Know the difference
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (13)
sorted by:
Since you define Judaism as rejection of Jesus, I would never convert someone to that, but would only convert to acceptance of Jesus.
I have been invited to rabbinical synagogues, been invited to study the Torah and Talmud, and been invited repeatedly to all the liturgy (I don't recall hearing the Birkat haMinim though in modern liturgy). I don't know what you would mean by secret witchcraft; the worst that happens is that someone might sneer about "Yeshu" in the lobby without wanting to start a conversation. Synagogues often host open houses for the community.
The purpose of the (occasional) security is the same as at churches, to keep trolls out. Just as nobody goes into a church and curses Christ and lasts long, nobody goes into a synagogue and curses Jews and lasts long. If you're a polite and considerate inquirer, you'd be surprised what they will reveal to you.
I disagree with the state funding any religion (although I think keeping the state out of things like taxation and licensure is good too). I'm not confident your description is accurate, but if it is I oppose using taxpayer funds for anyone's religious security expenses.
I grew up mostly Presbyterian and learned the traditional covenantalist eschatology of John, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and their friends. In the children's catechism I memorized that Old Testament saints were saved by believing in a Messiah to come. In time I realized that there was no difference between their faith (starting with Abel, Heb. 11) and ours except for the amount of historical content increasing over time; and the later rabbinical adjustments were a great change from the faith of Jesus's Jewish circle. If my views based on the primitive Christian tradition were wrong, they would be disproven, and I would want them to be. I trust that others also want their own wrong views if any to be disproven.
Yes, many Jews promote abortion, which is baby sacrifice. Yes, some Jews promote interfaith dialogue, speak in churches, and I suppose some might moderate forums about Christianity (which is why our own forum calls for regulars to commit to Christ in the top post; I don't recall you committing there). It's clear that some of these Jews want to prove that they are right and Christians are wrong, but sometimes you see advance of open-minded dialogue. Since Romans 11 indicates that the cause of Jesus will win in this dialogue, we persevere as creative evangelists to the Jews. (You do believe in evangelism to all races, don't you?)
Yes, many Christians are brainwashed with Zionism, defined as allegiance to Israel in spite of itself. What the Bible actually teaches, and as I've said many times, is that Christians have all the spiritual covenant, and many nations have national covenants for good and/or ill, and Israel's national covenant has some of the best and the worst promises. Yes, many Jewish concepts tend toward homogenization of the Gentiles out of self-preservation and greed motives.
Now that has nothing to do with whether I preach authentic White Christian culture and civilization. I do preach "no collectivism", partly because it's a GAW rule, and partly because I learn from the Bible that there is no preference of persons. Authentic White Christian culture and civilization does have a thread of collectivism in it, but this is not necessary for any race-supportive Christian nation to exist. Demographic judgments are acceptable without becoming collectivist, and indeed they appear in our Declaration and Constitution. Collectivism crosses the border when it judges the innocent with the guilty, when it judges men, women, and children equally for the sins of the unnamed few. There are about two passages in the whole Bible when a judgment is made against the children of the race, and when given it's always because they're being tried as adults for idolatries they committed knowingly at their level of understanding. So if you have a problem with that it can be discussed civilly.
I do thank you for the civil discussion and the opportunity to agree with you generally and to point out where your view of me isn't supported by evidence.
The concept of individualism was what Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson were hiding behind in their recent interview. You guys are all playing out of the same playbook.
"Don't judge us as a group, we're all unique individuals"
Meanwhile it is obvious which GROUPS are constantly provoking and sabotaging White Civilization. Whites will get rid of the GROUPS because sabotaging the entire nation because you thought there was a good jew somewhere is a laughable RISK versus REWARD RATIO.
jews judge White people as GROUPS. jews accuse us of "white privilege" and "White male patriarchy" and promote propaganda to make White college kids apologize for being White. jews label "It's Okay To Be White" as "hate speech." It's all very sadistic and therefore we will return the favor and judge jews as a GROUP and get rid of them all.
Which, when done by individual Jews, is just as wrong.
It's appropriate to use demographics, up to a point. For instance if an office publishes a demographic judgment that frees them up to use individual demographics to determine their response, because that would be a published known determination. So if police or immigration are using racial profiling to the degree that it's used transparently in accord with published guidance, instead of arbitrary, that might be justified. The presidents have often restricted nationals of certain nations in many ways, and your further restrictions could be conceivably approved via Constitutional processes if there were critical mass. So if you were to say it's obvious that Jews provoke and sabotage white civilization to greater extent than other races, there's evidence in that direction and I don't press the point of the evidence but only the overstatement of what can be concluded.
But you don't say that, you blame a group that includes innocent children. (Unless you mean original sin, the theory that all Jewish children are inherently bad is self-destructive.) A "group" is incapable of action except by individuals or through delegation. A "group" cannot provoke and sabotage, only individuals can, unless the group delegates the individuals knowingly. Under the law, it wasn't "the J6ers" who entered the Capitol, it was a list of published individual names. Similarly, races do not by any deliberative process delegate crime to be carried out by race representatives. It's not (all) "Jews" that label that hate speech, it was the ADL via agent Jonathan Greenblatt (Name That Jew For Real). Nobody else is officially labeling it hate speech.
You can retain all the nationalism and noticing if you simply refuse collectivist language about attributing the actions of some to all as a group. Since you know it's wrong when done to you, Jesus says don't do it to others.
Is what was posted in the talmud?
Simple yes or no is fine.
No. Those are not quotes from the Talmud, although the 3rd and 4th (Sanhedrin 66a and 101a) come closest to being paraphrases. The rest change concepts and/or omit necessary context.
Ironically, all the Talmud passages are intended to show cases of mercy drawn from other arguments from Moses, where the Mosaic laws when stated alone without that context are strict. That worked for awhile, but Jesus demonstrated both that the laws were even stricter than that and that mercy must still be shown via attributing the punishment to him rather than to the offender.
That old post u sourced didn't debunk whether the tamed says those things.
You said "No" was fine. It doesn't say those things because in the first place those aren't quotations, and in the second place only two of them are accurate enough as paraphrases. The neglect of context causes the rest to be inaccurate and therefore not what it says. Further, the thrust of the graphic indicating the two columns are intended to be opposed is completely contrary to the intent of the references, and so I showed evidence of that. When the Talmud names an exception to a Mosaic law it always supports that by reference to another Mosaic law, as it is intended to supplement Mosaic law and not to supplant it.
All society has a degree of collectivism, we merely debate the level that we are willing to fund and accept. Well written comment. The Torah is the foundation of Christianity, but as you wrote, with mercy
Thank you JG!