To hate Jews is to hate God

by Greatest I am Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:22 pm

First topic message reminder :

To hate Jews is to hate God.

If you believe in the sacrifice of Jesus, then you must believe that God planned for it and set the conditions even before the earth was formed. If as most believe, the Jews were the cause of the sacrifice, then one must believe that God put the notion and desire to kill Jesus in the Jewish hearts. Jews then were God’s tools in carrying out God’s plan. Jews then should be venerated just as Jesus is because Jesus and Jews were required and caused by God to participate in the sacrifice. They were all doing God’s will and not their own.

Jesus was a Jew and to hate Jews means that Jesus is also hated. The church has historically persecuted Jews and only repented for their actions in 2011 with the pope acknowledging that not all Jews should be hated. Just those directly involved in the sacrifice of Jesus. Ignoring of course that they were charged directly by God to be and do what God wanted.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/jews-not-responsible-for-death-of-christ-pope-says-49267/

Why then have Christians historically hated Jews, and by inference, hate the Jew part of God/Jesus the Jew?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKg4HLsu5gE&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2KwQ&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

The weird twist to this history is that the Christian right who hates Jews the most, is now the ones pushing for funding of the Jewish homeland to fulfill prophesy.

Most Jews do not believe that Jesus was the messiah. Is the Christian right just funding Jews to help drive them to destruction at the hands of God?

Jews tend not to read the O. T. the way Christians do. Are Christian interpretations of Jewish text superior or inferior to the Jewish interpretation of their own myths?

Regards
DL

by oftenwrong Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:47 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
....
You forget the U. N. involment.

Regards
DL

Do you refer to some dramatically decisive UN involment that has been overlooked, or to the reality of a World Body hoping that the problem will somehow go away?

by Greatest I am Fri Feb 08, 2013 8:05 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:
....
You forget the U. N. involment.

Regards
DL

Do you refer to some dramatically decisive UN involment that has been overlooked, or to the reality of a World Body hoping that the problem will somehow go away?

The issue I spoke to was what had happened 70 years ago. Not today.

Regards
DL

by trevorw2539 Fri Feb 08, 2013 8:14 pm

I believe the 'origin' of the State of Israel was down to the League of Nations and taken over by the U.N. when the League became defunct and the U.N. assumed its place, coming into being in 1942.
The League really didn't have a great deal of power, the USA refusing to join, though influencing from the fringes.

by oftenwrong Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:12 pm

Nobody else can dissimulate like a Christian.

by Guest Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:17 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
I believe the 'origin' of the State of Israel was down to the League of Nations and taken over by the U.N. when the League became defunct and the U.N. assumed its place, coming into being in 1942.
The League really didn't have a great deal of power, the USA refusing to join, though influencing from the fringes.

The modern State of Israel was created by UN resolution in April (I believe) 1948 (I know). As you’ve stated, the League of Nations, although “willed into existence” by United States President Woodrow Wilson, never counted the United States as a member, due to the backward-thinking refusal of the United States Senate to ratify the treaty (see excerpt from the United States Constitution below).

In contrast to its “pullback act” on the League, the United States fully supported the United Nations in its actions; thus, at least in its infancy, the United Nations accomplished several positive objectives, including the formation of the modern State of Israel in 1948 and the successful Korean intervention (“police action”) aka the Korean War.

United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

by oftenwrong Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:43 pm

[quote="RockOnBrother"]

United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2

"....the successful Korean intervention.... " which many Historians may have overlooked.

by Greatest I am Sat Feb 09, 2013 9:57 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:I believe the 'origin' of the State of Israel was down to the League of Nations and taken over by the U.N. when the League became defunct and the U.N. assumed its place, coming into being in 1942.
The League really didn't have a great deal of power, the USA refusing to join, though influencing from the fringes.

Things have changed quite a bit. Eventually the U N will rule the world as far as I can see. Many systems, like the economy, are becoming worldwide.

What do you think?

Another 30 years perhaps?

Regards
DL

by oftenwrong Sat Feb 09, 2013 11:00 pm

So far the nearest thing to an unelected World Ruling body which we have is the Vatican.

Unless you count FIFA.

by Greatest I am Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:34 pm

oftenwrong wrote:So far the nearest thing to an unelected World Ruling body which we have is the Vatican.

Unless you count FIFA.

The Pope is elected.

He does seem to rule much of the world though as governments are afraid to arrest his pedophile protecting ass.

Regards
DL

by oftenwrong Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:19 pm

A papal conclave is a meeting of the College of Cardinals convened to elect a new Bishop of Rome, also known as the Pope.

Like the US Electoral College choosing a President, it doesn't quite correspond to universal suffrage. If anyone cares.

by Guest Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:02 am

by boatlady Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:57 am

Whatever are you talking about, Rock?

by bobby Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:13 am

Boatlady, why on earth did you ask roc that, now we will get 3 pages or more of nonsense that will explain nothing. For well over a year now I have been trying to get an answer from him, based on something he actually said, my question is in reference to a US atrocity in Vietnam, and all he wants to tell me is about something that happened over 3000 miles away, and yes it took him almost a full page in the telling.

That said though Boatlady, you may be the lucky on and get a short readable answer round about the time the little pink pig flies over the moon.

by boatlady Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:35 am

Usually, I can follow the reasoning, even if I don't always agree, but I really didn't understand the last comment.

by polyglide Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:59 pm

Sorry for the late reply.

Rapists and other perverts have nothing whatsoever to do with Jews in particular and are apparent in every walk of life.

Pitty comes to mind rather than love, however, if God can forgive and is aware of all the circumstances, which we are not, then I am on his side.

by **astradt1** Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:19 pm

Perhaps if posters wish to discuss the rights and wrongs of the system of electing of a new pope it should be in a new thread and not this one.............

by oftenwrong Tue Feb 12, 2013 5:37 pm

The Papacy was not totally supportive of the Jewish faith during World War 2, so may be more relevant to this thread than might appear to the casual observer. Though like much else, it's a matter of opinion.

by Greatest I am Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:25 pm

polyglide wrote:Sorry for the late reply.

Rapists and other perverts have nothing whatsoever to do with Jews in particular and are apparent in every walk of life.

Pitty comes to mind rather than love, however, if God can forgive and is aware of all the circumstances, which we are not, then I am on his side.

Right or wrong, good or evil, your God you exonerate where you would condemn a man.

Remember, as above so below.

Your double standards of morality will land you in hell.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:28 pm

astradt1 wrote:Perhaps if posters wish to discuss the rights and wrongs of the system of electing of a new pope it should be in a new thread and not this one.............

Does it make a damned bit of difference to anyone here who the next pedophile protecting Pope will be?

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:31 pm

oftenwrong wrote:The Papacy was not totally supportive of the Jewish faith during World War 2, so may be more relevant to this thread than might appear to the casual observer. Though like much else, it's a matter of opinion.

"not totally supportive"

Rather an understatement that. They were Hitler's bank.

Regards
DL

by oftenwrong Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:19 pm

Who knew?

by Guest Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:00 am

by polyglide Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:24 pm

I do not have double standards.

God has given mankind the chance of having a wonderful life on earth and the chance of everlasting life.

The fact that the world is in such a state is not God's fault but mankinds.

God's word as written by man includes many apparent discrepancies unless taken in the right terms which fit in with all other relative matters and not used in issolation.

An eye for an eye, does this mean one should blind another person if he/she blinds another person? I think not, what it indicates is the seriousness of any kind of sin. etc; etc;

by bobby Wed Feb 13, 2013 3:39 pm

The best bit of the bible is all the begetting that went on, nothing like a good sex novel.

by Greatest I am Wed Feb 13, 2013 4:08 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:[

You’ve hit the bulls-eye again. I actually agree with you, twice, without equivocation. Amazing.
[/color]

We have more in common than you think.

I just don't understand what you say most of the time because of all the crap you put down instead of just talking to me.
I can trust or accept your words without sources or endless quotes.

As an esoteric ecumenist, I try to do what my long winded friend says here.

I like what he says but wish like hell he could find a shorter way to say it.
I have a poor memory and forget the question by the time he gets to the answer.
Falling asleep through his speech does not help me either but I do agree with him once I deal with all those obstacles.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Wed Feb 13, 2013 4:19 pm

polyglide wrote:I do not have double standards.

God has given mankind the chance of having a wonderful life on earth and the chance of everlasting life.

The fact that the world is in such a state is not God's fault but mankinds.

God's word as written by man includes many apparent discrepancies unless taken in the right terms which fit in with all other relative matters and not used in issolation.

An eye for an eye, does this mean one should blind another person if he/she blinds another person? I think not, what it indicates is the seriousness of any kind of sin. etc; etc;

You have no clue.

An eye for an eye means that the penalty should not exceed the crime. That is how secular law works.

Something your God does not live by as just disbelief, a minor sin, will bring condemnation and eternal torture or death -----
just because your absentee genocidal son murderer will not show his evil face on earth.

You do have a double standard.

Prove it with your answer to this.

In Pharaoh's day, God killed the innocent first born instead of the guilty parents.

Was that good or evil?

As above so below.

If a man punished your child for something you did, would that be good or evil?

Regards
DL

by oftenwrong Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:38 pm

Someone seems to be losing it. No surprise.

by snowyflake Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:50 pm

Take a couple paracetemol, OW and you'll be alright in the morning Smile

by oftenwrong Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:28 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physician,_heal_thyself

by boatlady Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:51 am

nice link

by polyglide Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:05 pm

I have no concern with anything prior to the birth of Jesus, there are many seemingly disturbing issues prior to the birth of Jesus which need explaining in terms of a loving God, as I was not around at the time I do not know or understand the relevance, nor do you, nor am I concerned about explaining something that is of no revelance to my faith, which is based solely on the promise made by God through Jesus.

Everything else is of no importance.

by snowyflake Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:48 pm

as I was not around at the time I do not know or understand the relevance,

You weren't around at the time of Jesus either.....just so you know Smile

by Guest Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:52 pm

by oftenwrong Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:27 pm

polyglide wrote:I have no concern with anything prior to the birth of Jesus .....

Everything else is of no importance.

That's the Old Testament consigned to the pulp mill then.

by snowyflake Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:04 pm

Snowy, for your consideration: As the noun “Christian” refers to a person that knows and heeds Jesus’ commands and teachings, one who seeks understanding of “Christian” needs to focus upon understanding the commandments and teachings that a person must, of their own free will, follow to the best of her/his ability in order to be accurately identified as a “Christian.”

Rock, it's all down to interpretation. The Catholics, Methodist, Baptists, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Amish, Mennonite, Mormon, Pentecostalists, Presbyterian, Protestants, Evangelical, Lutheran, Orthodox, Reformed, Anglican, Brethren, Jehovah's Witness, Church of God etc etc etc. all believe they are following the true path of Christ.

Even your definition of Christian is not agreed upon by all Christians and I think even you know this. So what says you are right and all the other Christians and their beliefs are wrong?

Love your enemies, Rock... I couldn't and wouldn't love anyone who murdered my friend. It's not human nature and it's not a natural or normal response.

by oftenwrong Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:28 pm

Such a glib topic-heading can only invite a superficial response.

by snowyflake Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:56 pm

Such a glib topic-heading can only invite a superficial response.

Glibly said Ow.

by Guest Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:22 am

by Shirina Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:10 am

The first video was pretty interesting until the last 10 minutes - at which point former Mormons started preaching Christianity. Then it became a case of "My made-up story is better than your made-up story."

Once I realized what was going on, I was disappointed, because it means I can't necessarily trust what the video says. It's essentially Christianity bashing Mormonism which would be like watching a documentary on Chevrolet that was produced by Ford. Or a documentary on Obama produced by Romney. I can't trust the bias.

by oftenwrong Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:45 am

The hidden agenda within most religious writings is Thought Control.

As long as people are aware of that, it's unlikely to cause them damage.

by snowyflake Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:59 am

Well, we are missing the point somewhat. Religious beliefs are whatever people interpret their ancient and new testaments to be. There are millions of religions around the world claiming divine 'truth'. If there were one God why make it so ambiguous? It's a nonsense.

Thought Control is an underlying theme of all religions and I doubt very much people are aware of it. It's just another name for the Church of Wishful Thinking.

I tried watching the film, Rock, but to be honest I was bored in the first few minutes. I've seen anti-mormon, anti-jewish, anti-jehovah's witness, anti-catholic diatribes before. It's just one Christian religion bashing another Christian religion and they all bash anything that is non-Christian.

Hi Shirina. Your posts are fantastic btw. Usual top notch stuff. Glad to see you here. Hope you are taking care of yourself. Snowy Smile

by Sponsored content