To hate Jews is to hate God

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

Tosh wrote:If this is not enough to cast doubt on the veracity of Scripture, there have been many early transcripts of the NT discovered which clearly demonstrate the King James Bible was altered, amended and errant !!

Google Professor Bart Ehrman, a former evangelical biblical scholar whose research of the original Greek manuscripts convinced him the NT could not be inerrant.

Dr. Ehrman gives Critical Academic Analysis of the Bible Errors & Contradictions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twX5HlBDZEI

Looks interesting. I'll try and have a look at that later.

Bellatori wrote:

polyglide wrote:If you believe in time, then just explain exactly what it is.

The way we calculate time is purely man made.

60 minutes to the hour etc;

Why not 120 minutes to the hour?.

The units of 60 date back to early Babylonian time. There is no particular reason for it other than 60 seemed to them to be a very useful number because it has so many divisors. The nature of time in terms of direction is determined by Entropy and the second law of thermodynamics.

Good answer, I was going to say that, honest I was.... 

ARE YOU SURE, MAYBE.cos it could be.according to wotsisname. I mean Bellatori, if you look at it this way surely it would work out too. 

It does not matter how far back you go, time is man made according to the manner in which we use it and everything goes along irrespective of whether we have 24 hours a day or fifty hours a day. It is totally irrelevant.

polyglide wrote:It does not matter how far back you go, time is man made according to the manner in which we use it and everything goes along irrespective of whether we have 24 hours a day or fifty hours a day. It is totally irrelevant.  

If what you are saying is that time is an arbitrary measure of duration then I agree. The Babylonians had some religious reason for using 60 as well as its convenience as a number but they could have chosen anything.

polyglide wrote:It does not matter how far back you go, time is man made according to the manner in which we use it and everything goes along irrespective of whether we have 24 hours a day or fifty hours a day. It is totally irrelevant.  

What influence did man have on a year lasting 365 1/4 days (or near enough)? Or, indeed, a day lasting the same amount of time (more or less) as one revolution of the Earth?

Come come pollyfilla you cannot still be thinking surely? The Sun and not the bloody newspaper. and the moon.  

polyglide wrote:It does not matter how far back you go, time is man made according to the manner in which we use it and everything goes along irrespective of whether we have 24 hours a day or fifty hours a day. It is totally irrelevant.  

What?

Oh you mean.....no.......what?  

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

polyglide wrote:It does not matter how far back you go, time is man made according to the manner in which we use it and everything goes along irrespective of whether we have 24 hours a day or fifty hours a day. It is totally irrelevant.  

What?

Oh you mean.....no.......what?  

Believe it or not, I sorta understand what polyglide is trying to say here, and he's not altogether wrong.

At last Shirina, you are beginning to use your brain in a proper and calculated manner, in TIME we may get somewhere.

Time will always have been calculated by the revolutions of the earth around the moon, even by modern man. The only thing being is how many revolutions they decided on to call it a day,? and they ended up with just the one.

stuart torr wrote:Time will always have been calculated by the revolutions of the earth around the moon,  even by modern man. The only thing being is how many revolutions they decided on to call it a day,? and they ended up with just the one.

Stu,

One day = one revolution of the Earth about its axis (nothing to do with the moon)
One [lunar] month = one revolution of the moon about the Earth (well, common centre of mass, but that is more than 1000 miles below the surface of the Earth)
One year = one revolution of the Earth about the sun (similar caveat)

The Earth does not orbit the moon!

Thanks Norm, stu made a cock up.  I know how it goes now.

polyglide wrote:At last Shirina, you are beginning to use your brain in a proper and calculated manner, in TIME we may get somewhere.

Huh?

Heretic

That is what I thought Heretic.  

The mind boggles.

Hi Tosh, polyglides does that's for sure eh.  

stuart torr wrote:That is what I thought Heretic.  

Which is a lot more than PolyGlide put into it.

Heretic

You and your one liners Heretic, keep a smile on my face, I am glad you are around my friend. 

stuart torr wrote:You and your one liners Heretic, keep a smile on my face, I am glad you are around my friend. 

That is something I am going to have to do something about as my daughter says I am becoming more round by the day.

Heretic

 I won't tell anyone.

stuart torr wrote: I won't tell anyone.

If you do then I'll have to feed you to PolyGlide.

Heretic

aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhh.  

Time for a bit of speculation based on flimsy evidence, no not Creationism:

DNA tests of King Tut(1000bce) make it likely he was white, as was his father( Aton) and his mother( his father's sister), less than 1% of Egyptians share this happel-group while 50% share this grouping in Western Europe, in fact it is 85% in Britain. The common ancestor of Tut can be traced back to the Caucasus about 6,600 bce, the area known as the fertile crescent including the shores of the Black Sea, the date is significant as the birth of farming and agriculture (all strains of wheat come from this region). Underneath the Black Sea are countless villages, the remnants of a Garden of Eden submerged by a Great Flood, a civilization made rich by farming, agriculture and the wheat trade. The only escape from this Flood was South, North  being blocked by mountains, and the first civilised city South of the Black Sea is Ur, a Sumerian city built like a fortified farm, with traditions and customs similar to Judaism, the place Abraham came from. So Let us assume the elite in Ur were Caucasians governing brown or black Sumerians, another Caucasian group carried on South to Egypt and the Pharaohs were their descendants governing the brown or black Egyptians.
Egyptian Gods and traditions are also similar to Judaism, in fact King Tuts father introduced monotheism during his reign, and the timing coincides with Moses leaving Egypt on his EXODUS.

Judaism is a mix of Sumerian and Egyptian( Abraham and Moses), and the original Jews may have been Caucasian.

Jesus was white after all.

The original religion of the Black Sea tribes reflects their life style, their wealth and security removed most natural threats, so their gods reflected their biggest survival threat, themselves, the gods of good behavior became essential in settled dense populations, social rules were necessary to avoid conflict.

The Flood was their punishment for perceived immorality, and when they left they took their moral Gods and codes and used them to good effect in the first urban cities of Ur and Luxor, they had developed ideal social laws to enable populations to coexist peacefully and productively and created two great civilisations. Judaism is the direct descendant of that first religion based on social morality,.

I think I have worked out why the Egyptians made pyramids as burial chambers, their descendants came down from the Caucus Mountains, and if you take a look at them they form a line of pyramids. They were replicating previous customs and traditions, the mountains were sacred and they buried their loved ones in a tribal burial pit inside the mountain( maybe a cave).

Genius, just a bloody genius.

It would not matter how many times anything goes around anything, time would still be the same, that is if there is actually such a thing as time.

Just as a matter of a thought Stu, I have prayed that your problems will be eased and I hope they will be answered.

polyglide wrote:It would not matter how many times anything goes around anything, time would still be the same, that is if there is actually such a thing as time.

Your initial point related to time being man-made though. And man's concept of time relates to astronomical observations.

Thank-you polyglide, for your thoughts. 

Time waits for no man and you cannot bottle it, some say they save time, an impossibility, what they mean by rushing they can do more things than they would not have done had they gone slow.

 

polyglide wrote:Time waits for no man and you cannot bottle it, some say they save time, an impossibility, what they mean by rushing they can do more things than they would not have done had they gone slow.

Travel at a large fraction of the speed of light or make a close approach to the event horizon of a black hole and time takes on some very counter-intuitive properties. Extreme conditions can give rise to highly unusual effects. Generalising from more normal situations is rarely a good guide.

Norm, if we did just generalise, and rushed in one day and got twice as much done, then surely we could have the next day free from work and relax and enjoy the day.?

Norm Deplume wrote:

polyglide wrote:Time waits for no man and you cannot bottle it, some say they save time, an impossibility, what they mean by rushing they can do more things than they would not have done had they gone slow.

Travel at a large fraction of the speed of light or make a close approach to the event horizon of a black hole and time takes on some very counter-intuitive properties. Extreme conditions can give rise to highly unusual effects. Generalising from more normal situations is rarely a good guide.

That's god having a laugh.

We are talking about life on earth and not away with the fairies.

We have no idea what the universe holds nor the properties of most of those that we do know.

There are thousands of people starving and dying of curable diseases because scientists are more concerned with matters that will not be of any use to anyone.

We have no idea the size of the universe nor what it may hold and | can see no benifit to mankind in many of the objectives of the scientists other than to attempt to make a name for themselves.

PG, assuming hypocrisy isn't something that needs to be added to the list of your dubious attributes, perhaps you can inform us what are you doing in your life that is of such benefit to humanity.

I help those who are in need at every opportunity and when to do so is within my means,

I am trying to explain to you how deluded you are in your thinking but there are lost causes but I will persivere in the hope that your brain will eventually begin to function as God intended,

polyglide wrote:I help those who are in need at every opportunity and when to do so is within my means,

Could you be a bit more specific?

He is a biology teacher for the mentally handicapped.

polyglide wrote:There are thousands of people starving and dying of curable diseases because scientists are more concerned with matters that will not be of any use to anyone.

People are starving and dying of curable diseases because of greed and profit, not because of the scientists. Corporatists and bankers and the like keep a lot of things from ever seeing the light of day. Just think of how many hundreds of billions of dollars would be lost if cancer were ever cured - all of the treatments, the drugs, even the specialized equipment would no longer be needed and people wouldn't have to fork over huge sums of money to maintain their treatments. If you're looking to blame someone, you're barking up the wrong tree when it comes to people dying and starving. Just last night I saw a segment on the news about a possible cure for the most common types of leukemia - over 50% of the patients who underwent this new treatment are now cancer-free. I told my family - yeah, sure. You will NEVER hear about this treatment again because it will be suppressed. The scientists still invent and discover, but the bankers and the wealthy elite keep those inventions and discoveries away from the general public.

polyglide wrote:We have no idea the size of the universe nor what it may hold and | can see no benifit to mankind in many of the objectives of the scientists other than to attempt to make a name for themselves.

Our desire to know and understand the universe is one of the things that makes us higher beings, one of the things that separates us from the animals. Of course to the rabidly religious, exploring the universe might be a little frightening since science might reveal the fact that the Bible just isn't true or reliable.