DNA PROOF Jews NOT Semites!!!

page: 21
76
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Respectfully, you are working very hard to make your off topic points relevant.

I'd say generally that it can be very hard to reconcile the bible with anything other than cultural ethnography, and ultimately this is supposed to be about DNA evidence concerning modern Jews.

However, if we take the Biblical linage from Shem, then if true, Abraham descends from Shem by Arpachshad.

However, the error you make is that all decedents of Shem are Semitic.

It is also asserted that Europeans generally, Germans, Persians, Greeks, and Indo-Iranians, have their lineage from Shem.

John Sassoon asserts that the founders of the high civilization of Sumeria are among the decedents of Shem who previously came to occupy Eurasia, and including India.

Another scholar, James Modish counts the ancient occupants of India as among the lands inhabited by the decedents of Shem.

The other error you make is to say that the use of the expression "to found a civilization" means that the founders must be the first to occupy that area. That is simply an unjustified assumption about the meaning of the phrase on your part.

If you want to learn something you may not have been exposed to, which IS on topic, take a look at the book I referred you to, "Abraham's Children", its science, not cultural ethnography which often originates in a societies myths, which do not have to be scientifically tested to become part of the body of the cultural study.

One point I will agree with you about is that among the lineage(s) Jews and the ancient Hebrews have includes haplotypes common to the east coast of north Africa. But that does not preclude them from having middle eastern haplotypes a percentage of the population acquired later.




posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by McGinty
 


Language is a fascinating thing at any time, but especially so when translations that mean so much to so many come into play.

One way to think of language in the bible is to remember that the bible was not written in English. English is a new language, built off older languages, so why do so many place importance on English translations? One can NOT take an English translation as authentic on that basis alone. It is very much like watching a dubbed movie. You miss out on nuances, puns, and actual meaning if you don't get the info in the language it was meant to be in.

Jesus being a prime example. How many middle eastern people are running around with that name?? How many tribal Africans are named Sally or Joe? People in Latin America do not call the US Vice President Jose, so why do we call Yeshua, Jesus?

How arrogant are we English speakers to think that the world should honor our translation mistakes? It really is very silly to me.

I honestly could not even begin to tell you where to find a listing of mistaken translations...wait. I just thought of something, and no-- I'm not being obnoxious, i really just thought of this::

Now that is not a one stop answer. As with all research, one has to be aware that many things religious are charged with bias, so take what you find with that in mind.

I was lucky I guess. I went to a Hebrew school where half the day was spent in Hebrew studies, and the other half secular- so while I am not fluent in speaking Hebrew, I can read it well enough to be able to find out what it means. And for me, the only way to really understand what the bible says was to compare the Hebrew with the English. Now don't think I spend my days with a tenach on one side and the NT on the other- it is just that I remember what I was taught in school (in Hebrew), and sometimes the differences are large enough that it draws my attention.

Letthereader was making a couple of claims for you to take into thought that bothered me, so I spoke up.

Another thing to remember is that the NT especially- was written for the READER. The authors of those books catered their words to serve the populations they targeted. Some spoke Aramaic, some spoke Greek, etc. I sincerely doubt that Yeshua spoke Greek as a rule, so why are Greek translations being used as his words?

And it's not as simple as looking up the word in Hebrew or Aramaic and accepting it as the true meaning: the (Hebrew) letters used sometimes give added meaning to a word when another word with the same meaning could have been used. Why that specific word? because of the meaning inherent in the letters. Case in point:

יְהֹוָה

yud hay vuv hay - People say that sounds like Jehovah. More YA hova, but meh. Point is, it is the name of God. But God is called so many other names- what is so special about this one? Well, no one knows for sure how to pronounce it. So are we actually calling on God when we speak "Yehovah"? No, we're not. But people will go to great lengths to define it. Again, that seems silly to me.

And according to scripture- we're not even supposed to speak that name- or any derivation of it- aloud at all- -- but it's done hundreds of times on this forum alone.

This has gotten a bit longer than I had planned, so I'll wind it up. For the most part, english translations of holy books are ok. But for those few who take the bible, every word in it, literally- they are seriously misguided. And for those who put stock in any sort of code, or "bible code", and even those learned scholars who study the talmud and kabalah- if they aren't doing it in Hebrew- they're doin' it wrong.

Example:

Let's eat Grandma!

Let's eat, Grandma!

means two different things right? Something to think about when reading the good ole' KJV.

Of course I have more to say on the subject, but i don't want to confuse the masses all at once.. >.>

Honestly I just am out of time to post right now, so...more later I guess.



I also just wanted to say (again[for about the 7th time]) - One can be Jewish without being a religious Jew. Being Jewish is an ethnic designation, complete with specific genetic markers, culture, and history. It is not JUST religion that ties Jews.

Of course once again, no one will actually hear that part....



[edit on 4-3-2010 by cjcord]



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Further, Abram was not a Semite in the sense that as a Sumerian, their/his language was not Semitic in origin, and Semites, as the term is used, refers by in large to the people who were the main population of the off-springs of Sumer; Assyria, Babylonia.

And as John Sassoon states, these people were emigres of the Arabian peninsula.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but I recall learning that the "Semites" is a *linguistic group*, not a genetic group. Peoples are classified as Semitic if they spoke a Semitic language (Akkadian, Hebrew, Arabic, et al.).

Respectfully, I think the parent poster has jumped the gun a bit -- perhaps to serve the agenda of a political ideology.

Finally, I'm pretty sure a short article in the mainstream press doesn't count as "proof" to anyone about anything.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I'm jewish. buit i'm not religious. Its a sense of community and tradition. Im jewish the way you are italian, or irish or whatever you are. Its the food i eat at holidays and the way i talk, havent been to temple since i was 13...but still i am proud to be a jew. My grandfather fought in the battle of the bulge and then snuck across the border and smuggled out our relatives that were out of war camps but with no where to go...he brought them to america, just as he had escaped poland as a boy...if thats not something to be proud of then i dont know what is...you could tell me that my dna is of an eskimo and i would still be a proud jew...by the way, if you have never been to israel, then you would never truly understand the dynamics over there.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by leschwartz
 



Respectfully, you are working very hard to make your off topic points relevant.


No, off topic would be introducing something that has nothing to do with this thread. We’re talking about the area and people that gave birth to the Hebrew people, so it is only logical to bring all of this to light, especially when one group is claiming they have a rightful claim to the land based on their lineage.


I'd say generally that it can be very hard to reconcile the bible with anything other than cultural ethnography, and ultimately this is supposed to be about DNA evidence concerning modern Jews.


And who do modern Jews claim as their patriarch?


However, if we take the Biblical linage from Shem, then if true, Abraham descends from Shem by Arpachshad.


And what are jews using to justify their claims to the land?


However, the error you make is that all decedents of Shem are Semitic.


When did I say all decedents of Shem were or weren’t Semitic?


It is also asserted that Europeans generally, Germans, Persians, Greeks, and Indo-Iranians, have their lineage from Shem.


It is also asserted that Europeans have their lineage with Japheth not Shem (for example, refer to Gomar and his sons Ashkenaz, Togarmah and Riphath.)


John Sassoon asserts that the founders of the high civilization of Sumeria are among the decedents of Shem who previously came to occupy Eurasia, and including India.


Refer to my previous post.


Another scholar, James Modish counts the ancient occupants of India as among the lands inhabited by the decedents of Shem.


See above.


The other error you make is to say that the use of the expression "to found a civilization" means that the founders must be the first to occupy that area. That is simply an unjustified assumption about the meaning of the phrase on your part.


You’re a selective reader. I’ll put my statement up again, only this time, I want you to focus on the bold emphasis that will be added:


When it is stated that someone or a group of people “found” something it is sometimes interpreted as they moved there and built a civilization that, previously, had no civilization at all.


Do you understand now? You should, but if not let us look at the rest of the statement:


I’m specifically talking about the region and those who were there before the Sumerians. I’m not talking about “Sumerians” and people who built the “civilization of Sumer” (even though the people before the Sumerians already had a civilization complete with pottery, homes, etc.)


Did you read the bold? I’m not talking about the people you refer to as Sumerians or what you define as Sumerian civilization. I’m referring to the land, because the land is what is in question here, and the people who inhabited the land before the Sumerians, which history shows, had a civilization before the Sumerians entered the area.


If you want to learn something you may not have been exposed to, which IS on topic, take a look at the book I referred you to, "Abraham's Children", its science, not cultural ethnography which often originates in a societies myths, which do not have to be scientifically tested to become part of the body of the cultural study.


I’ll see if I can track it down, and if it isn’t 100% science and rooted in myth (partially or wholly) I’ll be sure to let you know.


One point I will agree with you about is that among the lineage(s) Jews and the ancient Hebrews have includes haplotypes common to the east coast of north Africa. But that does not preclude them from having middle eastern haplotypes a percentage of the population acquired later.


Question: how many non Jewish people, or people not affiliated with Israel, Zionism, etc have done tests pertaining to this subject?


Further, Abram was not a Semite in the sense that as a Sumerian, their/his language was not Semitic in origin, and Semites, as the term is used, refers by in large to the people who were the main population of the off-springs of Sumer; Assyria, Babylonia.


That is your use and definition for the word. However, as many people in this thread have already pointed out, “Semite” refers to a linguistic group.

www.newadvent.org...


[edit on 4-3-2010 by EMPIRE]



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
You are right that the term primarily refers to the language groups, and cultural groups that are identified as Semitic.

However, in common use the term also refers to other qualities that can be associated with those populations, like genetic markers, although I think it is reasonable to point out, calling specific genetic markers "semitic" or not would be a confusion of the terms defined meaning, since you could only show by a scientific study a degree of association between the specific alleles for different genes which constitute a haploid genotype and a given population under study, and those percentages would differ by the exact population under study.

In the genetic studies I have read, Jews frequently have more diversity in their overall genetic makeup than nearby populations in studies of both Middle Eastern and European population groups.

However some haplotypes appear to have been fairly equally present (as a percentage) in people who identify as Jews, and who are geographically widespread, from USA, to Europe, and the Middle East, despite how different their physical appearances may be, from Ashkenazim to Sephardic for example.

Yet I hear this same BS over and over again, 'modern people calling themselves Jews are not really Semitic so they can't be Jews and therefore they can't have a legitimate claim to territory in the middle east.'

This springs from the book by Arthur Koestler, "The Thirteenth Tribe", which documents the conversion of a non-middle eastern people to Judaism in the early middle ages.

However, modern genetic studies have shown while there are a percentage of people calling themselves Jews who descend from Khazars, most Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews do not descend from the Khazars as has been shown by many genetic studies.

And the whole point of the erroneous assertion is an attempt to say that if you as a modern Jew descend from the Khazars, you have no genetic link to the ancient Jews and therefore you can have no claim to middle eastern territory.

But this is also bogus since the international law and treaties which established the modern state of Israel do not distinguish Khazarian descendants from middle eastern descendants as to their qualification for return to the nation of Israel.

And as I said above, being Jewish is not primarily a matter of genetics, and even the Khazars were not of a single genetic heritage, and some groups among them were comprised of very early migrants (pre-diaspora) of the ancient nation of the Hebrews.

But on the internet this 'modern day Jews are not Semitic' BS is posted over and over and over again, and as I mentioned, by Jeff Rense and the guests and columnists he chooses to publish on his site. He should know better, but he obviously has a bias.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Responding to Empire.

I'm sorry your points are off topic and as far as I can tell are attempts at obfuscation.

I addressed the points I made and I have given good enough detail on my statements and the sources for them.

I do not feel your line by line comments merit a further response, and none of them really deal with the topic; "DNA PROOF Jews NOT Semites!!!", while my points and my posts overall do deal with the topic, they do not wander off into the weeds of irrelevance, and furthermore they are consistent and verifiable, see the srouces I refer you to.

I am not going to be dragged into a sentence by sentence 'analysis' of the irrelevant.

Please take a look at the books I have referred you to, and read some actual genetic studies, such as those pertaining to Jewish populations if you have an interest.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
The OP drew overly far-reaching conclusions from the cited research...
The cited article says this:

"Y chromosomes reveal much leakage across the religious divide. A fifth of all the male lineages of modern Spain are of Jewish origin, which means that millions of devout Spanish Catholics have Sephardic ancestry, while the Sephardim themselves, with their unique and ancient Jewish ritual, present a wider range of genetic variation than do their Ashkenazi cousins. Plenty of those with one faith have biological roots in the other. My wife, as it happens, comes from a Sephardic family and has relatives with surnames such as Cardozo and Pexiota. After 40 years here, she has still not got round to obtaining a British passport. In spite of the double helix, identity remains a confusing thing."

While the scientist made it clear that identity remains a confusing thing, neither the original poster nor most posters here have much tolerance for complexity.

As for me, even the orginal question (whether Ashkenazi Jewry is of Semite origin) is far from being settled. The scientist quoted examined only matrilinear descent, as most modern Jews trace ancestry that way. However, it is clear from the Torah that ancient Jewry traced their ancestry via patrilinear ways sometimes (see patriarchs marrying originally non-Jewish women, and the endless denominations in Biblical text that say "son of... son of..." etc not "daughter of...")

I cited research in my post on Page 2 that examined patrilinear genetic makeup of Ashkenazim and arrived at the conclusion that yes there are Semitic genetic markers there...

I cannot blame the scientist for he was examining matrilinear geentic records, number one, and he did not draw far-going conclusions from his research, number two. Such as that modern Israel has no right ot exist etc. He did not say that, and he did not set out to prove that patrilinear research is wrong. He simply occupied himself with researching matrilinear genes.

In contrast, the OP and many other posters critical of Zionism jump to the conclusion that therefore Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands is illegal, some implying that the entire state is based on false grounds.

Come on, people, this is completely illogical. And, they just conveniently ignore the results of patrilinear research I alluded to in my post on page 2. If someone thinks Semitic ancestry somehow is tied to a right to occupy lands in the Middle East, surely they would have to look at the results of patrilinear research as well.

Here in Eastern Europe, where Jewry have been exposed to the fiercest persecution and prejudice known in modern history, if a person's father is Jewish, even if the father is not a religious Jew, he or she WILL be regarded Jewish by all non-Jews, and such people usually define themselves as "partly Jewish." It is true that modern Jewry prefers to trace ancestry matrilinearly, thus such a person may have some hardship if they wanted to be accepted in an Orthodox Jewish community or in Israel.

A rule of thumb in defining a community is to ASK THEM how they define themselves. I think this is a basic human right of groups - self-definition. I asked a number of Jews in Budapest about this, and the most concise argument was that a Jewish identity can be many things, perhaps the word "culture" can sum it up well. Jewish identity relates one to a culture here.

Many Jews are not observant or not even religious in Eastern Europe. Some are atheists. When asked, what their Jewishness constituted, they replied: it is a culture. Others have become Catholic in the thirties, hoping to escape Nazi persecution, but since everyone has been telling them for decades that they were realy Jewish, they decided to turn back and accept that.

Surely religion IS a common thread, in that all Jewish atheists and Christians have ancestors that - at one time or another - were religious Jews, holding to the Law of Moses.
However, who are we in this internet forum to take away the right of such people to their very Jewish identity?

To further complicate the issue, there have been converts in all Judaism's history. So, we have Black African Jews, Arab Jews, as well as Chinese Jews among the ranks of the religious. Plus a number of Eastern Europeans that consider themselves Jewish, even though they do not believe in the God of the Torah - they may be psychologists, scientists, librarians, Yoga teachers or whatever.
All their lives they were told they are Jewish. There were some disadvantages and sometimes there were advantages. Some kids would not play with you because you are Jewish, you had a scientific outlook most of your life, or you dealt with other approaches to mysticism, and then forty years later here comes someone (a non-Jew) who suddenly tells you you have no right to Jewishness...
Who are we to take this identity away?

As a non-Jew with a partly Jewish family, I think it is wisest to let Jewish people define what a Jew is. Jewish people have fought for self-determination for centuries. This is an issue of dself-determination.
Rabbis as well as secular Jews have made it abundantly clear that there is a complexity, a multiplicity behind this question.

- Some Jewish people regard it as ethnicity. Most Hungarian Jews do not - there was a poll about this in recent years.
- Some will doubtlessly center upon religion.
- Some will only refer to a culture and Jewish religion ancestory, wholly or in part.
- Some will be converts adptiong a new identity. (See Maimonides).

As the quoted scientist says, many practicing Catholics of Spain could harbor Semitic genes. Then should we go ahead and tell them that we think they are secretly Jewish?

What if they want to remain Spanish Catholics?

BTW, I am critical of some Israeli policies against Palestinians, and by no means do I regard all the territory issues from a Jewish side. But I think - based on the article quoted and other genetic and sociological research - that to make the argument that the entire state of Israel in 1948 has been founded upon false grounds because some genetic research in 2010 turns out that one important Jewish group does not have Semitic genes MATRILINEARLY (the article does not specify what happens patrilinearly) is quite obstuse, prejudicial, and borders on a systemic anti-Semitism.

Such arguments will certainly not help in pacifying the warlike government of Mr. Netanyahu, who otherwise may be a danger to the welfare of Israel.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by leschwartz
 



You are right that the term primarily refers to the language groups, and cultural groups that are identified as Semitic.

However, in common use the term also refers to other qualities that can be associated with those populations, like genetic markers, although I think it is reasonable to point out, calling specific genetic markers "semitic" or not would be a confusion of the terms defined meaning, since you could only show by a scientific study a degree of association between the specific alleles for different genes which constitute a haploid genotype and a given population under study, and those percentages would differ by the exact population under study.


In other words we’ll actually go in circles the same way we can’t decide if “jew” is a race, ethnicity, religion or culture. Another example would be how the Yehuda come to represent all Jewry, and this also contributes to the problem.


In the genetic studies I have read, Jews frequently have more diversity in their overall genetic makeup than nearby populations in studies of both Middle Eastern and European population groups.


What about the other markers? It’s one thing to say they have more diversity in their overall genetic makeup, but what exactly is their overall genetic makeup?


However some haplotypes appear to have been fairly equally present (as a percentage) in people who identify as Jews, and who are geographically widespread, from USA, to Europe, and the Middle East, despite how different their physical appearances may be, from Ashkenazim to Sephardic for example.


See above, and my response to this is the “jews” are a mixed people and will always be a mixed people.


Yet I hear this same BS over and over again, 'modern people calling themselves Jews are not really Semitic so they can't be Jews and therefore they can't have a legitimate claim to territory in the middle east.'


Some are using the word Semitic to refer to a cultural or genetic group. This is why they say this. Moreover, modern Jews, whether claiming to be Semitic or not, have provided nothing to show they have a legitimate claim to the land. Again, as previously posted, by other members and myself, people are using the Bible to justify their claims to the land. The problem with this is the tribes listed were changed multiple times in the Bible, so if we can’t even get that right, what do we have to go on to say this group is entitled to the land? If we go on history, we’ll see a major division, but one cannot dispute the fact that Palastinians do share some of the same, if not the same, genetic makeup of those who never left Israel. What does science say?

epiphenom.fieldofscience.com...


This springs from the book by Arthur Koestler, "The Thirteenth Tribe", which documents the conversion of a non-middle eastern people to Judaism in the early middle ages. However, modern genetic studies have shown while there are a percentage of people calling themselves Jews who descend from Khazars, most Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews do not descend from the Khazars as has been shown by many genetic studies.


Define most. 51% is most. 99% is most.


And the whole point of the erroneous assertion is an attempt to say that if you as a modern Jew descend from the Khazars, you have no genetic link to the ancient Jews and therefore you can have no claim to middle eastern territory.


Again what are Jews using to justify their claims to the land? Forget what the opposition says, tell us what Jews are using to justify their claims to the land.


But this is also bogus since the international law and treaties which established the modern state of Israel do not distinguish Khazarian descendants from middle eastern descendants as to their qualification for return to the nation of Israel.


Let us not talk about bogus and international law, as that will either lead us back to Israel being illegitimate, or it will lead us to the many instances of the Israeli government discriminating against Jews who don’t look like Europeans.


And as I said above, being Jewish is not primarily a matter of genetics, and even the Khazars were not of a single genetic heritage, and some groups among them were comprised of very early migrants (pre-diaspora) of the ancient nation of the Hebrews.


Please refer to previous comments pertaining to Jews not being a single group.


But on the internet this 'modern day Jews are not Semitic' BS is posted over and over and over again, and as I mentioned, by Jeff Rense and the guests and columnists he chooses to publish on his site. He should know better, but he obviously has a bias.


Jeff Rense is not the problem. The problem is the bloodshed of people (on both sides) in Israel and the fact that one group (the Jews) are claiming to be rightful heirs to the land while killing their brother.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by leschwartz
 


You like making claims, yet when people question those claims you scream off topic. Don't make the claims and people won't question them. I mean look at your posts, from saying Abraham was not Semitic, to your references to the people who founded Sumer, to your lack of knowledge of Semite referring to a linguistic group, you’re all over the place.

Logic, nothing else, tells those of reasonable intelligence that if we're going to get down to the bottom of this, and find out who has a legit claim to the land, that we must first look at the people who originally lived in the land and go from there. So far, you've shown that you're highly incapable of doing such a thing, so this exchange between us is over.



[edit on 4-3-2010 by EMPIRE]



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
In the main, Sephardic Jews DO have haplotypes in common with ancient and modern populations who were common to the ancient nation(s) of the Hebrews.

To the extent that the article implies otherwise it is wrong.

For most Jews it is the practice to verify ones heritage as a Jew through the matrilineal line.

For Cohanim the line of descent MUST be patrilineal, otherwise the descendant can not be a Cohanim.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Sorry Empire, Abram was not a Semite, not by language, and not likely by physical inheritance and as I explained, this is proven logically by his being a Sumerian and a member of the nobility, a culture scholars have found not to have been native to the geography at its founding, and the Sumerian language is not Semitic in origin as well.

If you want to verify the sources of my statements see the books I have referred you to.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by leschwartz
 


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Refer to that link, friend.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Threadstarter, I must be an ignorant SOB because I always thought 'Jew/jewish' described a religious beleif, not an ethic origin.
Isreal is theirs by beleif. See post 2.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Furthermore, there is no claim to the modern land of Israel based on genetics per se.

If you believe that is the root issue, show us then in what pertinent international law makes this the critical issue as to the disposition of populations in the region.

Anyone who has spent more than an afternoon looking into the genetics of populations would know that the quality or value of such an idea is preposterous.

It is of the level of quality of NAZI notions of race-science, which are pure ignorance.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Izarith
 


I still don't see earth being a hell. Our concept of a hell is based on concepts from religious texts. Scouring the various texts across the earth, we don't come anywhere close to a hell from either the Abrahamic or Dharmic faiths.

The Hells on either side, Dharmic or Abrahamic, are not pleasant even without the inmates.

If the saced texts are dead, then they have no value in your argument. The secular also feel the texts are dead and the writings mean nothing to them.

Most of the death and destruction wrought on this planet are from the secular. The Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China in the 20th century took the lives of around 100 million people. The National Socialists were not far behind and they were for the most part secular. Those three committed the worst atrocities in the history of the human race. That is the result when G-d, Abrahmic or Dharmic, dies in a culture, a Nietzschean ubermensch rises in its place and insanity results.

The most religious people on the planet wall themselves off in monasteries and break off contact with the rest of the world.

Even the early Gnostics did that.

Trying to save the world will drive you crazy. Adepts and monks have known that for millenia. You can't reason with the unreasonable. The best that we can do is help those in need and in the process focus on enlightenment. Don't add to the chaos, don't be a part of the chaos.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by cjcord
 


What claim was it that bothered you cjcord if I may ask? I'd like the opportunity to explain myself to you if something I said doesn't jibe well, as I'm not here to make enemies. I'm not above reproof as I have demonstrated to you and only ask for civil conversation.

I find that people make very emotional responses based off of the social programming that everyone of us has received since we could first begin to comprehend, and that often times they do not wholly think something through before responding which in turn only affords them to hurl insults. This is not civil nor healthy for any individual to participate in, so I will not.

I realize we all see things through our own eyes. I can in no way expect to see something the way you have, but I am willing to try and empathize with you in reason peacefully. I don't expect us to agree on everything, but perhaps you can enlighten me, for which I'd be grateful to you. Perhaps we can learn from each other...I would like that.

Like I said, I am seeking out truth and nothing more. I believe some things in history are not what we are told. I don't deny the Holocaust, but I don't wholly know what exactly happened and honestly questioning Hitlers intentions or Gods, who when seeing the worship of the bull, told Moshe and Aaron to slay all of the people in the camp who did not side with Moshe(Men, Women and Children) really makes no difference because the same result was achieved by both under one purpose...His, yet I see no Jew become offended by God's purpose, rather the instrument through which he purposes. It's like trying to hit a baseball and upon striking out blaming the bat for the failure. It simply makes no sense.


Exo 32:25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies)
Exo 32:26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
Exo 32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.


Is not Hitler under YHWH's rule any more then Moshe? Is it not YHWH who puts it in the heart of men to complete his desires? Is it not YHWH who purposes me to question you in peace for truly, all souls are his.

Peace


[edit on 4-3-2010 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
So what about the many many Jews who don't use that excuse?

What if they don't care about G-d?


Then they go from being jewish to atheist or agnostic.

Just like a christian or muslim does.

If a christian denounces God, does he remain a chrstian? No.

If a muslim denounces Allah, does he remain a muslim? No.

If a jewish person denounces God, does he remain jewish? Yes.

How does this make any sense? Unless being jewish has somehow been equated to a race. Which is the OP's point.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Nutter]


The thing is that Judah, the Yehudim, are not a race or technically a religion.

Its a tribe. Outsiders can be adopted and assimilated into tribes, even though they are ethnically different.

According to the Torah, Jews who cease to obey G-d are cut off from the people. They are cast out from the House of Israel.

So theoretically in G-d's eyes the secular arn't Jews anymore. Of course the secular don't care, because they think G-d is the toothfairy.

The problem here is a lack of authority. The tribe needs elders. The tribe needs Shoftim, chieftains. They would be able to judge who was part of the tribe and who was not. The seculars would have a fit though.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
This thread is really fun to read, full of arguments from both sides and really entertaining...

And the readout is...

Well Hitler and the naziz will be remembered for what they did in ww2...the jews will be remembered for what they are doing in gaza/middle east...and their mozzad doing in nations around the world...
Question is...who will be the most hated...





new topics
top topics
 
76
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join