It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesus (Yeshua) was a Jew, who died for a purpose..

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Judging by his demeanor, and attitude, its a safe bet that he wont change his dogs name.

And i think the only thing this thing shows is that when something is wrong and i see that its wrong i make a very strong effort in showing it. If for instance i see everyone in support of his belief that 'im being too sensitive' than his attitude and philosophy has prevailed and the truth hidden. The truth is is that it isnt nice, or right, to do something to someone else that you wouldnt want them to do to you. But what if gnostic liberals exist? They are the ideal devils advocates. They treat you bad and with disrespect because they have an inherent 'everything is relative' attitude, which means if they dont see a logical reason in respecting the sanctity of anything they wont show sensitivity to another persons belief system. Their beliefs are completely at odds with those who understand the difference between right and wrong. Its funny, a point of connection between the truly religious in Islam, christianity and Judaism is their equal hatred for gnostic/new age pagan currents which challenge the sanctity of human life and the family unit. So i think his attitude only breeds conflict and only offends. And its inherently pugnacious towards people with my attitude. Which is why he ultimately named his dog that (another reason why he wont ever change it)

Sometimes you have to be willing to fight and argue so the truth can prevail and eliminate the arrogance and chutzpah of liberalism. If i were to have your attitude of 'lets not fight' than doesnt that force me to live according to his liberal paradigm which in itself is intolerant of conscientiousness? Think about it. A much more balanced attitude is to consider and take care not to insult or offend others; to appreciate and understand the nature of 'names' and respect the holines ascribed to it by that particular religious group. This makes room. I restrain myself from vaunting my beliefs on others by respecting their particular religion and i expect the same from them. Its the golden rule - do not do to others what you would not want done to you. But also, be sensitive to other peoples religious views. I respect those who respect the sanctity of life and of mans purpose in this world so i show compassion for their reverence of a Name. I for instance am a follower of Judaism, yet i do not approve of those who speak negatively of Allah. Its G-ds name in Arabic, and it is not right to speak caustically or arrogantly about it. I likewise show consideration for Christianity and other religions - of course within limits (i do not respect neopaganism or Satanism or any licentious chaos worshipping religion). . Compare that with his "youre being too sensitive". If hes not gonna be sensitive of the holiness of the name Moses to a Jew or Christian, than why would he care in other situations? Why would he not say something insulting to someone else? Maybe they too in his estimation are "being too sensitive". People like him dont adjust their beliefs to 'make room' for another persons reality because in his "logical" impudent estimation, they are being 'too sensitive". No. We are being sensitive and thats EXACTLY what is needed. Every situation is unique and calls for a different response - ie; a sensitivity.

This i felt deserved to be repudiated and i did it.




posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Well I guess Elvis is just gonna have to take this one on the cheek. My American Bull dog is named after him.

Then again, he ain't nothing but a hound dog.




posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 

It's his dog though (not sure how fair that is to the animal to make of him an owned object), and you cannot know for certain what his intentionality was around naming the dog Moses, and I doubt very much that ATS member named his dog Moses to insult or hurt anyone's feelings.

You raise some good issues and in truth you might be right about it, and like I said, when he understands the significance, perhaps he might change the name of the dog in honor of the Biblical Moses, and in the very same spirit which caused him to name the dog that in the first place...

People can surprise us sometimes, don't assume, and don't write off your neighbor because he might have made an error in the naming of his own dog.. think about it.

But you're obviously entitled to take a stand for what you believe, and maybe this is more important than it appears at first glance, and perhaps you're not overreacting who am I to judge..



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
And i think the only thing this thing shows is that when something is wrong and i see that its wrong i make a very strong effort in showing it. If for instance i see everyone in support of his belief that 'im being too sensitive' than his attitude and philosophy has prevailed and the truth hidden.


If naming a dog moses offends you, don't do it. You have no right to presume to usurp anothers will. That is all you are doing.


Originally posted by dontreally
The truth is is that it isnt nice, or right, to do something to someone else that you wouldnt want them to do to you.


No one has done anything to you. You are bearing false witness against your neighbor. Tsk tsk tsk.
Show me a law HE is bound by that he has violated against you.



Originally posted by dontreally
Their beliefs are completely at odds with those who understand the difference between right and wrong.


Prove you are right, then we can discuss judgement.


Originally posted by dontreally
Its funny, a point of connection between the truly religious in Islam, christianity and Judaism is their equal hatred for gnostic/new age pagan currents which challenge the sanctity of human life and the family unit.


By truly religious, I am taking you mean fundamentalist. That being the case, they hate everyone who doesn't folow the rules as they have made them.


Originally posted by dontreally
Sometimes you have to be willing to fight and argue so the truth can prevail and eliminate the arrogance and chutzpah of liberalism.


The only person showing arrogance on this issue is you. You have revealed no truth other than your self righteous attitude.


Originally posted by dontreally
If i were to have your attitude of 'lets not fight' than doesnt that force me to live according to his liberal paradigm which in itself is intolerant of conscientiousness?


No, you live how you want and afford others the same right. You are not a king of any one but yourself.


Originally posted by dontreally
Think about it. A much more balanced attitude is to consider and take care not to insult or offend others;


Your offending me. Now what?



Originally posted by dontreally
to appreciate and understand the nature of 'names' and respect the holines ascribed to it by that particular religious group.


Your intolerance and arrogant attitude is offensive to my religious. Now what?



Originally posted by dontreally
Its the golden rule - do not do to others what you would not want done to you.


Which you have not done in these posts by your condemnation of the Brother. It is obvious by your avoidance of my condemnation of you.


Originally posted by dontreally
But also, be sensitive to other peoples religious views.


Are you being sensitive to others religious views on the subject? Are you?


Originally posted by dontreally
This i felt deserved to be repudiated and i did it.


Yes, you did it. Unfortunately, you fail to see how hypocritical your whole argument is. Respect ME, but I don't have to respect you!

You may want to read your own words slowly.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   
C'mon Brother that was not with love. Let's just let this dog issue go, shall we, and get back to the topic at hand, which was something about Jesus being a Jew who upheld his integrity as a Jewish Rabbi in going to the wall so to speak.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
C'mon Brother that was not with love. Let's just let this dog issue go, shall we, and get back to the topic at hand, which was something about Jesus being a Jew who upheld his integrity as a Jewish Rabbi in going to the wall so to speak.


It may seem abrasive my friend, but it is with absolute love for all mankind that I point out the flaws in the argument. It is this mentality that leads to the conflicts facing our world now. If we shy away from confronting them with logic and reason, then their is very little hope for us as a species.

Each Man is king of his own kingdom - This is a teaching of Christ.
This Kingdom is the kingdom within - Another Christ teaching

Make what ever you want sacred within your own kingdom, but you must afford others the same respect. Otherwise all you create is unnecessary offence which leads to hate and conflict. While it may seem that I chose to demonstrate my point with uncalled for callousness, look back at the discussion and you will see I simply mirrored the posters own argument back at him. If they are abrasive, it is because he made it so.

No ill will is intended, no offence is taken, and all is good in the world.

Jesus was a Jew and a Rabbi, and this debate, though trivial, highlights his diversion from the hypocritcal teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees. If anything, it is right on course with the OP.

Judge not, Love all, be at peace.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by daddio
 


All the Books within the Bible and the once that never made it into the Bible, are written by Man. The books are written by men with inspiration given to them by God.

A lot of the content has to do with moral values, and moral deeds committed by man. Our history books can account for all the evil deeds man has done in the name of religion, politics and God.

Who is to blame: religion or man?



Funny....BOTH are to blame, because "religion" is a creation of MAN and not the other way round. No man = NO RELIGION. Simple really, And THAT is the reality of it all. Why do people NOT see this or even understand it?

It all comes down to control, who wants it and who really has it.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio
Funny....BOTH are to blame, because "religion" is a creation of MAN and not the other way round. No man = NO RELIGION. Simple really, And THAT is the reality of it all. Why do people NOT see this or even understand it?

It all comes down to control, who wants it and who really has it.


You are absolutely correct. Ironically, this is what Christ was trying to teach. Sadly, someone wanted to control even this simple truth. The more things change the more the stay the same.

Excellent point.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


So youre saying it essentially doesnt matter what other people believe? That we shouldnt make an effort to be sensitive and considerate of their deeply felt spiritual beliefs?

And BTW - it doesnt follow that one should be sensitive to those who refuse to be sensitive. No. Thats about as sensible as the liberal nonsense that 'free speech' also applies to Neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

Some views are just plain WRONG.
edit on 31-12-2010 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
So youre saying it essentially doesnt matter what other people believe? That we shouldnt make an effort to be sensitive and considerate of their deeply felt spiritual beliefs?


Yes, we should be sensitive to others spiritual beliefs in so far as we do not force ours upon theirs.


Originally posted by dontreally
And BTW - it doesnt follow that one should be sensitive to those who refuse to be sensitive. No. Thats about as sensible as the liberal nonsense that 'free speech' also applies to Neo-Nazis and white supremacists.


Free speech DOES apply to Neo-Nazis and white supremecists. Just because they say it, does not mean one has to believe it. Their speech rights end when they decide to put action behind their words against another human being. If you wish them to no longer speak the things they speak, prove your views are more sound by demonstrating the love that they lack. Then, they will stop speaking what offends you.


Originally posted by dontreally
Some views are just plain WRONG.


Yes, some views are plain wrong. Any view that seeks to stop one from doing with their body what ever they choose with their body is wrong. It is their kingdom, leave them to it. I know you do not want anyone deciding for you what is the wrong thing to say or the wrong view to have, do you?

If you are willing to have others stifled for your own feelings, you leave the door open for the favor to be returned once the power has shifted. Hasn't history proved this enough?

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 





Yes, we should be sensitive to others spiritual beliefs in so far as we do not force ours upon theirs.


What is so hard for you to understand?

Do you see your hypocricy - 'in so far as', meaning i wont impinge my beliefs on others. You ARE impinging your beliefs by refusing to acknowledge the reality of another. By doing so you IMPOSE your nihilism and existentialism by blatantly disrespecting them. That is very much encroaching on others - and its a completely unnecessary provocation,.




Free speech DOES apply to Neo-Nazis and white supremecists. Just because they say it, does not mean one has to believe it.


Wow. You are the same guy who defended Hitler in another thread. Neo-Nazism is wrong. White supremacy is wrong. Believing youre a warthog is wrong. The former views are hate and promote conflict in society. I think all rational G-d fearing people can agree that the tenets of Nazism constitute a satanic and evil corruption of eternal truths.

In a normal world such people wouldnt be given the venue to propagate their beliefs - which contrary to your views have the ability to persuade many people to live and act in unrighteous and corrupt ways. Why allow them the ability to corrupt and sway the hearts of others in the direction of falsehood? Those groups really only serve the interests of the elites who seek to stifle true peace by cultivating an environment of conflict and dissension, which they later use to manipulate and leader people in the direction they desire.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


You are a very very bright guy for someone who appears to have a slightly smaller cranium, and please don't take offense. Where does all your intelligence come from, must be that white light!



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
Wow. You are the same guy who defended Hitler in another thread. Neo-Nazism is wrong. White supremacy is wrong. Believing youre a warthog is wrong. The former views are hate and promote conflict in society. I think all rational G-d fearing people can agree that the tenets of Nazism constitute a satanic and evil corruption of eternal truths.


I wouldn't go as far as to say believing you are a warthog is WRONG, but it is certainly different. And I am all for that.


Originally posted by dontreally
In a normal world such people wouldnt be given the venue to propagate their beliefs - which contrary to your views have the ability to persuade many people to live and act in unrighteous and corrupt ways. Why allow them the ability to corrupt and sway the hearts of others in the direction of falsehood? Those groups really only serve the interests of the elites who seek to stifle true peace by cultivating an environment of conflict and dissension, which they later use to manipulate and leader people in the direction they desire.


As long as we allow free debate there is nothing to fear. Restriction creates suspicion. Or worse taboo. As long as all views can be heard in honesty, there can be nothing to fear and nothing to hide. Problems as they arise can be dealt with. People are allowed to disagree, but it has to be coupled with a firmly upheld conviction of live and let live. If noone is getting hurt, and feelings only to some extent should be counted, then it is nobodies business. Parametres should be enforced, beyond that, morals and ethics should be the individuals concern.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


Thats all apart of the resurrgent paganism that in essence im criticizing.

The idea of "live and let live", is an inherently unstable attitude.

Because ultimately there will be those who think differently and so challenge the ideology or philosophy of others. Live and let live is a breeding ground for Nazism which grew out of a 'humanist' society that produced more philosophers of a "live and let live" ethos but it didnt really mean in the end, "live and let live".

Liberalism is tyranny. Tyranny to the senses and the passions and tyranny to the insanity of allowing inherently evil and corrupted views like white supremacy or Nazism to have their equal 'right' to propagate their views. "live and let live" can be sorely manipulated and taken advantage of.

A person without a sense of Law will produce a culture and society of lawlessness.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
You are a very very bright guy for someone who appears to have a slightly smaller cranium, and please don't take offense. Where does all your intelligence come from, must be that white light!


I am nothing but what God has created my friend. If you find my words intelligent, don't blame me, thank him.

I'll be back to the discussion after the new year. I have family commitments I must tend to.

Happy New Year everyone.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 



Their speech rights end when they decide to put action behind their words against another human being.


I wanted to reply to this because of its sheer insanity.

Most people undersand that thought leads to action. If one cultivates a thought and a philosophy, it'll inevitably result in action; that is, the living out of the thought and feeling.

Its a simply law of causation. You let anti-semites and white supremacists cultivate their views and EVENTUALLY it'll result in a program to implement them.

Just like how the Palestinian media fills their citizens with stark anti-israel and anti-Jewish propaganda. The result is a seething hatred for Jews and a complete mirroring of the views they see in the media.

How can you condone " Jew hatred" and yet simultaneously reject my hatred for people with your philosophy. By your standards, you should just keep shut and 'tolerate' me.

On another note, do you also support NAMBLA (north american man/boy love association). By the sounds of your logic, its a-ok. Because as long as they never put it into "practice", its completely fine.

That is an absurd and completely asinine piece of logic. You let these guys assemble you can pretty much reasonably assume that they intend or already do have illegal relations with children.

What a nutjob world we live in.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
You are a very very bright guy for someone who appears to have a slightly smaller cranium, and please don't take offense. Where does all your intelligence come from, must be that white light!

I am nothing but what God has created my friend. If you find my words intelligent, don't blame me, thank him.

I'll be back to the discussion after the new year. I have family commitments I must tend to.

Happy New Year everyone.

With Love,

Your Brother


You really are my brother. I have felt your love. I love you too! What I love about you, my friend, is what you appear to be "up to", the nature of the game you are playing, in this allowing our yours, for the spirit to move you, to love for everyone, me, and the brother with whom you are having this rather heated debate, relative to whom there must be a path to reconciliation, if he too will allow it, in the very spirit of the love we share, in these strange times we are sharing even now. I know that you're smart enough to find that path, and everything means everything, in the final analysis, I see you "grok" that nicely.

To The New Creation that is 2011 (or so they say..)

I love you all.

Rob



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
What is so hard for you to understand?

Do you see your hypocricy - 'in so far as', meaning i wont impinge my beliefs on others. You ARE impinging your beliefs by refusing to acknowledge the reality of another. By doing so you IMPOSE your nihilism and existentialism by blatantly disrespecting them. That is very much encroaching on others - and its a completely unnecessary provocation,.


I am not disrespecting your beliefs my friend. I am just not adopting them as my own. My not adopting them is causing you to create the feeling of disrespect that is not intended. We share this world. The way we interpret this world is entirely unique to each and everyone of us. By forcing others to adopt your view, you are invalidating their own. This doesn't lead to peace, this leads to anger, hatred, and conflict. No one wants their kingdom invaded.

I am not invading your kingdom by not holding the name Moses as sacred. I am not invading your kingdom by naming an animal by this name. I am doing what is wholly in rights within my own kingdom, while leaving you to hold that name as sacred as you wish it to be within your own kingdom. This is not enough for you. You wish to impose the rules of your inner kingdom into my own realm. I am saying no and raising the draw bridge.


Originally posted by dontreally
Wow. You are the same guy who defended Hitler in another thread.


What I said was that from Hitler's point of view, what he was doing was good and that quite a few agreed with him at the time. Had Hitler not fallen to pride and madness, he may very well have created a beautiful country. He did more for the Germans than any other man in history. His down fall was the belief in racial superiority which caused him to justify the attrocities he did. So, many kingdoms rose against him and threw him down. This is how the world works. If you push your Kingdoms against the Kingdoms of others, they are going to push back.


Originally posted by dontreally
Neo-Nazism is wrong. White supremacy is wrong. Believing youre a warthog is wrong. The former views are hate and promote conflict in society. I think all rational G-d fearing people can agree that the tenets of Nazism constitute a satanic and evil corruption of eternal truths.


I agree with you that these views are wrong. However, no amount of you or I saying it will make these views wrong to those who believe they are right. We must show them that these views are wrong. If you try to force them to take your view on your word, you just make their view that much more true to them. So, how do we show that their views are wrong? We extend the hand of friendship and love at all times. We demonstrate that we can allow all views to exist. We form a brotherhood of love with all mankind that does not hold these views, and they will see the beauty and wish to join.


Originally posted by dontreally
In a normal world such people wouldnt be given the venue to propagate their beliefs


Only in a tyrannical society is freedom of speech suppressed. The only purpose to suppress such speech is fear that it may spread. If you cannot prevent the spread of an idea by speaking a sound counter argument against it, then perhaps your idea is not better than the one you wish to suppress.


Originally posted by dontreally
- which contrary to your views have the ability to persuade many people to live and act in unrighteous
and corrupt ways. Why allow them the ability to corrupt and sway the hearts of others in the direction of falsehood?


Why allow you the ability to sway others to your point of view?


Originally posted by dontreally
Those groups really only serve the interests of the elites who seek to stifle true peace by cultivating an environment of conflict and dissension, which they later use to manipulate and leader people in the direction they desire.


My friend, you presume that others are too stupid to listen to differing view points and make a sound decision on their own. Isn't this an elitist attitude?

You are seeking peace through conformity by force. This is the kind of peace that the crusades, the inquisition, Hitler, Mao, and other tyrants brought to the world. We still have not healed from this version of peace.

The peace I am trying to bring is one of familial love for all and individual sovereignty. It is not the kind of peace brought with force, but by the simple God given gift that all men possess, reason.

I am not against you my friend. If your view brings you joy, happiness, and love for all, keep it. If it brings you pain, hate, and indignation towards your fellow man, you may want to part with it so that your healing can begin.

It's always your choice, these things we let come between our hearts.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dantanna
jesus was murdered by the establishment of that time, because he wanted PEACE.

also, jesus wanted to bring the worship of god to EVERYONE, but the chozen were racist, and thought only 'they' were 'chosen' by god to be able to worship 'him.'

i consider jesus a great man, because he fought back against the elitists of his day. ghandi, mlk, even john lennon to a degree, all spoke of peace, and they were all killed because of it.

there are many more, but im in a rush, and i cannot think of who else was killed because in the chozen ruled society, peace and equality are considered 'whacky' and 'eccentric.'

read the protokols of xion, they have been around since before jesus. these guys have been planning world domination since soloman thought he controled demons with some magical ring.

jesus fought back against the protokols.
as do i.


I respect your right to believe Jesus died because he wanted peace. He said, I did not come to bring peace but a sword; nevertheless, it is my firm belief that they (pharisees and scribes) killed Jesus because he publicly exposed them as liars. It's a very long teaching, but I can hit the high points here. Sorry, it's still long, but this is the shortened version.

In 1 Chronicles 2 we are given a listing of people. Very curiously, we see:

55And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.

This is a very important bit of information. These people just listed are Kenites of the house of Rechab. Then we move on elsewhere to find out about this family in Jeremiah. Who are the Kenites? Is there a clue to whom their forefather was?

Jeremiah 35:

1The word which came unto Jeremiah from the LORD in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, saying,

2Go unto the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the LORD, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink.

3Then I took Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habaziniah, and his brethren, and all his sons, and the whole house of the Rechabites;

4And I brought them into the house of the LORD, into the chamber of the sons of Hanan, the son of Igdaliah, a man of God, which was by the chamber of the princes, which was above the chamber of Maaseiah the son of Shallum, the keeper of the door:

5And I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites pots full of wine, and cups, and I said unto them, Drink ye wine.

6But they said, We will drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons for ever:

7Neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any: but all your days ye shall dwell in tents; that ye may live many days in the land where ye be strangers.

8Thus have we obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab our father in all that he hath charged us, to drink no wine all our days, we, our wives, our sons, nor our daughters;

9Nor to build houses for us to dwell in: neither have we vineyard, nor field, nor seed:

10But we have dwelt in tents, and have obeyed, and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us.

11But it came to pass, when Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon came up into the land, that we said, Come, and let us go to Jerusalem for fear of the army of the Chaldeans, and for fear of the army of the Syrians: so we dwell at Jerusalem.

So, these people who dwell in tents, never sow seed, are wanderers flee to Judea. Are the Jews? I don't believe they are, and neither did Jesus.

Matthew 29-35

29Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

30And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

31Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

32Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

34Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

35That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

So, Jesus publicly tells them they are liars and hypocrites and the children of those who killed the prophets all the way back to Abel. Who killed Abel? Cain killed Abel, and was cursed along with his children. They are called Kenites, and here is the curse:

Genesis 4:10-16

10 The LORD said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. 11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.”

13 Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

15 But the LORD said to him, “Not so[e]; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod,[f] east of Eden.

Cain could no longer sow seed, but would live in tents and wander the earth. His children fulfill the negative side of prophecy, and are here to this day. There are clues as to who they are. Remember the parable of the wheat and tares. We are not to harm them, but when the harvest comes, the Angels of the Lord shall remove them. They moved into Judea and were scribes and pharisees. Jesus publicly proclaimed this, and they killed him a short time later. Not all who claim to be Jews are, but they sure have given the Jewish people a bad name.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 

Thats all apart of the resurrgent paganism that in essence im criticizing.
The idea of "live and let live", is an inherently unstable attitude.

So tolerance is a pagan attribute.
I guess pagan = non-Jewish?
And intolerance, which manifests in hatred and causes resentment and more hatred in response, makes a stable society. - Duly noted.



Because ultimately there will be those who think differently and so challenge the ideology or philosophy of others. Live and let live is a breeding ground for Nazism which grew out of a 'humanist' society that produced more philosophers of a "live and let live" ethos but it didnt really mean in the end, "live and let live".

Ah, but the Nazis adopted a "live and let die" attitude to Jews in Germany and surrounding countries. They drove them out and attempted to enslave or exterminate most of those who remained. One could almost believe they'd studied the teachings of Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, Rabbi Yousef Falay or Rabbi Meir Kahane.
They acted as though they believed the God of History, the God of the German people, called the world into being for one reason only and that was for the sake of the German people and the Nazi Empire. Why do you criticise the Nazis when all they wanted was exclusive right to the territory they considered rightfully theirs? Who could fault a people for acting the way they did if they sincerely held that belief? I would have thought anyone supporting Israel woud be bound respect other countries run on similar principles.



Liberalism is tyranny. Tyranny to the senses and the passions and tyranny to the insanity of allowing inherently evil and corrupted views like white supremacy or Nazism to have their equal 'right' to propagate their views. "live and let live" can be sorely manipulated and taken advantage of.

The Nazis in Germany received funding from Americans while they were gearing up for WWII. These were not Liberal Americans, they were stout Republicans, eager to enlarge their fortune and power by spreading Fascism throughout the world.


A person without a sense of Law will produce a culture and society of lawlessness.

Very true. Look at Menachem Begin, who orchestrated the cowardly murder of nearly 100 people by bombing the King David Hotel with his terrorist conspirators dressed as Arabs. And look at the country of which he was subsequently made Prime Minister.


By the way, dontreally, I quite agree about dogs; they're just stupid and greedy creatures. - except for one I knew who had his own way of saying enough words to make himself understood, and who may have saved my life once when he protected me. And I had a lab-greyhound cross who was kind and helpful by nature and dragged a water container half way round a footy field to a little, abandoned Jack Russell which was too weak to move. A friend on a farm had his life saved after a tractor flipped on him when his Blue Heeler immediately ran off and got help. Come to think of it, the dogs I've known have a lot they could teach the human race when it comes to love, hard work, selflessness, co-operation and forgiveness.

Anyway, dontreally, as you don't like dogs, I found an alternative pet for you. The Lợn ỉn have a reputation for gentleness and intelligence. I even found one for sale for you: "AbraHAM is a very handsome Lợn ỉn with a pudgie little nose. He wants a forever home and a place to roam. He is also housebroken and friendly! Please contact us if you would like to adopt or foster this pet Lợn ỉn. An adoption donation is required. Our foster home can be reached at 215-322-1539 where we have over 70 pet Lợn ỉn for adoption."



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join