The Rise of Intolerant Liberals

[Jroc]

Big difference. We don't enforce our interpretation of the scriptures by threatening to kill you. As far as cherrypicking is concerned, pro gay rights liberals, and certain gay people, often use the Bible to bash Christians over the head in order to justify why it allows for homosexuality.

Like I pointed out earlier in this thread. Liberals and homosexuals are intolerant of Christianity to a point. But when they find a Bible verse that they perceive to support their views/lifestyles, they become rabid Bible thumpers. It's ironic you would accuse us of trying to impose our faith on people when gays/liberals try to impose their version of Christianity on us.

I call that a double standard.

When the "Christians use their interpretation of Scripture to unnecessarily humans late homosexuals, when they seek to hide behind their narrow interpretations in order to discriminate against homosexuals, they are leaning on the implied consent of all other American Christians for implicit approval. What they utterly fail to understand is American Christianity is neither monolithic nor as repressed and repressive as they. Christians, by in large, hold forgiveness closest to their hearts. The alleged Christians would use their narrow view of Scripture as a black jack seeking to bludgeon rather than embrace, to condemn rather than forgive, to foster hate rather than true Christian love

Of course only YOUR interpretation of the Bible is correct. More of that tolerance I see.

jesus never said word one about gays.

he did say a lot about taking care of the poor.

He sure did. That's why conservatives are more charitable than liberals. Fact.

it's because "conservatives" are required to give to their churches.

it's also irrelevant to any discussion on the role of government since the radical right is also the first to say let children starve.

Umm....ok

When a Jew gives tzedakah he is not only giving but also receiving, because when the poor man accepts the tzedakah, the giver receives a zechut for the mitzvah, through which he will get back from Hashem ten times as much as he gave. Regarding the words “Aseir te’aseir”— “You shall surely tithe,” (Devarim 14:22) the Gemara (Ta’anit 9a) says,“Aseir bishevil shetitasheir” — “By giving ten percent to tzedakah, you will become rich.”

Thus, by giving for the Mishkan, the Jews were “taking” from Hashem much more than they actually gave

.

 

[Jroc]

Of course only YOUR interpretation of the Bible is correct. More of that tolerance I see.

jesus never said word one about gays.

he did say a lot about taking care of the poor.

He sure did. That's why conservatives are more charitable than liberals. Fact.

it's because "conservatives" are required to give to their churches.

it's also irrelevant to any discussion on the role of government since the radical right is also the first to say let children starve.

I'm not required to give to anyone, I give because I want the time.

Your second statement is more drama BS. Me re of they twisted intolerance of the liberals.

ok... so when wingers vote to take money away from programs that feed children and give it away in tax cuts to the top 1%, you aren't ignoring starving children.

ok... we can play that. but you should probably learn basic rules about cause and effect.

"Cause and effect"... yeah.... absolutely


Charles Koch Agrees With Sanders: System Rigged to Help the Rich

 

[Seawytch]

Actually, since gays constitute such a minute segment of the population, I simply place them in the broader classification of "freaks of society".

So Jews are "freaks of society"?

What does Jew have to do with anything? Jews only represent those Israelites whose forefathers were Judah and Benjamin.

Jews represent a minute segment of our population. It was your logic that labeled "minute minorities" as "freaks of society".

I really don't know myself. You tell me how many people in the world are descended from Judah and Benjamin. Jews are people just like Blacks are people and Koreans are people. Gays are comprised of a few freaks scattered among all people. But by all means, you tell us how many people are descended from Judah and Benjamin. Give us the figure.

Oh so now you want to talk world population? Since there are gays in every segment of every population, it's very VERY likely that there are more gays than Jews.

I was speaking, specifically, if the US where Jews make up 2% of the population.

 

[the_human_being]

Actually, since gays constitute such a minute segment of the population, I simply place them in the broader classification of "freaks of society".

So Jews are "freaks of society"?

What does Jew have to do with anything? Jews only represent those Israelites whose forefathers were Judah and Benjamin.

Jews represent a minute segment of our population. It was your logic that labeled "minute minorities" as "freaks of society".

I really don't know myself. You tell me how many people in the world are descended from Judah and Benjamin. Jews are people just like Blacks are people and Koreans are people. Gays are comprised of a few freaks scattered among all people. But by all means, you tell us how many people are descended from Judah and Benjamin. Give us the figure.

Oh so now you want to talk world population? Since there are gays in every segment of every population, it's very VERY likely that there are more gays than Jews.

I was speaking, specifically, if the US where Jews make up 2% of the population.

Jews or Israelites?

 

[Mertex]

Lets look at Leviticus 18:22. And lets ignore the whole "they shall be put to death" part.

Cherry picking.........why do you want to ignore the whole "they shall be put to death"? Because we don't apply the Old Testament....so quit cherry picking.

 

[Seawytch]

So Jews are "freaks of society"?

What does Jew have to do with anything? Jews only represent those Israelites whose forefathers were Judah and Benjamin.

Jews represent a minute segment of our population. It was your logic that labeled "minute minorities" as "freaks of society".

I really don't know myself. You tell me how many people in the world are descended from Judah and Benjamin. Jews are people just like Blacks are people and Koreans are people. Gays are comprised of a few freaks scattered among all people. But by all means, you tell us how many people are descended from Judah and Benjamin. Give us the figure.

Oh so now you want to talk world population? Since there are gays in every segment of every population, it's very VERY likely that there are more gays than Jews.

I was speaking, specifically, if the US where Jews make up 2% of the population.

Jews or Israelites?

Self identified Jews make up 2% of the US population...making them "freaks of society" by your "logic".

 

[Mertex]

So Jews are "freaks of society"?

What does Jew have to do with anything? Jews only represent those Israelites whose forefathers were Judah and Benjamin.

Jews represent a minute segment of our population. It was your logic that labeled "minute minorities" as "freaks of society".

I really don't know myself. You tell me how many people in the world are descended from Judah and Benjamin. Jews are people just like Blacks are people and Koreans are people. Gays are comprised of a few freaks scattered among all people. But by all means, you tell us how many people are descended from Judah and Benjamin. Give us the figure.

Where did you get such an erroneous idea that all Jews are descendants of Judah and Benjamin? You must be getting your Christian information from Trump..... Ruth, the grandmother of David and a direct ancestors to Jesus and was a Moabite....and she became a Jew.

That's what happens when people remotely acquainted with the Bible try to make Christian pronouncements and end up with egg on their face.

"Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you," Ruth tells Naomi. "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God." (Ruth 1:16).

Ruth's statement not only proclaims her loyalty to Naomi but her desire to join Naomi's people - the Jewish people.

He marries Ruth and she soon gives birth to a son named Obed, who becomes the grandfather of King David. Because the Messiah is prophesied to come from the House of David, both the greatest king in Israel's history and the future Messiah will both be descendants of Ruth - a Moabite woman who converted to Judaism
Meet Ruth: Judaism Convert and King David's Great-Grandmother

The word "Jew" (in Hebrew, "Yehudi") is derived from the name Judah, which was the name of one of Jacob's twelve sons. Judah was the ancestor of one of the tribes of Israel, which was named after him. Likewise, the word Judaism literally means "Judah-ism," that is, the religion of the Yehudim. Other sources, however, say that the word "Yehudim" means "People of G-d," because the first three letters of "Yehudah" are the same as the first three letters of G-d's four-letter name.

Originally, the term Yehudi referred specifically to members of the tribe of Judah, as distinguished from the other tribes of Israel. However, after the death of King Solomon, the nation of Israel was split into two kingdoms: the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel (I Kings 12; II Chronicles 10). After that time, the word Yehudi could properly be used to describe anyone from the kingdom of Judah, which included the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, as well as scattered settlements from other tribes. The most obvious biblical example of this usage is in Esther 2:5, where Mordecai is referred to as both a Yehudi and a member of the tribe of Benjamin.

I readily admit though that the term is now almost a meaningless term.

Why are you explaining where the word "Jew" came from? I know where it originated, but that doesn't exclude others who are not direct descendants of Judah or Benjamin. The fact is that anyone descending from Abraham who believes in the God of Abraham can be called a Jew, as are many who live in Israel and elsewhere and do not practice the Jewish religion.

The point being that your comment saying that "Jews only represent those Israelites whose forefathers were Judah and Benjamin" is not true..



Who is a Jew?" (Hebrew: מיהו יהודי‎ pronounced [ˈmihu jehuˈdi]) is a basic question about Jewish identity and considerations of Jewish self-identification. The question is based in ideas about Jewish personhood which have cultural, religious, political, genealogical, and personal dimensions. The definition of who is a Jew varies according to whether it is being considered by Jews based on normative religious statutes or self-identification, or by non-Jews for other reasons. Because Jewish identity can include characteristics of an ethnicity,[1] a religion,[2] or conversion, the definition depends on many aspects that must be considered.[3]

According to the simplest definition used by Jews for self-identification, a person is a Jew by birth, or becomes one through religious conversion. However, there are differences of opinion among the various branches of Judaism in the application of this definition, including:

Who is a Jew? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[the_human_being]

What does Jew have to do with anything? Jews only represent those Israelites whose forefathers were Judah and Benjamin.

Jews represent a minute segment of our population. It was your logic that labeled "minute minorities" as "freaks of society".

I really don't know myself. You tell me how many people in the world are descended from Judah and Benjamin. Jews are people just like Blacks are people and Koreans are people. Gays are comprised of a few freaks scattered among all people. But by all means, you tell us how many people are descended from Judah and Benjamin. Give us the figure.

Oh so now you want to talk world population? Since there are gays in every segment of every population, it's very VERY likely that there are more gays than Jews.

I was speaking, specifically, if the US where Jews make up 2% of the population.

Jews or Israelites?

Self identified Jews make up 2% of the US population...making them "freaks of society" by your "logic".

That's not what I asked. Let me put it this way to make it simple. Who do you yourself identify as being "Jews"? That should be easy enough.

 

[Mertex]

They both rely on dogma to foist their views in spite of what Scripture actually says. The "Christians" doing that also cherry pick the Biblical laws they want enforced.

Big difference. We don't enforce our interpretation of the scriptures by threatening to kill you. As far as cherrypicking is concerned, pro gay rights liberals, and certain gay people, often use the Bible to bash Christians over the head in order to justify why it allows for homosexuality.

Like I pointed out earlier in this thread. Liberals and homosexuals are intolerant of Christianity to a point. But when they find a Bible verse that they perceive to support their views/lifestyles, they become rabid Bible thumpers. It's ironic you would accuse us of trying to impose our faith on people when gays/liberals try to impose their version of Christianity on us.

I call that a double standard.

When the "Christians use their interpretation of Scripture to unnecessarily humans late homosexuals, when they seek to hide behind their narrow interpretations in order to discriminate against homosexuals, they are leaning on the implied consent of all other American Christians for implicit approval. What they utterly fail to understand is American Christianity is neither monolithic nor as repressed and repressive as they. Christians, by in large, hold forgiveness closest to their hearts. The alleged Christians would use their narrow view of Scripture as a black jack seeking to bludgeon rather than embrace, to condemn rather than forgive, to foster hate rather than true Christian love

Of course only YOUR interpretation of the Bible is correct. More of that tolerance I see.

jesus never said word one about gays.

he did say a lot about taking care of the poor.

He sure did. That's why conservatives are more charitable than liberals. Fact.

Bwahahaha....that's why conservatives complain about everything that has to do with helping the poor, the under-resourced and handicapped.....because they are so charitable!

Hypocritical is a better description.

 

[the_human_being]

What does Jew have to do with anything? Jews only represent those Israelites whose forefathers were Judah and Benjamin.

Jews represent a minute segment of our population. It was your logic that labeled "minute minorities" as "freaks of society".

I really don't know myself. You tell me how many people in the world are descended from Judah and Benjamin. Jews are people just like Blacks are people and Koreans are people. Gays are comprised of a few freaks scattered among all people. But by all means, you tell us how many people are descended from Judah and Benjamin. Give us the figure.

Where did you get such an erroneous idea that all Jews are descendants of Judah and Benjamin? You must be getting your Christian information from Trump..... Ruth, the grandmother of David and a direct ancestors to Jesus and was a Moabite....and she became a Jew.

That's what happens when people remotely acquainted with the Bible try to make Christian pronouncements and end up with egg on their face.

"Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you," Ruth tells Naomi. "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God." (Ruth 1:16).

Ruth's statement not only proclaims her loyalty to Naomi but her desire to join Naomi's people - the Jewish people.

He marries Ruth and she soon gives birth to a son named Obed, who becomes the grandfather of King David. Because the Messiah is prophesied to come from the House of David, both the greatest king in Israel's history and the future Messiah will both be descendants of Ruth - a Moabite woman who converted to Judaism
Meet Ruth: Judaism Convert and King David's Great-Grandmother

The word "Jew" (in Hebrew, "Yehudi") is derived from the name Judah, which was the name of one of Jacob's twelve sons. Judah was the ancestor of one of the tribes of Israel, which was named after him. Likewise, the word Judaism literally means "Judah-ism," that is, the religion of the Yehudim. Other sources, however, say that the word "Yehudim" means "People of G-d," because the first three letters of "Yehudah" are the same as the first three letters of G-d's four-letter name.

Originally, the term Yehudi referred specifically to members of the tribe of Judah, as distinguished from the other tribes of Israel. However, after the death of King Solomon, the nation of Israel was split into two kingdoms: the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel (I Kings 12; II Chronicles 10). After that time, the word Yehudi could properly be used to describe anyone from the kingdom of Judah, which included the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, as well as scattered settlements from other tribes. The most obvious biblical example of this usage is in Esther 2:5, where Mordecai is referred to as both a Yehudi and a member of the tribe of Benjamin.

I readily admit though that the term is now almost a meaningless term.

Why are you explaining where the word "Jew" came from? I know where it originated, but that doesn't exclude others who are not direct descendants of Judah or Benjamin. The fact is that anyone descending from Abraham who believes in the God of Abraham can be called a Jew, as are many who live in Israel and elsewhere and do not practice the Jewish religion.

The point being that your comment saying that "Jews only represent those Israelites whose forefathers were Judah and Benjamin" is not true..



Who is a Jew?" (Hebrew: מיהו יהודי‎ pronounced [ˈmihu jehuˈdi]) is a basic question about Jewish identity and considerations of Jewish self-identification. The question is based in ideas about Jewish personhood which have cultural, religious, political, genealogical, and personal dimensions. The definition of who is a Jew varies according to whether it is being considered by Jews based on normative religious statutes or self-identification, or by non-Jews for other reasons. Because Jewish identity can include characteristics of an ethnicity,[1] a religion,[2] or conversion, the definition depends on many aspects that must be considered.[3]

According to the simplest definition used by Jews for self-identification, a person is a Jew by birth, or becomes one through religious conversion. However, there are differences of opinion among the various branches of Judaism in the application of this definition, including:

Who is a Jew? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, even your free encyclopedia makes no exact determination as to who exactly is a Jew. Even the Israelites can't make up their minds as to who constitutes a Jew. Many people in America embrace Islam but they are not Muslims themselves.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Dennis Schornack, who served as a senior advisor on transportation in Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder’s (R) administration for three years, blamed the widespread water contamination that has led to lead poisoning and possibly a Legionnaire’s outbreak on Snyder’s penchant for running government like a business. He’s the first Snyder official to directly criticize the governor’s handling of the situation.


“Government is not a business…and it cannot be run like one,” Schornack told the Detroit Free Press. “The people of Flint got stuck on the losing end of decisions driven by spreadsheets instead of water quality and public health. Having been a Snyder staffer, luckily in a spreadsheet-rich area like transportation, I lived the culture amidst its faults.”

Government is not a business…and it cannot be run like one
He added, “It’s sort of a single dimension for decision making; thinking that if it can’t be solved on a spreadsheet, it can’t be solved.”

Snyder came to office in 2011 after a three decades-long career in the private sector, with jobs as an accountant, venture capitalist, and an executive at Gateway Computers, without prior public sector experience, calling himself “one tough nerd.” His administration focused on a private sector approach to government that has elicited criticism, particularly for appointing people with private sector experience as un-elected emergency managers of both Detroit and Flint.
Former Snyder Aide Blames Flint Crisis On Misguided Conservative Philosophy

 

[Papageorgio]

Big difference. We don't enforce our interpretation of the scriptures by threatening to kill you. As far as cherrypicking is concerned, pro gay rights liberals, and certain gay people, often use the Bible to bash Christians over the head in order to justify why it allows for homosexuality.

Like I pointed out earlier in this thread. Liberals and homosexuals are intolerant of Christianity to a point. But when they find a Bible verse that they perceive to support their views/lifestyles, they become rabid Bible thumpers. It's ironic you would accuse us of trying to impose our faith on people when gays/liberals try to impose their version of Christianity on us.

I call that a double standard.

When the "Christians use their interpretation of Scripture to unnecessarily humans late homosexuals, when they seek to hide behind their narrow interpretations in order to discriminate against homosexuals, they are leaning on the implied consent of all other American Christians for implicit approval. What they utterly fail to understand is American Christianity is neither monolithic nor as repressed and repressive as they. Christians, by in large, hold forgiveness closest to their hearts. The alleged Christians would use their narrow view of Scripture as a black jack seeking to bludgeon rather than embrace, to condemn rather than forgive, to foster hate rather than true Christian love

Of course only YOUR interpretation of the Bible is correct. More of that tolerance I see.

jesus never said word one about gays.

he did say a lot about taking care of the poor.

He sure did. That's why conservatives are more charitable than liberals. Fact.

Bwahahaha....that's why conservatives complain about everything that has to do with helping the poor, the under-resourced and handicapped.....because they are so charitable!

Hypocritical is a better description.

There are charitable, however they don't believe government is the answer to helping the poor, the under-sourced and handicapped.

Funny how intolerant liberals like to twist the truth to fit their agenda.

 

[Mertex]

Actually this guy is lying through his teeth. It was a Republican Congress that overwhelmingly voted to pass the Civil Rights Act.

John F. Kennedy was the author of the civil rights act, who was later passed under LBJ....I seriously doubt that Republicans, who mounted such an attack on him (Kennedy) when he was running for President would validate anything he authored.....and the most racist Democrats (Strum Thurmond and Richard Russell and others) became Republicans over it.

The voting had more to do with the region the Congressmen came from than the party affiliation...as you can see, more Dems (who came from states that supported the Union) voted for it than GOP union support states, and certainly no Confed GOP voted for it).

But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten


Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the...
Harry J Enten: Once you control for region, it turns out that Democrats were actually more likely to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act


Wiki:
In an 11 June 1963 speech broadcast live on national television and radio, President John F. Kennedy unveiled plans to pursue a comprehensive civil rights bill in Congress, stating, ‘‘this nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free’’ (‘‘President Kennedy’s Radio-TV Address,’’ 970). King congratulated Kennedy on his speech, calling it ‘‘one of the most eloquent, profound and unequivocal pleas for justice and the freedom of all men ever made by any president’’ (King, 12 June 1963).

 

[Mertex]

When the "Christians use their interpretation of Scripture to unnecessarily humans late homosexuals, when they seek to hide behind their narrow interpretations in order to discriminate against homosexuals, they are leaning on the implied consent of all other American Christians for implicit approval. What they utterly fail to understand is American Christianity is neither monolithic nor as repressed and repressive as they. Christians, by in large, hold forgiveness closest to their hearts. The alleged Christians would use their narrow view of Scripture as a black jack seeking to bludgeon rather than embrace, to condemn rather than forgive, to foster hate rather than true Christian love

Of course only YOUR interpretation of the Bible is correct. More of that tolerance I see.

jesus never said word one about gays.

he did say a lot about taking care of the poor.

He sure did. That's why conservatives are more charitable than liberals. Fact.

Bwahahaha....that's why conservatives complain about everything that has to do with helping the poor, the under-resourced and handicapped.....because they are so charitable!

Hypocritical is a better description.

There are charitable, however they don't believe government is the answer to helping the poor, the under-sourced and handicapped.

The government is the only source that is equipped to handle the distribution of food/money etc., to the poor and handicapped because the government is the only one that has the resources to verify who the real needy are and who are the moochers. Church charities just take people's word that they are needy and have no way of verifying it, and they don't have enough to properly keep people viable....so it isn't reliable. But giving is giving, it shouldn't matter who applies it, and when you complain that you don't like the government doing it, it is just a way of expressing that you are forced to do it and you don't really want to.

Funny how intolerant liberals like to twist the truth to fit their agenda.

Your claim that you want other than the government to do it basically because that way you wouldn't have to give if you didn't want to....a very small percentage of the members in churches provide 90% of the offerings, so don't tell me that Republican Christians are going to take care of all the needs.

 

[Mertex]

Jews represent a minute segment of our population. It was your logic that labeled "minute minorities" as "freaks of society".

I really don't know myself. You tell me how many people in the world are descended from Judah and Benjamin. Jews are people just like Blacks are people and Koreans are people. Gays are comprised of a few freaks scattered among all people. But by all means, you tell us how many people are descended from Judah and Benjamin. Give us the figure.

Where did you get such an erroneous idea that all Jews are descendants of Judah and Benjamin? You must be getting your Christian information from Trump..... Ruth, the grandmother of David and a direct ancestors to Jesus and was a Moabite....and she became a Jew.

That's what happens when people remotely acquainted with the Bible try to make Christian pronouncements and end up with egg on their face.

"Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you," Ruth tells Naomi. "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God." (Ruth 1:16).

Ruth's statement not only proclaims her loyalty to Naomi but her desire to join Naomi's people - the Jewish people.

He marries Ruth and she soon gives birth to a son named Obed, who becomes the grandfather of King David. Because the Messiah is prophesied to come from the House of David, both the greatest king in Israel's history and the future Messiah will both be descendants of Ruth - a Moabite woman who converted to Judaism
Meet Ruth: Judaism Convert and King David's Great-Grandmother

The word "Jew" (in Hebrew, "Yehudi") is derived from the name Judah, which was the name of one of Jacob's twelve sons. Judah was the ancestor of one of the tribes of Israel, which was named after him. Likewise, the word Judaism literally means "Judah-ism," that is, the religion of the Yehudim. Other sources, however, say that the word "Yehudim" means "People of G-d," because the first three letters of "Yehudah" are the same as the first three letters of G-d's four-letter name.

Originally, the term Yehudi referred specifically to members of the tribe of Judah, as distinguished from the other tribes of Israel. However, after the death of King Solomon, the nation of Israel was split into two kingdoms: the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel (I Kings 12; II Chronicles 10). After that time, the word Yehudi could properly be used to describe anyone from the kingdom of Judah, which included the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, as well as scattered settlements from other tribes. The most obvious biblical example of this usage is in Esther 2:5, where Mordecai is referred to as both a Yehudi and a member of the tribe of Benjamin.

I readily admit though that the term is now almost a meaningless term.

Why are you explaining where the word "Jew" came from? I know where it originated, but that doesn't exclude others who are not direct descendants of Judah or Benjamin. The fact is that anyone descending from Abraham who believes in the God of Abraham can be called a Jew, as are many who live in Israel and elsewhere and do not practice the Jewish religion.

The point being that your comment saying that "Jews only represent those Israelites whose forefathers were Judah and Benjamin" is not true..



Who is a Jew?" (Hebrew: מיהו יהודי‎ pronounced [ˈmihu jehuˈdi]) is a basic question about Jewish identity and considerations of Jewish self-identification. The question is based in ideas about Jewish personhood which have cultural, religious, political, genealogical, and personal dimensions. The definition of who is a Jew varies according to whether it is being considered by Jews based on normative religious statutes or self-identification, or by non-Jews for other reasons. Because Jewish identity can include characteristics of an ethnicity,[1] a religion,[2] or conversion, the definition depends on many aspects that must be considered.[3]

According to the simplest definition used by Jews for self-identification, a person is a Jew by birth, or becomes one through religious conversion. However, there are differences of opinion among the various branches of Judaism in the application of this definition, including:

Who is a Jew? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, even your free encyclopedia makes no exact determination as to who exactly is a Jew. Even the Israelites can't make up their minds as to who constitutes a Jew. Many people in America embrace Islam but they are not Muslims themselves.

So is that your way of saying you were wrong to make a claim that Jews can only come from Judah and Benjamin? Because your responses seem to go off in another direction and don't seem to address the point at hand.

 

[the_human_being]

I really don't know myself. You tell me how many people in the world are descended from Judah and Benjamin. Jews are people just like Blacks are people and Koreans are people. Gays are comprised of a few freaks scattered among all people. But by all means, you tell us how many people are descended from Judah and Benjamin. Give us the figure.

Where did you get such an erroneous idea that all Jews are descendants of Judah and Benjamin? You must be getting your Christian information from Trump..... Ruth, the grandmother of David and a direct ancestors to Jesus and was a Moabite....and she became a Jew.

That's what happens when people remotely acquainted with the Bible try to make Christian pronouncements and end up with egg on their face.

"Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you," Ruth tells Naomi. "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God." (Ruth 1:16).

Ruth's statement not only proclaims her loyalty to Naomi but her desire to join Naomi's people - the Jewish people.

He marries Ruth and she soon gives birth to a son named Obed, who becomes the grandfather of King David. Because the Messiah is prophesied to come from the House of David, both the greatest king in Israel's history and the future Messiah will both be descendants of Ruth - a Moabite woman who converted to Judaism
Meet Ruth: Judaism Convert and King David's Great-Grandmother

The word "Jew" (in Hebrew, "Yehudi") is derived from the name Judah, which was the name of one of Jacob's twelve sons. Judah was the ancestor of one of the tribes of Israel, which was named after him. Likewise, the word Judaism literally means "Judah-ism," that is, the religion of the Yehudim. Other sources, however, say that the word "Yehudim" means "People of G-d," because the first three letters of "Yehudah" are the same as the first three letters of G-d's four-letter name.

Originally, the term Yehudi referred specifically to members of the tribe of Judah, as distinguished from the other tribes of Israel. However, after the death of King Solomon, the nation of Israel was split into two kingdoms: the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel (I Kings 12; II Chronicles 10). After that time, the word Yehudi could properly be used to describe anyone from the kingdom of Judah, which included the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, as well as scattered settlements from other tribes. The most obvious biblical example of this usage is in Esther 2:5, where Mordecai is referred to as both a Yehudi and a member of the tribe of Benjamin.

I readily admit though that the term is now almost a meaningless term.

Why are you explaining where the word "Jew" came from? I know where it originated, but that doesn't exclude others who are not direct descendants of Judah or Benjamin. The fact is that anyone descending from Abraham who believes in the God of Abraham can be called a Jew, as are many who live in Israel and elsewhere and do not practice the Jewish religion.

The point being that your comment saying that "Jews only represent those Israelites whose forefathers were Judah and Benjamin" is not true..



Who is a Jew?" (Hebrew: מיהו יהודי‎ pronounced [ˈmihu jehuˈdi]) is a basic question about Jewish identity and considerations of Jewish self-identification. The question is based in ideas about Jewish personhood which have cultural, religious, political, genealogical, and personal dimensions. The definition of who is a Jew varies according to whether it is being considered by Jews based on normative religious statutes or self-identification, or by non-Jews for other reasons. Because Jewish identity can include characteristics of an ethnicity,[1] a religion,[2] or conversion, the definition depends on many aspects that must be considered.[3]

According to the simplest definition used by Jews for self-identification, a person is a Jew by birth, or becomes one through religious conversion. However, there are differences of opinion among the various branches of Judaism in the application of this definition, including:

Who is a Jew? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, even your free encyclopedia makes no exact determination as to who exactly is a Jew. Even the Israelites can't make up their minds as to who constitutes a Jew. Many people in America embrace Islam but they are not Muslims themselves.

So is that your way of saying you were wrong to make a claim that Jews can only come from Judah and Benjamin? Because your responses seem to go off in another direction and don't seem to address the point at hand.

No. That is my belief. Not only is it my belief but the belief of many other Christians. We fully grasp the fact that there remains many folks who don't realize they are descended from one or more of the lost tribes of Israel. These people were taken captive and dispersed. They cover the nations of the world. They are likened to the stars in the sky and the sand of the seashore.

 

[Papageorgio]

Of course only YOUR interpretation of the Bible is correct. More of that tolerance I see.

jesus never said word one about gays.

he did say a lot about taking care of the poor.

He sure did. That's why conservatives are more charitable than liberals. Fact.

Bwahahaha....that's why conservatives complain about everything that has to do with helping the poor, the under-resourced and handicapped.....because they are so charitable!

Hypocritical is a better description.

There are charitable, however they don't believe government is the answer to helping the poor, the under-sourced and handicapped.

The government is the only source that is equipped to handle the distribution of food/money etc., to the poor and handicapped because the government is the only one that has the resources to verify who the real needy are and who are the moochers. Church charities just take people's word that they are needy and have no way of verifying it, and they don't have enough to properly keep people viable....so it isn't reliable. But giving is giving, it shouldn't matter who applies it, and when you complain that you don't like the government doing it, it is just a way of expressing that you are forced to do it and you don't really want to.

Funny how intolerant liberals like to twist the truth to fit their agenda.

Your claim that you want other than the government to do it basically because that way you wouldn't have to give if you didn't want to....a very small percentage of the members in churches provide 90% of the offerings, so don't tell me that Republican Christians are going to take care of all the needs.

I give with my heart, you give because you are forced. More liberal intolerance spin.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I give with my heart, you give because you are forced. More liberal intolerance spin.

Yeah dude you are indeed an ace....you assign yourself virtue and say bad shit of others ...yeah a real ace LOL

 

[Mertex]

jesus never said word one about gays.

he did say a lot about taking care of the poor.

He sure did. That's why conservatives are more charitable than liberals. Fact.

Bwahahaha....that's why conservatives complain about everything that has to do with helping the poor, the under-resourced and handicapped.....because they are so charitable!

Hypocritical is a better description.

There are charitable, however they don't believe government is the answer to helping the poor, the under-sourced and handicapped.

The government is the only source that is equipped to handle the distribution of food/money etc., to the poor and handicapped because the government is the only one that has the resources to verify who the real needy are and who are the moochers. Church charities just take people's word that they are needy and have no way of verifying it, and they don't have enough to properly keep people viable....so it isn't reliable. But giving is giving, it shouldn't matter who applies it, and when you complain that you don't like the government doing it, it is just a way of expressing that you are forced to do it and you don't really want to.

Funny how intolerant liberals like to twist the truth to fit their agenda.

Your claim that you want other than the government to do it basically because that way you wouldn't have to give if you didn't want to....a very small percentage of the members in churches provide 90% of the offerings, so don't tell me that Republican Christians are going to take care of all the needs.

I give with my heart, you give because you are forced. More liberal intolerance spin.

Sure you do.....and you also believe in Unicorns.

 

[daws101]

For you see, never in my church has the minister ever admo

For you see, never in my church has the minister ever admonished the congregation to avoid commerce with homosexuals.

Are you Presbyterian?

Rather, he preached to do unto others as we would have others do unto you.

So, I'll ask this question again. You want these people to turn the other cheek, but why won't you? Why can't the homosexuals? You want homosexual clients to be treated fairly, but in turn you're asking someone with deeply held religious beliefs to ignore them for the sake of "being fair." I've been a fan of taking the middle ground, so why can't there be?

He preached to not cast the first stone for we all bear sins.

And as a Southern Baptist, homosexuality is included. Sounds intolerant I know, but that's how I was raised. You bear sin, I bear sin, they bear sin, the bakers bear sin, the homosexuals (besides being homosexuals) bear their own sins. But that doesn't justify why you're a) comparing your own fellow Christians to a group of Islamic terrorists, or b) asking them to ignore their faith to appease persons who engage in a practice the Bible clearly condemns.

And yes, you're casting stones too. We all are.

Then along came these homophobes who refused paying customers because those paying customers subscribe to a lifestyle they find abhorrent.

Those "homophobes" would much rather take a hit in revenue rather than compromise their beliefs. See, the "paying customers" already have power. The power to boycott. No blood, no mess, no sweat.

It has occurred to me that those bigoted homophobes sought some moral cover,,an aegis,behind which they might cower in the face of the outrage freedom loving Americans might shame and dismiss them.

You seem to think these "freedom loving Americans" majorly side with you. Interesting, because we all have our definitions of what "freedom loving Americans" are. What you're demanding is taking freedom from one person to grant it to the other. See, that's not equal treatment either.

It has occurred to me that while you speak out against hate you are showering these "bigots" and "homophobes" with it. You can't repay hate with hate.

"Hey! I know what we'll do! We'll say God told us to unnecessarily humiliate, discriminate and deny homosexuals our services! We'll call it a matter of 'religious freedom'! That way we can still get away with it."

Your fictitious theory notwithstanding...

You seem to think these people plan it out, deviously; cold and calculating. You believe that they collude with one another to target homosexual customers. Well the first flaw is that you can't tell someone is homosexual just by looking at them. Second, religious freedom is a thing, whether you like it or not. You can't just say "no, you must ignore your faith in order to obey the law." As far as I know, the law protects religious freedom too, and not just your right to be satisfied.

Because I have never been exposed to such openly hateful and backward thinking, such a vile misuse of the teachings of a forgiving Savior strikes my ear as shameful,at least, hypocritical at best and a vile twisting of the teachings of my faith to serve an evil purpose at worst.

Before judging others for their sins, get on your knees and beg God for forgiveness of yours. You have evil in your heart like these "Christians" you so relentlessly admonish. You feel it is your duty as a Christian to weed out and condemn what you perceive as evil and hateful. But remember this:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

--Matthew 7:21

This leads me to ask you three questions.

First, are you truly carrying out the will of God by repaying hatred with hatred and refusing to love your fellow Christians?

"If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen."

--1 John 4:20

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

--John 13:34

Second, are you carrying out the will of God by refusing to forgive your fellow Christians?

"Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times? Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven."

--Matthew 18:21

Lastly, are you carrying out the will of God by judging others and not yourself?

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned. "Give, and it will be given to you. They will pour into your lap a good measure--pressed down, shaken together, and running over. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return."

--Luke 6:37-38

Before marriage equality, I would wager that there were no pulpits offering ecclesiastical cover for homophobes.

For a reason that I wish you would accept. We have gone over that reason a million times already. No need to re-elaborate.

Certainly throughout the south, churches twisted Christianity in similar ways to provide cover for racists.

I don't doubt it. Those were different times and different people. People who did twist the word of God to justify racism. However, the biggest difference of all is this:

While the Bible never condemns a person for the color of their skin, it clearly condemns them if they are practicing homosexuality.

It's not at all surprising that those driven by strict, narrow dogmatic thinking would once again seek shelter behind a pulpit spewing hatred rather than love

And regrettably, you are spewing hatred of your own. You have no love for those who don't share your views regarding homosexuality. You would use the pulpit to justify something sinful.

condemnation rather than forgiveness and open thought rather than blind obedience to rigid dogma

You are offering condemnation of your own rather than forgiving those who "follow a rigid dogma." You show no tolerance for open thought when you condemn others for holding such "rigid dogma."

You are no better than the people you speak out against. You hate them, you condemn them, you apparently don't forgive them, and you seemingly want to forbid them from holding different beliefs of Christianity.

You should understand that you have no standing to condemn anyone when you practice so many double standards.

nish

It means you need members of both sexes to contribute.

You keep saying that like it means something. What point are you trying to make. Yes, it takes a sperm and an egg to procreate...it does not take them to parent.

ed the congregation to avoid commerce with homosexuals.

Are you Presbyterian?

Rather, he preached to do unto others as we would have others do unto you.

So, I'll ask this question again. You want these people to turn the other cheek, but why won't you? Why can't the homosexuals? You want homosexual clients to be treated fairly, but in turn you're asking someone with deeply held religious beliefs to ignore them for the sake of "being fair." I've been a fan of taking the middle ground, so why can't there be?

He preached to not cast the first stone for we all bear sins.

And as a Southern Baptist, homosexuality is included. Sounds intolerant I know, but that's how I was raised. You bear sin, I bear sin, they bear sin, the bakers bear sin, the homosexuals (besides being homosexuals) bear their own sins. But that doesn't justify why you're a) comparing your own fellow Christians to a group of Islamic terrorists, or b) asking them to ignore their faith to appease persons who engage in a practice the Bible clearly condemns.

And yes, you're casting stones too. We all are.

Then along came these homophobes who refused paying customers because those paying customers subscribe to a lifestyle they find abhorrent.

Those "homophobes" would much rather take a hit in revenue rather than compromise their beliefs. See, the "paying customers" already have power. The power to boycott. No blood, no mess, no sweat.

It has occurred to me that those bigoted homophobes sought some moral cover,,an aegis,behind which they might cower in the face of the outrage freedom loving Americans might shame and dismiss them.

You seem to think these "freedom loving Americans" majorly side with you. Interesting, because we all have our definitions of what "freedom loving Americans" are. What you're demanding is taking freedom from one person to grant it to the other. See, that's not equal treatment either.

It has occurred to me that while you speak out against hate you are showering these "bigots" and "homophobes" with it. You can't repay hate with hate.

"Hey! I know what we'll do! We'll say God told us to unnecessarily humiliate, discriminate and deny homosexuals our services! We'll call it a matter of 'religious freedom'! That way we can still get away with it."

Your fictitious theory notwithstanding...

You seem to think these people plan it out, deviously; cold and calculating. You believe that they collude with one another to target homosexual customers. Well the first flaw is that you can't tell someone is homosexual just by looking at them. Second, religious freedom is a thing, whether you like it or not. You can't just say "no, you must ignore your faith in order to obey the law." As far as I know, the law protects religious freedom too, and not just your right to be satisfied.

Because I have never been exposed to such openly hateful and backward thinking, such a vile misuse of the teachings of a forgiving Savior strikes my ear as shameful,at least, hypocritical at best and a vile twisting of the teachings of my faith to serve an evil purpose at worst.

Before judging others for their sins, get on your knees and beg God for forgiveness of yours. You have evil in your heart like these "Christians" you so relentlessly admonish. You feel it is your duty as a Christian to weed out and condemn what you perceive as evil and hateful. But remember this:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

--Matthew 7:21

This leads me to ask you three questions.

First, are you truly carrying out the will of God by repaying hatred with hatred and refusing to love your fellow Christians?

"If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen."

--1 John 4:20

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

--John 13:34

Second, are you carrying out the will of God by refusing to forgive your fellow Christians?

"Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times? Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven."

--Matthew 18:21

Lastly, are you carrying out the will of God by judging others and not yourself?

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned. "Give, and it will be given to you. They will pour into your lap a good measure--pressed down, shaken together, and running over. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return."

--Luke 6:37-38

Before marriage equality, I would wager that there were no pulpits offering ecclesiastical cover for homophobes.

For a reason that I wish you would accept. We have gone over that reason a million times already. No need to re-elaborate.

Certainly throughout the south, churches twisted Christianity in similar ways to provide cover for racists.

I don't doubt it. Those were different times and different people. People who did twist the word of God to justify racism. However, the biggest difference of all is this:

While the Bible never condemns a person for the color of their skin, it clearly condemns them if they are practicing homosexuality.

It's not at all surprising that those driven by strict, narrow dogmatic thinking would once again seek shelter behind a pulpit spewing hatred rather than love

And regrettably, you are spewing hatred of your own. You have no love for those who don't share your views regarding homosexuality. You would use the pulpit to justify something sinful.

condemnation rather than forgiveness and open thought rather than blind obedience to rigid dogma

You are offering condemnation of your own rather than forgiving those who "follow a rigid dogma." You show no tolerance for open thought when you condemn others for holding such "rigid dogma."

You are no better than the people you speak out against. You hate them, you condemn them, you apparently don't forgive them, and you seemingly want to forbid them from holding different beliefs of Christianity.

You should understand that you have no standing to condemn anyone when you practice so many double standards.

using scripture to justify bigotry and homophobia !
Seems conservatives can't get enough of beating that dead horse.