Hamas 101 (203)
emannigol: Where did I say that they are doing all the stuff? That claim is just a strawman.
Page 6 - " However, fundamentalist Christians are following Old Testament whenever it suits their agenda. It's also word of God for them and peaceful isn't the first thing coming to mind when describing the God of OT. Same God same traits? "
emannigol: If the pope is the head of the Catholic church then it is pretty much his view as well. Or do you have a reason to think that his view is somehow different than the view of the church?
No. That's why I ask for proof that he or the church and not the odd medieval theologian believes in the OT over the word of Jesus.
emannigolGet back to the page about Torah submissive groups. Then I showed you clearly how the Catholic church is also following the Old Testament in the case of 'just war'. [/quote:
They are following the New Testament which just so happens to say the same thing. From your link;
"Traditional Christianity affirms that the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament (known as ''Torah'' in Judaism) is fully inspired by God. However, much of Christian tradition has historically denied that all of the laws of the Pentateuch apply directly to Christians. There are several different explanations within Christianity that endeavor to explain if and how the laws given by God through Moses apply to Christians.
The New Testament indicates that Jesus Christ established a new covenant relationship between God and his people (; ; ; ). Christianity, almost without exception, understands this new covenant to be the instrument through which God offers mercy and atonement to mankind. "
New/Old. New is now, Old is what was before. New contains some of the Old. Old is nullified by the New. New is new word of God but, does not mean that Old never happened or that the laws in the Old were never uttered but rather the New replaces the Old and, sometimes refers to that that it is replacing.
Another strawman. Where did I say that Jesus could be presented violent without quoting out of context?
They are following the New Testament which just so happens to say the same thing. From your link;
"Traditional Christianity affirms that the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament (known as ''Torah'' in Judaism) is fully inspired by God. However, much of Christian tradition has historically denied that all of the laws of the Pentateuch apply directly to Christians. There are several different explanations within Christianity that endeavor to explain if and how the laws given by God through Moses apply to Christians.
The New Testament indicates that Jesus Christ established a new covenant relationship between God and his people (; ; ; ). Christianity, almost without exception, understands this new covenant to be the instrument through which God offers mercy and atonement to mankind. "
New/Old. New is now, Old is what was before. New contains some of the Old. Old is nullified by the New. New is new word of God but, does not mean that Old never happened or that the laws in the Old were never uttered but rather the New replaces the Old and, sometimes refers to that that it is replacing.
Another strawman. Where did I say that Jesus could be presented violent without quoting out of context?
Page 6 - "It's possible to present even Jesus as a warmonger with selective quoting."
------ This thread is Archived ------
emannigol: I showed that according to the Catholic church "the Old Testament is just as inspired as the New Testament and thus an expression of the will of Christ".
You didn't. You presented a theoretician who does not speak for the church but rather presented ideas for consideration. Possibly you might present some of the Pope's sayings or something from the Vatican stating something to support your case.
emannigol: I admit that I am wrong if you can falsify the following. Disprove that the following view is the view of the Catholic church and hence the view of the Catholic Christians. Or you can prove why such reasoning is not about the following the Old Testament after all. Here's the evidence and the reasoning. Just falsify it.
"Added weight is given to this realization when one recognizes that Scripture -- all of Scripture -- is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). This means that the Old Testament is just as inspired as the New Testament and thus an expression of the will of Christ.
The Old Testament acknowledges frankly that there is "a time to kill" (Eccles. 3:3). At various times in the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to defend their nation by force of arms. Yet it was always with the recognition that peace is the goal to be worked for. Thus the psalmist exclaims, "how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!" (Ps. 133:1). Peace is the goal, but when it cannot be achieved without force, force must be used."
"Added weight is given to this realization when one recognizes that Scripture -- all of Scripture -- is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). This means that the Old Testament is just as inspired as the New Testament and thus an expression of the will of Christ.
The Old Testament acknowledges frankly that there is "a time to kill" (Eccles. 3:3). At various times in the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to defend their nation by force of arms. Yet it was always with the recognition that peace is the goal to be worked for. Thus the psalmist exclaims, "how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!" (Ps. 133:1). Peace is the goal, but when it cannot be achieved without force, force must be used."
Simple. All is inspired by God however, only the new is now to be followed as it replaces the old. You example is correct however you have taken it out of context as it introduces the following paragraph which is showing the scripture which is to be followed now ....
"In the same way, the New Testament sets forth the goal of peace but acknowledges the legitimate use of force. It does so by John the Baptist's acknowledgment that Roman soldiers, whose job it was to enforce the Pax Romana, or "Peace of Rome," could keep their jobs (Luke 3:14) and by Paul's observation that the state "does not bear the sword in vain" but is "God's servant for your good" (Rom. 13:4)."
"
Traditional Christianity affirms that the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament (known as ''Torah'' in Judaism) is fully inspired by God. However, much of Christian tradition has historically denied that all of the laws of the Pentateuch apply directly to Christians. There are several different explanations within Christianity that endeavor to explain if and how the laws given by God through Moses apply to Christians.
The New Testament indicates that Jesus Christ established a new covenant relationship between God and his people (; ; ; ). Christianity, almost without exception, understands this new covenant to be the instrument through which God offers mercy and atonement to mankind."
------ This thread is Archived ------
Albertaghost: Page 6 - " However, fundamentalist Christians are following Old Testament whenever it suits their agenda.
Whenever it suits their agenda. Not doing all the stuff.
Albertaghost: No. That's why I ask for proof that he or the church and not the odd medieval theologian believes in the OT over the word of Jesus.
Where did I say over?
Albertaghost: There are several different explanations within Christianity that endeavor to explain if and how the laws given by God through Moses apply to Christians.
If and how the laws given by God through Moses apply to Christians. Some follow more some less.
Albertaghost: Page 6 - "It's possible to present even Jesus as a warmonger with selective quoting."
Selective quoting. I gave an example of out of context quoting.
Albertaghost: You didn't. You presented a theoretician who does not speak for the church but rather presented ideas for consideration. Possibly you might present some of the Pope's sayings or something from the Vatican stating something to support your case.
Well, if theological proving isn't okay then I can't do that. Without theological proving it's impossible to prove any Christian doctrine.
Let's put it another way then. If the doctrine of the just war hasn't anything to do with the Old Testament then how it is theologized? With the word of Christ?
Albertaghost: "In the same way, the New Testament sets forth the goal of peace but acknowledges the legitimate use of force. It does so by John the Baptist's acknowledgment that Roman soldiers, whose job it was to enforce the Pax Romana, or "Peace of Rome," could keep their jobs (Luke 3:14) and by Paul's observation that the state "does not bear the sword in vain" but is "God's servant for your good" (Rom. 13:4)."
Now you are referring to theologian rather than Jesus.
------ This thread is Archived ------
emannigol: Whenever it suits their agenda. Not doing all the stuff.
that's why I asked you for examples and you ini turn just came back with words of ancient theologians.
emannigol: Where did I say over?
You said they follow the Old Testament rather than the new. The New as I explained does away with the old even though some of it's concepts are the same. Just as the Euro is the same as the former currencies in that it is money however, it is a different form of money.
emannigol: If and how the laws given by God through Moses apply to Christians. Some follow more some less.
you don't seem to understand, to Christians, the Laws of Moses are gone. They have been replaced by the laws of Jesus. Many of them are the same, many are different but, Christians follow the laws of Jesus.
emannigol: Selective quoting. I gave an example of out of context quoting.
Well, bet I can find oodles upon oddles of non selective quotes from the Koran that would make any selective violent quotes of Jesus pale in comparison.
emannigol: Well, if theological proving isn't okay then I can't do that. Without theological proving it's impossible to prove any Christian doctrine.
Telling you have to go back a thousand years to find a person who can support your point when your contention is that in the here and now, Christians are following the OT.
emannigol: Let's put it another way then. If the doctrine of the just war hasn't anything to do with the Old Testament then how it is theologized? With the word of Christ?
I would imagine that it has a lot to do with the golden rule, common sense and reality.
emannigol: Now you are referring to theologian rather than Jesus.
no. I am referring to your quote of the Just War in which you omitted to include the rest of the article in which it explains the OT view and the NT view. You used the OT view in the hopes that by not reading the article I would not see that it was only explaining the history of how things used to be until the NT came into being.
I'd use an emoticon but don't think it necessary.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Albertaghost: that's why I asked you for examples and you ini turn just came back with words of ancient theologians.
They are examples. Because of those theologians Christianity is like it is today unlike it was in the beginning.
Albertaghost: You said they follow the Old Testament rather than the new. The New as I explained does away with the old even though some of it's concepts are the same. Just as the Euro is the same as the former currencies in that it is money however, it is a different form of money.
Some doctrines are still based on the Old Testament. I gave you an example.
Albertaghost: you don't seem to understand, to Christians, the Laws of Moses are gone. They have been replaced by the laws of Jesus. Many of them are the same, many are different but, Christians follow the laws of Jesus.
You don't seem to understand that some doctrines are still based on the Old Testament. Like in my example.
Albertaghost: Telling you have to go back a thousand years to find a person who can support your point when your contention is that in the here and now, Christians are following the OT.
I also showed you present day views.
Albertaghost: I would imagine that it has a lot to do with the golden rule, common sense and reality.
Not with the word of Christ or New Testament then? You say that Christians should be following the word of Jesus, but the doctrine on the other hand is based on man made (theologians) reasoning. Jesus didn't give any laws for war so they are taken from the Old Testament or outside of the Bible. I showed you an example of how they have been taken from the Old Testament.
Albertaghost: no. I am referring to your quote of the Just War in which you omitted to include the rest of the article in which it explains the OT view and the NT view. You used the OT view in the hopes that by not reading the article I would not see that it was only explaining the history of how things used to be until the NT came into being.
If that would had been my plan then why did I provide the source?
The Old Testament had significant role in the reasoning of that article.
Somehow I'm not even sure if we are talking about the same thing.
------ This thread is Archived ------
emannigol: They are examples. Because of those theologians Christianity is like it is today unlike it was in the beginning.
What happened to the inquisition? Things are not the same as they were as we don't burn people at the stake. Show the examples of today where Christians are following the OT rather than the word of Jesus.
emannigol: Some doctrines are still based on the Old Testament. I gave you an example.
You also said this and have yet to prove all the times they do; "However, fundamentalist Christians are following Old Testament whenever it suits their agenda."
emannigol: You don't seem to understand that some doctrines are still based on the Old Testament. Like in my example.
Which ones? You say that fundamentalist Christians are doing it all the time and "There are Christian groups that are still claiming to follow the Law of Moses. So, selective following of OT isn't even rare. Justification for war etc. has to be picked from OT." yet have shown none of this. Please do.
emannigol: I also showed you present day views.
I believe the most present day view you posted was from the twelfth century.
emannigol: Not with the word of Christ or New Testament then? You say that Christians should be following the word of Jesus, but the doctrine on the other hand is based on man made (theologians) reasoning. Jesus didn't give any laws for war so they are taken from the Old Testament or outside of the Bible. I showed you an example of how they have been taken from the Old Testament.
Huh? This is your bloody quote and link for crying out loud. "In the same way, the New Testament sets forth the goal of peace but acknowledges the legitimate use of force. It does so by John the Baptist's acknowledgment that Roman soldiers, whose job it was to enforce the Pax Romana, or "Peace of Rome," could keep their jobs (Luke 3:14) and by Paul's observation that the state "does not bear the sword in vain" but is "God's servant for your good" (Rom. 13:4)."
And based on common sense, the golden rule and Jesus decreeing it. If you will note, Augustine was not the first nor the last to come up with the Just War theory as lots before and after have done the same. Some Pagans, some Christians.
emannigol:
If that would had been my plan then why did I provide the source?
If that would had been my plan then why did I provide the source?
To complete the source/quote formula which you probably did not read in it's entirety as you seem mystified whenever I use the NT portion of the quote. You keep forgetting the second para like you did in the quote I posted above. You ask the question and I answer using your own source. This is the third time I have done so.
emannigol: The Old Testament had significant role in the reasoning of that article.Somehow I'm not even sure if we are talking about the same thing.
And now the fourth;
Here;
"The Old Testament acknowledges frankly that there is "a time to kill" (Eccles. 3:3). At various times in the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to defend their nation by force of arms. Yet it was always with the recognition that peace is the goal to be worked for. Thus the psalmist exclaims, "how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!" (Ps. 133:1). Peace is the goal, but when it cannot be achieved without force, force must be used.
In the same way, the New Testament sets forth the goal of peace but acknowledges the legitimate use of force. It does so by John the Baptist's acknowledgment that Roman soldiers, whose job it was to enforce the Pax Romana, or "Peace of Rome," could keep their jobs (Luke 3:14) and by Paul's observation that the state "does not bear the sword in vain" but is "God's servant for your good" (Rom. 13:4)."
'In the same way' Yet, the words are from the New testament so, followers of Jesus now don't have to listen to the OT as once again, Jesus has replaced the old with the new.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Albertaghost: And based on common sense, the golden rule and Jesus decreeing it.
Can you show where Jesus is decreeing it?
Albertaghost: To complete the source/quote formula which you probably did not read in it's entirety as you seem mystified whenever I use the NT portion of the quote. You keep forgetting the second para like you did in the quote I posted above. You ask the question and I answer using your own source. This is the third time I have done so.
No, it's you who are ignoring the OT part. I don't have any problem with the NT part. If the OT wouldn't have anything to with the reasoning it wouldn't be mentioned at all.
Albertaghost: 'In the same way' Yet, the words are from the New testament so, followers of Jesus now don't have to listen to the OT as once again, Jesus has replaced the old with the new.
Jesus? Paul was theologician you know.
------ This thread is Archived ------
emannigol: Can you show where Jesus is decreeing it?
No, it's you who are ignoring the OT part. I don't have any problem with the NT part. If the OT wouldn't have anything to with the reasoning it wouldn't be mentioned at all.
Jesus? Paul was theologician you know.
No, it's you who are ignoring the OT part. I don't have any problem with the NT part. If the OT wouldn't have anything to with the reasoning it wouldn't be mentioned at all.
Jesus? Paul was theologician you know.
Jesus came to fulfill the law and that is what the new testament is about.
read it.
------ This thread is Archived ------
emannigol: Can you show where Jesus is decreeing it?
Ya. read your own article sometime. Near the top.
"But the same Jesus elsewhere acknowledges the legitimate use of force, telling the apostles, "let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one" (Luke 22:36). How are these passages to be reconciled?"
emannigol: No, it's you who are ignoring the OT part. I don't have any problem with the NT part. If the OT wouldn't have anything to with the reasoning it wouldn't be mentioned at all.
An article explaining the history of war and it's social implications is to leave out two thousand or more years of history? Doubt it. Christians follow the word of Jesus and his disiples. Jesus did away with all of the old and gave his new laws in the form of teachings and parables and such. That some of those are similar to the old is nothing strange as humans are humans, gravity is gravity, water is water and so on and forth. The Just War theory is just as applicable to pretty much any and all religions hence, it is no surprise that Christians embrace it as do Muslims, Hindis etc.
Jesus? Paul was theologician you know.
An article explaining the history of war and it's social implications is to leave out two thousand or more years of history? Doubt it. Christians follow the word of Jesus and his disiples. Jesus did away with all of the old and gave his new laws in the form of teachings and parables and such. That some of those are similar to the old is nothing strange as humans are humans, gravity is gravity, water is water and so on and forth. The Just War theory is just as applicable to pretty much any and all religions hence, it is no surprise that Christians embrace it as do Muslims, Hindis etc.
Jesus? Paul was theologician you know.
He was also a disciple who had directly heard, was able to verify meaning through question and answer sessions and recorded the words of Jesus to help form the NT. Your point is?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Albertaghost: Ya. read your own article sometime. Near the top.
"But the same Jesus elsewhere acknowledges the legitimate use of force, telling the apostles, "let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one" (Luke 22:36). How are these passages to be reconciled?"
"But the same Jesus elsewhere acknowledges the legitimate use of force, telling the apostles, "let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one" (Luke 22:36). How are these passages to be reconciled?"
That is theologician's intrepretion. Theologians weren't good remember?
Albertaghost: He was also a disciple who had directly heard, was able to verify meaning through question and answer sessions and recorded the words of Jesus to help form the NT. Your point is?
Paul never met Jesus.
------ This thread is Archived ------
emannigol: That is theologician's intrepretion. Theologians weren't good remember?
I took it from your source. If your sources are garbage then just let's just drop this discussion right now thanks.
emannigol: Paul never met Jesus.
He certainly did. On the road to Damascus. Acts9:1-7
------ This thread is Archived ------
Albertaghost: I took it from your source. If your sources are garbage then just let's just drop this discussion right now thanks.
You discredited my source and theologicians, after that used it yourself. Tactic known as double standards.
Albertaghost: He certainly did. On the road to Damascus. Acts9:1-7
Yes, I know the story about hearing voices. Yet he never met a man known as Jesus. What's making him better theologician than somebody else?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Albertaghost: Incidentally, back to our discussion; show us where Christians are following the OT rather than the NT please.
"Adherents of this view pursue a lifestyle that is both fully dedicated to Jesus Christ and also submitted to obeying God’s commands found in the Torah (which includes the Law of God given to Moses on Mount Sinai)."
"There are diverse views of the issues involved with most concluding that only parts are applicable, some concluding that none is applicable, and others concluding that all are still applicable to believers in Jesus and the New Covenant."
Anyway, you think what ever you like. I give up.
------ This thread is Archived ------
emannigol: "Adherents of this view pursue a lifestyle that is both fully dedicated to Jesus Christ and also submitted to obeying God’s commands found in the Torah (which includes the Law of God given to Moses on Mount Sinai)."
"There are diverse views of the issues involved with most concluding that only parts are applicable, some concluding that none is applicable, and others concluding that all are still applicable to believers in Jesus and the New Covenant."
Anyway, you think what ever you like. I give up.
"There are diverse views of the issues involved with most concluding that only parts are applicable, some concluding that none is applicable, and others concluding that all are still applicable to believers in Jesus and the New Covenant."
Anyway, you think what ever you like. I give up.
Thank you. Now, I would have expected you to show which of these groups are following the Old Testament but, you say below that all of them are;
"I think every war going Christian is following the Old Testament rather than the New Testament."
So of all the various types of Christians, despite your source saying the NT provides justification for war to Christians, you believe that only the Torah Submissive extremists are involved in war. Given that Torah Submissiveness has various degrees, and that Torah Submissives of any degree comprise a small amount of the military and government overall, do you not find it strange that this small sect controls all military actions in the west?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Albertaghost: I like to just post this so people are aware of what the government of Palestine stands for. It is actually quite simple, destruction of Israel, death to Jews and a few other odds and ends.
................ continued
Was there ever any doubt about it?................ continued
Except of course.........................
------ This thread is Archived ------
The Truth About the Talmud
The Talmud is Judaism's holiest book (actually a collection of books). Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition): "My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament)."
The supremacy of the Talmud over the Bible in the Israeli state may also be seen in the case of the black Ethiopian Jews. Ethiopians are very knowledgeable of the Old Testament. However, their religion is so ancient it pre-dates the Scribes' Talmud, of which the Ethiopians have no knowledge. According to the N.Y. Times of Sept. 29, 1992, p.4:
"The problem is that Ethiopian Jewish tradition goes no further than the Bible or Torah; the later Talmud and other commentaries that form the basis of modern traditions never came their way."
Because they are not traffickers in Talmudic tradition, the black Ethiopian Jews are discriminated against and have been forbidden by the Zionists to perform marriages, funerals and other services in the Israeli state.
Rabbi Joseph D. Soloveitchik is regarded as one of the most influential rabbis of the 20th century, the "unchallenged leader" of Orthodox Judaism and the top international authority on halakha (Jewish religious law). Soloveitchik was responsible for instructing and ordaining more than 2,000 rabbis, "an entire generation" of Jewish leadership.
The Talmud is Judaism's holiest book (actually a collection of books). Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition): "My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament)."
The supremacy of the Talmud over the Bible in the Israeli state may also be seen in the case of the black Ethiopian Jews. Ethiopians are very knowledgeable of the Old Testament. However, their religion is so ancient it pre-dates the Scribes' Talmud, of which the Ethiopians have no knowledge. According to the N.Y. Times of Sept. 29, 1992, p.4:
"The problem is that Ethiopian Jewish tradition goes no further than the Bible or Torah; the later Talmud and other commentaries that form the basis of modern traditions never came their way."
Because they are not traffickers in Talmudic tradition, the black Ethiopian Jews are discriminated against and have been forbidden by the Zionists to perform marriages, funerals and other services in the Israeli state.
Rabbi Joseph D. Soloveitchik is regarded as one of the most influential rabbis of the 20th century, the "unchallenged leader" of Orthodox Judaism and the top international authority on halakha (Jewish religious law). Soloveitchik was responsible for instructing and ordaining more than 2,000 rabbis, "an entire generation" of Jewish leadership.
------ This thread is Archived ------
The Talmud is Judaism's holiest book (actually a collection of books). Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition): "My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament)."
The supremacy of the Talmud over the Bible in the Israeli state may also be seen in the case of the black Ethiopian Jews. Ethiopians are very knowledgeable of the Old Testament. However, their religion is so ancient it pre-dates the Scribes' Talmud, of which the Ethiopians have no knowledge. According to the N.Y. Times of Sept. 29, 1992, p.4:
"The problem is that Ethiopian Jewish tradition goes no further than the Bible or Torah; the later Talmud and other commentaries that form the basis of modern traditions never came their way."
Because they are not traffickers in Talmudic tradition, the black Ethiopian Jews are discriminated against and have been forbidden by the Zionists to perform marriages, funerals and other services in the Israeli state.
Rabbi Joseph D. Soloveitchik is regarded as one of the most influential rabbis of the 20th century, the "unchallenged leader" of Orthodox Judaism and the top international authority on halakha (Jewish religious law). Soloveitchik was responsible for instructing and ordaining more than 2,000 rabbis, "an entire generation" of Jewish leadership.
The supremacy of the Talmud over the Bible in the Israeli state may also be seen in the case of the black Ethiopian Jews. Ethiopians are very knowledgeable of the Old Testament. However, their religion is so ancient it pre-dates the Scribes' Talmud, of which the Ethiopians have no knowledge. According to the N.Y. Times of Sept. 29, 1992, p.4:
"The problem is that Ethiopian Jewish tradition goes no further than the Bible or Torah; the later Talmud and other commentaries that form the basis of modern traditions never came their way."
Because they are not traffickers in Talmudic tradition, the black Ethiopian Jews are discriminated against and have been forbidden by the Zionists to perform marriages, funerals and other services in the Israeli state.
Rabbi Joseph D. Soloveitchik is regarded as one of the most influential rabbis of the 20th century, the "unchallenged leader" of Orthodox Judaism and the top international authority on halakha (Jewish religious law). Soloveitchik was responsible for instructing and ordaining more than 2,000 rabbis, "an entire generation" of Jewish leadership.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Some Teachings of the Jewish Talmud
Where a Jew Should Do Evil
Some Teachings of the Jewish Talmud
Where a Jew Should Do Evil
Moed Kattan 17a: If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.
Penalty for Disobeying Rabbis
Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.
Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God
Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.
O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews
Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.
Jews Have Superior Legal Status
Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full."
Where a Jew Should Do Evil
Some Teachings of the Jewish Talmud
Where a Jew Should Do Evil
Moed Kattan 17a: If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.
Penalty for Disobeying Rabbis
Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.
Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God
Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.
O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews
Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.
Jews Have Superior Legal Status
Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full."
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Wondering
Heavy Bass In The PM
Salami, Salami, Baloney
the death nail for dating websites
It's been a long time....
What's going on
Your Mental Health
A question
The world is as you see
Icebergs Still Around
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
In a signed affidavit released at a Capitol Hill news conference, retired Capt. Ward Boston said Johnson and McNamara told those heading the Navy's inquiry to "conclude that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."
It was "one of the classic all-American cover-ups," said retired Admiral Thomas Moorer, a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman who spent a year investigating the attack as part of an independent panel he formed with other former military officials. The panel also included a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins.
Torpedo hole in USS Liberty
"Why would our government put Israel's interests ahead of our own?" Moorer asked from his wheelchair at the news conference. He was chief of naval operations at the time of the attack.
Moorer, who has long held that the attack was a deliberate act, wants Congress to investigate.