of how removing the strings of commitment in any sexual transaction becomes a recipe for hell... Prostitution, for obvious reasons... But even a single one-night stand can leave a great wound on the soul while being completely transitory...

Because it is so rational.

You can almost hear the nasally sophist saying how is it any different than paying a person money for any other service...

What's so wrong about anything two consenting adults do...

People shut up - the logic is wrapped so tight, too. There's no wiggle room beneath it... This is because, without any obvious values informing the decisions, how do you debate it?

You can't...

Yet sexual libertinism is a grave that swallows people daily - as is alcoholism and substance abuse, another purely "free people doing what they wish with their own bodies" situation.

Marriage in the past was a purely transactional and business and property exchange agreement. The idea of being in love, and choosing your own marriage partner was unheard of in the past.

The reality is sexual relations are complicated on many levels. Men who have sex with women they are not in love with and just want a sexual release and to move on quickly. Women who think having sex with a man just for the same reasons and then find themselves pregnant and without commitment from the man?

I always told my older son and now I will have a conversation with my younger son who is approaching his teen years in a few months time? That unless you want to be looking at that girl's face for the next twenty years of your life and paying for the next eighteen years of your life for child support? Then you are going to have to make the decision of whether that temporary sexual release logic is worth it or not?

if the answer is that it is not worth it? Then do not have sex or if you have sex then use some strong birth control with consistency.

Otherwise it is all immoral and irresponsible behavior that leads to nothing good.

If one is in love with a person? Really in love? Then the decision to have sex is very easy to take. You love that person's spirit. So any consequences that come from that are all acceptable. Love is a rare thing in this world. If you love someone truly, you do not care if they have money or a job, or if they do have a job or money, or if they are healthy or ill, or if they are useful to you on a personal basis or not. You love that spirit until the end of time. So being with them intimately is not a risk at all. It is just an extension of what you feel for them anyway.

People rarely know what love is anyway. They think it is a pain free thing that is easy to do. It is not. It is the opposite. You will have to give everything you got and suffer if you truly love that person. Risk a lot of heartache, and disappointments and pain that is unbelievable if the circumstances are tough.

But in the end the reason why you are here anyway is to love people deeply. A wasted life for me is to never have loved anyone at all. Deeply.

What kind of life is that to lead eh Verv?

[Verv]

You really said something very profound here that I think presents modern people and, specifically Christians, with the right answer towards sexuality...

Of course, I fully acknowledge the Christian standard - I will say that fornication is wrong, and sex before marriage is not the ideal path at all, just like, ideally, you can enjoy wine without ever being drunk...

But who does not one day get drunk?

And, as it is with sex...

If one is in love with a person? Really in love? Then the decision to have sex is very easy to take. You love that person's spirit. So any consequences that come from that are all acceptable. Love is a rare thing in this world. If you love someone truly, you do not care if they have money or a job, or if they do have a job or money, or if they are healthy or ill, or if they are useful to you on a personal basis or not. You love that spirit until the end of time. So being with them intimately is not a risk at all. It is just an extension of what you feel for them anyway.

People rarely know what love is anyway. They think it is a pain free thing that is easy to do. It is not. It is the opposite. You will have to give everything you got and suffer if you truly love that person. Risk a lot of heartache, and disappointments and pain that is unbelievable if the circumstances are tough.

So if my daughter did find herself sleeping with a man she wasn't married to because it had become such a natural step to take, I cannot become angry unless they abandon one another.

The real anecdote to preventing "fornication" is not to work so hard to signal for waiting until this arbitrary time, but recognizing when you have fallen in love, and deciding to make the easy choice and invite the marriage to come into fruition along with the consummation.

So really, telling your kid to only have sex when they are sure they would marry that person and are willing to accept the full consequences is a very important message to contain within Christian teaching, because it also helps identify what love really is... The certainty of being able to consummate the relationship with someone like that...

And in your message , as well, is the very important point that love is not pain free.

Both parties need to work at it actively - not just for the first few months or few years but for a very long time, and even then, problems can arise. Problems do not even have to be seen as threats to the marriage unless they are very severe, but people act like they are going to fall out of love over very routine circumstances that may be less than ideal...

But yeah, good post, Tainari. Thanks.

[Rich]

The New Testament makes zero sense if it is removed from the context of the Old Testament. Jesus did not set out to trash Judaism and invent a new religion of his own; on the contrary, he claimed to be fulfilling the Jewish religion. The God who destroyed the cities of the plain and ordered the Jews to commit genocide against their enemies is the same God who allowed himself to be scourged and then nailed to the Cross, to suffer an agonising and humiliating death at the hands of his enemies. The same God. Who is God, that he must conform to our expectations?

I agree the New testament makes zero sense if it is removed from the context of the Old Testament. The problem is it makes zero sense if it is left in the context of the Old Testament. so when it comes to deconstructing Christianity where should we start?

More recently I've come to the view, that we should start with the question: Is the Gospel of John Christian? you mention the humiliation of Jesus's death. Is it a humiliation in John's Gospel,or does his raising up on the Cross actually function as a glorification? John's Jesus does not descend into Hell, because in John's universe there is no hell. I'm sorry but the existence or non existence of Hell is not some minor theological difference, that can just be brushed under the carpet. Did Jesus die for our sins? I think there's little evidence that was John's view. So we need to precede with the awareness that the Synoptics and John may not be selling the same religion.

Even sticking to the Synoptics,what are we to make of the "no jot and comma" and the adulterer stoning. When we look at ancient times and distant cultures, we can often be struck by how different they were, but in this case both elements remind me of modern lawyer / politician speak. Particularly the stoning scene, where Jesus reminds me of a classic modern leftie liberal lawyer, who hates the police and much of the public prosecutors office to boot who will joyfully use any ruse to get his client off. There's a lot of smart arsed rhetoric in the Gospels and some impressive miracles, but there's nothing of any substance behind it.

Conservatives always associate moral relativism, with evil leftie university teachers seeking to undermine our societies, create chaos and overthrow our regimes. But the Old / New Testament, the Bible is a case for some of the most extreme moral relativism imaginable.

[Potemkin]

I agree the New testament makes zero sense if it is removed from the context of the Old Testament. The problem is it makes zero sense if it is left in the context of the Old Testament. so when it comes to deconstructing Christianity where should we start?

More recently I've come to the view, that we should start with the question: Is the Gospel of John Christian? you mention the humiliation of Jesus's death. Is it a humiliation in John's Gospel,or does his raising up on the Cross actually function as a glorification? John's Jesus does not descend into Hell, because in John's universe there is no hell. I'm sorry but the existence or non existence of Hell is not some minor theological difference, that can just be brushed under the carpet. Did Jesus die for our sins? I think there's little evidence that was John's view. So we need to precede with the awareness that the Synoptics and John may not be selling the same religion.

Even sticking to the Synoptics,what are we to make of the "no jot and comma" and the adulterer stoning. When we look at ancient times and distant cultures, we can often be struck by how different they were, but in this case both elements remind me of modern lawyer / politician speak. Particularly the stoning scene, where Jesus reminds me of a classic modern leftie liberal lawyer, who hates the police and much of the public prosecutors office to boot who will joyfully use any ruse to get his client off. There's a lot of smart arsed rhetoric in the Gospels and some impressive miracles, but there's nothing of any substance behind it.

Conservatives always associate moral relativism, with evil leftie university teachers seeking to undermine our societies, create chaos and overthrow our regimes. But the Old / New Testament, the Bible is a case for some of the most extreme moral relativism imaginable.

Indeed. Christianity was an incredibly radical religion when it first appeared. It was more Woke than the current Woke liberals. I think there’s a passage in Acts where some good citizens hand over some Christians to the proper authorities to be punished, and they tell the magistrate, “These are the men who have turned the world upside down.” Christianity was, in many ways, an inversion of the traditional value system of the ancient world. This is why Christianity was one of the few religions which the Romans did not tolerate. It contradicted everything they held sacred, it contradicted all of their moral values. They would have been crazy to tolerate it. But it outlasted them, and its values became their values. And the same will happen with that other radical doctrine which also seeks to turn the world upside down….

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , @Verv , @Rich , @Godstud , and @Political Interest :

Yesterday during Great Lent, on the feast day of the 40 martyrs of Sebaste, terrorists struck at Russian civilians in Moscow.

Recall that I stated before that ISIS would continue to exist and thrive because it's enemies hate and fear each other more than they hate or fear ISIS?

The intent as per official communique was to " kill Christians" and I take that at it's word. The Devil is required to voice his intentions, usually beforehand.

Sure, there's no doubt a not very well hidden Western and Bandera fascist devil connection, of course. That makes it even worse, the treason of the West against man and God though is historically well known and established, and " blowback" is a very real thing.

But the time is coming in which all these foul rivers will find their source in a dark abyssal ocean in Hell. They are necessarily one and all act towards the benefit of one, as Satan's kingdom is not divided in the slightest. All my sins and all the sins of men contribute towards the building up of that kingdom whatever guise it wears.

It is what it is. Maybe they'll take over every country in the world by the time people figure it all out.

[Verv]

I agree the New testament makes zero sense if it is removed from the context of the Old Testament. The problem is it makes zero sense if it is left in the context of the Old Testament. so when it comes to deconstructing Christianity where should we start?

More recently I've come to the view, that we should start with the question: Is the Gospel of John Christian? you mention the humiliation of Jesus's death. Is it a humiliation in John's Gospel,or does his raising up on the Cross actually function as a glorification? John's Jesus does not descend into Hell, because in John's universe there is no hell. I'm sorry but the existence or non existence of Hell is not some minor theological difference, that can just be brushed under the carpet. Did Jesus die for our sins? I think there's little evidence that was John's view. So we need to precede with the awareness that the Synoptics and John may not be selling the same religion.

Even sticking to the Synoptics,what are we to make of the "no jot and comma" and the adulterer stoning. When we look at ancient times and distant cultures, we can often be struck by how different they were, but in this case both elements remind me of modern lawyer / politician speak. Particularly the stoning scene, where Jesus reminds me of a classic modern leftie liberal lawyer, who hates the police and much of the public prosecutors office to boot who will joyfully use any ruse to get his client off. There's a lot of smart arsed rhetoric in the Gospels and some impressive miracles, but there's nothing of any substance behind it.

Conservatives always associate moral relativism, with evil leftie university teachers seeking to undermine our societies, create chaos and overthrow our regimes. But the Old / New Testament, the Bible is a case for some of the most extreme moral relativism imaginable.

(1a) John is meant to be the supplement to the Synoptic Gospels and omits various things that are covered at length in the others, and provides vital clarification of other things, like the divinity of Christ, which is covered extensively in John 1, and otherwise would leave things like the Transfiguration open to more questions.

(1b) John 5:28-29 says this:

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

What do you think the resurrection of damnation is if not hell?

It is also said that St. John who wrote the Gospel of John is also the author of Revelation where far more specific references to hell are made.

(2) Yeah Christianity overturned legalism, and there is an element that is radically relativistic.

We see, though, elements of conservatism: baptized Christians shouldn't marry non-Christians, while Christians baptized after becoming involved in a relationship or marriage are certainly not asked to divorce nor are their marriages considered invalid in any way, though they are not sacremental....

And the two "conflicting" accounts of this in the epistles are said to be contradictory, of course they are not, they just refer to each different circumstance, and they certainly have with them a sense of legalism...

Much like how they just plainly say that drunkards, fornicators, etc. will not inherit the Kingdom of GOd, right.... It's just a fact and we need to all steer clear of it... Which, I would say, is different from legalism, but is also not so morally relativistic... Since the repentant sinner who did all these things can certainly be saved and forgiven completely, but there is the vital truth that he has to stop.

[Tainari88]

@Verv wrote:

Much like how they just plainly say that drunkards, fornicators, etc. will not inherit the Kingdom of GOd, right.... It's just a fact and we need to all steer clear of it... Which, I would say, is different from legalism, but is also not so morally relativistic... Since the repentant sinner who did all these things can certainly be saved and forgiven completely, but there is the vital truth that he has to stop.

That is where one questions the sincerity of some of these so called Born Again Christians. They say they have stopped and asked for forgiveness after they repent. But do they really stop?

Mostly they are just charlatans in my opinion. False prophets. Fakes.

They live off of the offerings of the Church membership.

I find them total and absolute morally bankrupt liars and unrepentant frauds.

Anyone attached to wealth at all is questionable in their supposedly Christian beliefs.

[Tainari88]

@Potemkin , @Verv , @Rich , @Godstud , and @Political Interest :

Yesterday during Great Lent, on the feast day of the 40 martyrs of Sebaste, terrorists struck at Russian civilians in Moscow.

Recall that I stated before that ISIS would continue to exist and thrive because it's enemies hate and fear each other more than they hate or fear ISIS?

The intent as per official communique was to " kill Christians" and I take that at it's word. The Devil is required to voice his intentions, usually beforehand.

Sure, there's no doubt a not very well hidden Western and Bandera fascist devil connection, of course. That makes it even worse, the treason of the West against man and God though is historically well known and established, and " blowback" is a very real thing.

But the time is coming in which all these foul rivers will find their source in a dark abyssal ocean in Hell. They are necessarily one and all act towards the benefit of one, as Satan's kingdom is not divided in the slightest. All my sins and all the sins of men contribute towards the building up of that kingdom whatever guise it wears.

It is what it is. Maybe they'll take over every country in the world by the time people figure it all out.

Do not be pessimistic and worried about the forces of Darkness and all of that Annatar.

You are a religious man. You should know all human beings will have their opportunities to become more accepting of light.

This little light of mine, I am going to let it shine. Let it shine. Let it shine.

The reason you are a fully adult man with a full life and full of thoughts and dreams and life? Is miraculous without any other adornment.

So what is there to fear then? You will wind up back at the source of love and spirituality.

So why not live with a good and light heart always?

Never despair Annatar. El Amor Puede Con Todo.

[Tainari88]

Indeed. Christianity was an incredibly radical religion when it first appeared. It was more Woke than the current Woke liberals. I think there’s a passage in Acts where some good citizens hand over some Christians to the proper authorities to be punished, and they tell the magistrate, “These are the men who have turned the world upside down.” Christianity was, in many ways, an inversion of the traditional value system of the ancient world. This is why Christianity was one of the few religions which the Romans did not tolerate. It contradicted everything they held sacred, it contradicted all of their moral values. They would have been crazy to tolerate it. But it outlasted them, and its values became their values. And the same will happen with that other radical doctrine which also seeks to turn the world upside down….

Lol. You are provocative Señor.

I am pissed off at Rich. I was hoping he could be the logical man he usually is. But somehow something bothered him.

And now I find he is incapable of justice. That is a sad thing to be.

[Potemkin]

Lol. You are provocative Señor.

I am pissed off at Rich. I was hoping he could be the logical man he usually is. But somehow something bothered him.

And now I find he is incapable of justice. That is a sad thing to be.

@Rich is struggling with his demons, @Tainari88. He is highly intelligent, but has a bee in his bonnet about Christianity, due to his upbringing - he’s reacting against dogmatic, moralistic and irrational religious fanaticism. And he is right to do so. But he seems to have allowed it to skew his understanding of religion in general, and the possibility of seeing human life in the light of eternity, the possibility of human beings relating to each other in a sacred community united by a shared faith in a transcendent God. He has only contempt for the Christian communion of the saints, or the Islamic Ummah. His heart is closed. The ultimate purpose of any religion, of any form of spirituality or mysticism, is to break open our hearts.

[wat0n]

Is it that surprising, @Potemkin?

I am of Jewish background, but when I visited the Kotel - part of the holiest site for Judaism - I did not feel anything divine or supernatural.

In fact, I felt the opposite - it was an emotional moment but it felt very earthly, very human, not divine at all. I felt both the electricity in the air one feels in Jerusalem and also a very much heightened sense of danger, perhaps because of the heavy security in the area (including a military contingent) - despite this, it was also an emotional moment, because it also felt like physically being part of the history of humanity, Abrahamic religions and the Jewish people in particular and not simply a cool or even interesting place you get to visit in a vacation.

Yet while it was emotional, none of this was "divine". It all felt quite material and secular, actually, a denial the existence of a God of sorts since divinity was nowhere to be found although it doesn't mean it can't be found elsewhere. But I guess YMMV, others may have a different experience. At the time, I already considered myself to be an agnostic of sorts (a theistic agnostic, but I came back as just an agnostic).

Visiting Jerusalem was still very educational, it helps to understand well why is it that it is such a big political issue beyond what one could infer by reading.

[Potemkin]

Is it that surprising, @Potemkin?

I am of Jewish background, but when I visited the Kotel - part of the holiest site for Judaism - I did not feel anything divine or supernatural.

In fact, I felt the opposite - it was an emotional moment but it felt very earthly, very human, not divine at all. I felt both the electricity in the air one feels in Jerusalem and also a very much heightened sense of danger, perhaps because of the heavy security in the area (including a military contingent) - but it was emotional, because it also felt like physically being part of the history of humanity, Abrahamic religions and the Jewish people in particular.

Yet while it was emotional, none of this was "divine". It all felt quite secular and material, actually, kind of denying the existence of a God since divinity was nowhere to be found. But I guess YMMV.

There is a story that when Pompey conquered Jerusalem, he walked into the Holy of Holies, just to see what the Jews were hiding from the rest of the world. And he found… an empty room. The divine can only manifest itself in the world as an emptiness, an aporia in the fabric of reality. You can perceive this either as proving the non-existence of God, or as demonstrating that God is not and cannot be an object in the world, like other objects. The greatest and most accurate ikon ever painted is Kazimir Malevich’s Black Square.

But, as you say, for most people their Jewish identity is a cultural and material one, not a spiritual one. Zionism, after all, is a profoundly secular ideology, founded by Jews who had rejected the religious dimension of their Jewish identity.

[wat0n]

There is a story that when Pompey conquered Jerusalem, he walked into the Holy of Holies, just to see what the Jews were hiding from the rest of the world. And he found… an empty room. The divine can only manifest itself in the world as an emptiness, an aporia in the fabric of reality. You can perceive this either as proving the non-existence of God, or as demonstrating that God is not and cannot be an object in the world, like other objects. The greatest and most accurate ikon ever painted is Kazimir Malevich’s Black Square.

But, as you say, for most people their Jewish identity is a cultural and material one, not a spiritual one. Zionism, after all, is a profoundly secular ideology, founded by Jews who had rejected the religious dimension of their Jewish identity.

Indeed, that story of Pompey's conquest of Jerusalem is a good way to put it. But it's different when it is you who experiences it, it's not something that can be verbally expressed easily.

Of course, this likely says more about the individual than the place, although the electric atmosphere is something I've heard others say about Jerusalem. And of course there's those who just lose it completely.