axolotl_peyotl [+49/-1]: Jan 6 was an inside job. Feds go **** yourselves. On this forum on January 5, 2021, our TOP thread was warning NOT to go to the Capitol because it was a TRAP. On the evening of January 6, a US Senator accused /r/conspiracy of causing the "riot" at the Capitol. A few hours later, the Reddit admins removed me as top mod of /r/conspiracy and specifically told multiple MSM outlets that I personally had "incited my community to the Capitol." They didn't provide a single example (because they made it up). Big Tech colluded with the government prior to Jan 6 as a set up. My removal from Reddit was coordinated between the admins and the US Congress PRIOR to Jan 6. They did the same to countless others. This will all come out. Vindication is bittersweet, but inevitable. Love you guys, thank you for keeping this community going!
Top reply by free-will-of-choice [+16/-1]: Welcome back.
axolotl_peyotl [+16/-0]: thx, fren! Nice to see you still kickin'.
By what proof did you buy the actor's lies in the first place? I will be happy to meet the same standard of proof you use for the people you agree with.
Actor: "I'm Rabbi Abe Finkelstein with this resume."
Me: "There's no evidence a Rabbi Abe Finkelstein exists with his resume."
Same standard of proof applies to both.
u/no_ez and u/DresdenFirebomber are right and so are you. Komen is being subsidized by taxpayer dollars to irradiate all women with regular mammograms and then lo and behold they get breast cancer from the same irradiation. So the sticker really does mean by buying the bananas you're giving people cancer.
Add: I forgot to mention abortions, can't go without blaming Komen for millions of deaths thereby and probably myriads of women dying from abortion aftereffects too, which includes the abortion triggering a cancer later.
I looked into this a little bit because I had a close friend who was a male breast cancer survivor, yes that's a real thing, perfectly straight.
Tikkun olam is the concept of perfect establishment in the Christian Bible in such passages as Ps. 89:37 KJV where the related yikkun olam is translated "established for ever". It's a Christian covenant concept. If Jews have mishandled it that's not the fault of the concept.
If you want me to search the archive and provide the debunk, which is obviously evidence in the category of inference to best explanation because a matter like this can't be proven fictional without doubt unless there is a confession or serious investigative work, then I will be happy to do so at my leisure. I don't keep a thumb-index file on this very silly subject. It might help me if you stop spamming the boards.
Conspiracies is a forum for pursuit of Truth. I routinely ask people if they are willing to pursue Truth at all costs. Those who do not answer are easily classified as uninterested. Students of Truth respect inference to the best explanation; the uninterested are usually illogical about it.
Without taking any dissuasion from my last illuminating "dialogue" with OP, I find it appropriate to repeat my comments on this video.
So you found one unnamed unbinding rabbinical opinion that Noahide laws, which prohibit idolatry (and which Peter et al. affirmed were not contrary to Christianity), prohibit worshipping a human as God, that a human cannot be God, etc. Unfortunately, actual Rabbinical Judaism does not take an actual theological position on this highly technical and open-ended opinion, leaving it to varying opinion. Since Judaism has its own language that says many similar things, namely that the Angel of the Lord accepts the worship given to the Father, that there is some kind of plurality in God recognized by many passages as taught by Rabbi Simlai, that the physical Torah should be venerated (basically hyperdulia), and that it's possible for an angel like Metatron to share divine privileges, the only question in Christian evangelism of the Jews becomes why the Messiah would not have the position of perfect oneness with the Father. That is, the argument between Jews and Christians is 99% semantic based on assumptions built upon text and proactive defenses, and only 1% based on actual difference, and Rom. 11 prophesies that this 1% will be resolved by Jews coming to know Jesus en masse. When I speak to a rabbi who makes an indirect statement pushing back against Christianity, I seek to winsomely draw the opinion out into direct statement, either the person directly denying Christ, or the person admitting a path to recognition of these Rabbinical Jewish sources of plurality in God that can be refined in due time. Our friend Pizzaballa at the LPJ is seeking to evangelize the Jews too, so I am one with him, though my approach and order is a little different. But the link doesn't logically lead to your assertions, and your approaching the whole subject with key categorizations unchallenged is causing much of the difficulty communicating. Which is why I asked you, how do you personally determine what is true? If it was simply to consult the DRA Bible or various publications of patristics or enchiridia, then we could use those sources, for instance.
Looking forward to more evidence of your actual interaction with my comments and questions. God bless you, in Jesus's name.
You seem to have no trouble trusting people who agree with you even if they provide lying resumes, so I don't know why you wouldn't trust someone who commits to pursue the truth at all costs. Oh wait, I do know a likely reason. Are you actually interested in evidence that the radio show is fiction starring a paid actor, or would you continue to quote it even if it were proven fictional without doubt? Truth, fren.
With comparing the alleged resume provided by "Finkelstein" against public records, and with his erratic and ungrammatical neophyte grasp of Hebrew, primarily. Do you want me to look it up? Your link is fiction.
My previous debunk demonstrated that there is no such Rabbi "Abe Finkelstein" and the tabloid radio show that interviewed someone under this name to obtain quotes like this was clearly using an actor paid to perpetuate a stereotype who had no credentials as tied to any real synagogue or traceable human. Add: You've fallen for such noncriticality repeatedly before, Joe, it's high time you began to pursue Truth Only.
Interacting meaningfully with, yes, and I give him the same credit as anyone. Observing, not at all.
I like to reply to Joe when I have something to add. Here, the issue is that Gish didn't actually use the Gish gallop because he had so many good refutals of the same lines of opposition at once that they claimed they were all inaccurate and weak. A better neutral term for the tactic intended is "elephant hurling" because that applies whether the arguments are weak or strong. I do see that elephant hurling seems to be going on today ....
Previously refuted many times. Doing a text search for "six million" and "Jews" and finding many hits that have nothing to do with the Holocaust is among the worst cases of confirmation bias. As I previously showed, running the same search with five or seven gets comparable results.
Thanks for the new example; as usual, the wiki-style shorthand of the Talmud is easily misunderstood by casual inspection.
The paragraph in question is Sanhedrin 58b:14-16. First note that what the Bible calls adulterating (na'af, moichao) is limited to natural intercourse with another man's wife, while sodomy is classified by the Bible not as adultery but as fornicating (zanah, porneuo). The passage is not about adulteration of the womb at all, which is ruled out by all speakers, as note 4 says, "Guilt [is incurred] for natural ... intercourse." The dispute is only about "unnatural" relations, meaning (heterosexual) sodomy.
In one variant text (note 3), Raba is put as saying that Jews are permitted to sodomize their wives, but it is not clear he said this in the original text; in the link I gave, the same thought is a gloss by a later editor. However, in the main text, Raba's argument is that the heathen (H5237, stranger) is not liable for adultery under Gen. 2:24 simply by sodomizing another man's wife, with the logic being that that cannot impregnate her. Since the passage is not about the punishment for sodomy but only about the punishment for adultery, it's another example of saying something is inapplicable in a minor scope and readers mistakenly inferring it's inapplicable in a much wider scope than intended.
Meanwhile, Eleazar and Hanina give the straightforward stricter opinion that sodomy with any woman incurs guilt according to Gen. 2:24. There is no majority ruling in the text on either side, so it merely advises that rabbis differed over this ruling and gives both sides, not that a binding ruling was made.
In general, this is in a section about the laws of Noah (not those of Moses), and so it should be remembered that (1) Jews were not permitted to enforce the laws of Noah upon others but left that to courts set up by the Gentiles, so questions about Jews not judging Gentiles are often intended as referrals to the Gentiles to answer for themselves in their own courts; (2) whether or not sodomy was regarded as permitted under the laws of Noah, it was clearly not permitted under the laws of Moses or under the Talmud as applied to Jews; (3) the actual opinion here as to Noah is only the words of one rabbi, quoted as contrasting and not as binding, and is not to be read as authoritative.
TLDR: For the title to be correct it would need to say something like "Raba allows the heathen unnatural intercourse [sodomy] with his neighbor's wife", very different from OP. However, Raba probably meant it wasn't a case for Jewish courts to hear.
If we are judging Raba for allowing Jews to sodomize their wives (if occasional and not to avoid conception) and using that to extend liberality to the Gentiles, then we should judge Christian leaders who teach the same thing by arguing the marriage bed permits marital sodomy. The fact is that the rabbinical position of that day is once again far ahead of the Roman position of allowing men full property rights over their wives' bodies, even unto death, and the developing Christian position did not have the feature of regulating marital intercourse more fully for quite some time either. So, once again, the Talmud is to be placed properly in the development of morality, neither too leniently nor too strictly.
Not even remotely. The source clearly wants to abolish all gods (elohim), but Christianity is about finding the one true God. Child sacrifice is thousands of years older than that, it's not in Judaism, it's what Abraham the father of faith was delivered from, and as usual the satanists use Jews as their human shields.
Francis Schaeffer depicted public poisoning of the waters in How Should We Then Live? the independent film series.
All was.
Will all be again?
"Nature implies the spiritual force moving in ... and out." "Nature forces spirit out", and in.
Self implies all moving through each one within aka same moving through each difference, hence one being able to see self within another
Does self imply all moving through one with all moving through others? One within all, others within all, no "others than others"?
Is "repair" suggestion or inspiration?
self-perpetuation
Per aka through, petu- aka pter- to wing, -ation aka action, implies action winging through. Sun's wings are rays aka past line and future line.
Is Self with Other, All?
If nature forces spirit out, what forces spirit in? (Ignoring suggestion.)
Actually, I'm out of things to say, so I apologize if I'm not generating any more sheqalim for you. I'm getting paid twice as much for this comment, because twice nothing is nothing.
See, this is where they're trying to hose all the threads and get you to do something immoderate. This pattern has gone on all week I've observed and probably has been increasing a long time. The problems being discussed this week will take harder work than the solutions put forward so far. I don't know that God is calling any of us to that work and we must each be alert to what he does call us to do.
I'm in favor of any order-improving proposal. Best wishes! Where's the submission statement for this post BTW?
The whole iceberg is just the tip of an Atlantis ziggurat.
Race you to the maximum depth level!
I know "fornication" is ambiguous, but obviously I meant the category of normalization of adultery. If people agree on no adultery then people agree on no adultery. If adulterers are punished (and false accusers are also punished), then society is delegating to the state a certain power to preserve the good of women not cheating without consequences, and it stays restrained. Society is free not to, and to try to handle it other ways, but I don't know that any other such ways have worked better.
Current German law puts the age of consent at 14. Evidence that someone advocates for American law on the subject to be ignored would need to be forthcoming.
You're Muslim. Only Muslims today are concerned with others not making images of God's [Jesus's] face. Jews don't sweat it because they leave people to it. Further, only Muslims refuse to answer direct questions about whether they're Muslim, as you have refused.
Trying to get Protestants against Orthodox because of practices which the Protestants don't understand from the church fathers, and which the Orthodox haven't developed an outreach apologetic for, is not something a Christian does, but it's consistent with what Muslims (and other haters of Christians) do.