First time visitor? Learn more.

Patrick Kennedy, D-RI, banned from receiving communion by Bishop due to his pro-abortion views

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 254 Comments › )
Filed under Abortion, Democratic Party, Healthcare at November 23rd, 2009 - 3:00 pm

0c7e35895d_KennedyBishop_11232009

I love it when one of these scumbags from one the most despicable and worthless families in America gets smacked down. Now, if only other priests and church leaders had the guts to do the same to all the other pro-abortion libs (and RINO’s) like Pelosi or Kerry (He served in Viet Nam, you know) who claim to be Catholic but think they can pick and choose which church teachings to follow like they’re shopping in the produce department at their local Wal-Mart…Reminds me of the old saying “They’re called the 10 commandments, not the 10 suggestions”.

Rhode Island’s top Roman Catholic leader issued a scathing remonstrance of U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy yesterday after his bombshell admission that the bishop barred him from receiving communion because of his pro-choice stance.

“I am disappointed that the Congressman would make public my pastoral and confidential request of nearly three years ago that sought to provide solely for his spiritual well-being,” said Bishop Thomas Tobin in a strongly worded statement. “I have no desire to continue the discussion of Congressman Kennedy’s spiritual life in public.”

Added the bishop, “At the same time, I will absolutely respond publicly and strongly whenever he attacks the Catholic Church, misrepresents the teachings of the Church or issues inaccurate statements about my pastoral ministry.”

The bishop’s smackdown came after Kennedy, 42, told the Providence Journal that Tobin barred him from receiving communion and instructed priests not to deliver the sacrament to him “because of the positions that I’ve taken as a public official.” Tobin confirmed the order but fervently denied having discussed it with anyone other than Kennedy.

Tobin vowed to “continue to pray – sincerely and fervently – for his conversion and repentance, and for his personal and spiritual well-being.”

Tobin also released portions of a February 2007 exchange with the congressman in which he promised to keep Kennedy’s communion ban confidential. He said Kennedy had previously indicated he would no longer discuss his relationship with the church publicly.

The Rhode Island congressman has been entangled in a nasty and public exchange with Tobin over the church’s support of health-care reform provisions that would prohibit federal funding for abortions.

Read the rest here

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

254 Responses to “Patrick Kennedy, D-RI, banned from receiving communion by Bishop due to his pro-abortion views”
( jump to bottom )

  1. 1 | November 23, 2009 3:05 pm

    This just proves the inherent discrimination, and prejudice of Religion. Its no wonder its the religious that cause all war!
    /


  2. buzzsawmonkey
    2 | November 23, 2009 3:10 pm

    A religion is not a democracy.


  3. mawskrat
    3 | November 23, 2009 3:13 pm

    I had to drive by a baby killing factory this morning…so sad


  4. 4 | November 23, 2009 3:13 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Yea, but its just so closed minded of those religious people. They need to learn to incorporate secularism into their religion. To not do so would be discriminatory, and really hurt atheists’ feelings.

    /


  5. coldwarrior
    5 | November 23, 2009 3:17 pm

    the catholics FINALLY banned a kennedy!!!

    what, did pat forget to pay the bribe to the bishop and the cardinal to remain silent, maybe they didn’t get that wing on their houses like teddy promised, oh wait, he did build that after his divorce so he could still be ‘catholic’?

    what took the catholic church so long???


  6. Empire1
    6 | November 23, 2009 3:18 pm

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, because it’s been quite a while since I last read about the subject. As I recall, though, one must be in a state of grace to take communion, and advocacy of abortion is a sin. So until (or unless) he repents of that sin, with the intention of not repeating it (and does penance?), he’s ineligible to take communion whether the bishop gets into it or not.


  7. buzzsawmonkey
    7 | November 23, 2009 3:18 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    what took the catholic church so long???

    “If the Don dies, we lose half our strength.”

    —”The Godfather,” Mario Puzo


  8. krik_t_semaj
    8 | November 23, 2009 3:19 pm

    Good for them, the Catholics. Is it wrong for Orthodox Jews to piss on reform Jews? Why do reform Jews care? What does K seek from his ‘church’?


  9. Silhouette
    9 | November 23, 2009 3:19 pm

    Don’t see the story here. The church disagrees with abortion, as is their right last time I checked. He agrees with it, as is his right.

    But this is about the bastardized one-way version of “tolerance” that demands one not just tolerate the existance of the other point of view, but demands one accept it. In other words, the church is “intolerant” for holding that he is wrong. That isn’t what tolerance means.


  10. krik_t_semaj
    10 | November 23, 2009 3:21 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    A religion is not a democracy…. Exactly. If you disagree form your own religion.


  11. mawskrat
    11 | November 23, 2009 3:22 pm

    if you want to be a member of a club you have to abide by thier rules


  12. lobo91
    12 | November 23, 2009 3:23 pm

    @ Empire1:

    That would be correct.


  13. krik_t_semaj
    13 | November 23, 2009 3:23 pm

    @ krik_t_semaj:

    I’ll say it. I should shut up but I’ll say it….
    If Moses was a liar then all of Judaism is a lie. If Judaism is a lie then all of Christianity is a lie.


  14. coldwarrior
    14 | November 23, 2009 3:23 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    what took the catholic church so long???
    “If the Don dies, we lose half our strength.”
    —”The Godfather,” Mario Puzo

    BINGO!!!

    well seen!!!

    your post gets a ‘well said’.

    as the representative and chair of the awards committee here at the 2.0 country club, i am pleased to inform you that you succinct analysis of the situation has been awarded the “well done” award.

    “well said”! hoorah!

    the cc has spoken, as it were!

    drinks all round!


  15. lobo91
    15 | November 23, 2009 3:24 pm

    @ mawskrat:

    Very few people named Kennedy in Mass. believe they’re required to follow anyone’s rules but their own.


  16. buzzsawmonkey
    16 | November 23, 2009 3:26 pm

    krik_t_semaj wrote:

    Is it wrong for Orthodox Jews to piss on reform Jews? Why do reform Jews care?

    Orthodox Jews don’t “piss on” Reform Jews—though they often express a healthy disgust for the fraud that is “Reform Judaism.”

    Every Jew has the capacity to engage in teshuva—repentance—and return to that which they promised at Sinai to observe. Every Jew needs to engage in repentance, whether or not they are Orthodox.

    The problem with Reform Judaism is, first, that it is a thin gruel of watered-down Judaism, and second, that it instituted, on its own, the doctrine of patrilineal descent—that anyone who had one Jewish parent is a Jew. This flies in the face of over 2000 years of Jews abiding by the rule of matrilineal descent, and it means that many people claiming to be Jews who were born into families that are within the Reform movement are not, in fact, Jews.

    Prior to the Reform Movement adopting this rule, anyone could marry anyone; it was merely a matter of finding each other compatible and adjusting observance accordingly. The Reform Movement, by taking this move, struck at the heart of the unity of the Jewish people.


  17. coldwarrior
    17 | November 23, 2009 3:26 pm

    Empire1 wrote:

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, because it’s been quite a while since I last read about the subject. As I recall, though, one must be in a state of grace to take communion, and advocacy of abortion is a sin. So until (or unless) he repents of that sin, with the intention of not repeating it (and does penance?), he’s ineligible to take communion whether the bishop gets into it or not.

    if he takes communion in a state of grave sin or unrepentant sin or NOT in a state of grace and he takes communion it is blasphemy on his part and warrants excommunication


  18. song_and_dance_man
    19 | November 23, 2009 3:27 pm

    If communion with God is so important to Kennedy, maybe he should repent of his advocacy to kill God’s unborn creatures.


  19. 20 | November 23, 2009 3:30 pm

    Fox News just said this happened three years ago. So why is the congresscritter bringing it up again i wonder.


  20. 21 | November 23, 2009 3:31 pm

    song_and_dance_man wrote:

    If communion with God is so important to Kennedy, maybe he should repent of his advocacy to kill God’s unborn creatures.

    Because to the liberal G-d gave the 10 suggestions, not the 10 Commandments.


  21. myselfandi
    22 | November 23, 2009 3:31 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    the catholics FINALLY banned a kennedy!!!
    what, did pat forget to pay the bribe to the bishop and the cardinal to remain silent, maybe they didn’t get that wing on their houses like teddy promised, oh wait, he did build that after his divorce so he could still be ‘catholic’?
    what took the catholic church so long???

    As a Catholic, I’ve been asking the same thing for years. And when does Ma Pelosi get excommunicated for her stance on Abortion.


  22. buzzsawmonkey
    23 | November 23, 2009 3:32 pm

    I’m just a poor wafering stranger
    Travelin’ through this world of woe…


  23. Empire1
    24 | November 23, 2009 3:32 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    if he takes communion in a state of grave sin or unrepentant sin or NOT in a state of grace and he takes communion it is blasphemy on his part and warrants excommunication

    Thanks! I thought I remembered that part, too, but wasn’t confident enough of my memory to say it in public. I knew I’d seen something about excommunicating oneself, and it looks like that’s what Kennedy has done. Nor do I recall any exceptions being made for elected officials!


  24. coldwarrior
    25 | November 23, 2009 3:32 pm

    myselfandi wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    the catholics FINALLY banned a kennedy!!!
    what, did pat forget to pay the bribe to the bishop and the cardinal to remain silent, maybe they didn’t get that wing on their houses like teddy promised, oh wait, he did build that after his divorce so he could still be ‘catholic’?
    what took the catholic church so long???
    As a Catholic, I’ve been asking the same thing for years. And when does Ma Pelosi get excommunicated for her stance on Abortion.

    i left the catholic church years ago. i am orthodox now.


  25. mawskrat
    26 | November 23, 2009 3:33 pm

    Mom: Son Conscious During 23-Year Coma……glad they did not do him like Terri Shiavo.

    Belgian doctors who treated him early on said that Rom had gone from a coma into a vegetative condition.

    snip


  26. vagabond trader
    27 | November 23, 2009 3:34 pm

    Simple solution here congressman,join the Unitarians.


  27. buzzsawmonkey
    28 | November 23, 2009 3:35 pm

    vagabond trader wrote:

    Simple solution here congressman,join the Unitarians.

    Or the Moon Unitarians, if he likes Frank Zappa.


  28. mawskrat
    29 | November 23, 2009 3:35 pm

    vagabond trader wrote:

    Simple solution here congressman,join the Unitarians.

    i went to a unitarian church wedding once it was really strange


  29. lobo91
    30 | November 23, 2009 3:36 pm

    @ Kirly:

    Fox News just said this happened three years ago. So why is the congresscritter bringing it up again i wonder.

    Because he’s looking for sympathy in the health care “debate.”

    We’re supposed to be impressed by the lengths he’s willing to go in order to protect poor, uninsured people’s right to have the taxpayers pay for killing their unwanted children.


  30. vagabond trader
    31 | November 23, 2009 3:36 pm

    @ mawskrat:

    I thought the same thing. Very surprised he didn’t have to submit to a death panel, tho not familiar with Belgian healthcare.


  31. lobo91
    32 | November 23, 2009 3:36 pm

    @ vagabond trader:

    Is that even a real church?


  32. krik_t_semaj
    33 | November 23, 2009 3:36 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    Replying to buzzsawmonkey, I know. Yes. Indeed.


  33. myselfandi
    34 | November 23, 2009 3:37 pm

    krik_t_semaj wrote:

    @ krik_t_semaj:
    I’ll say it. I should shut up but I’ll say it….
    If Moses was a liar then all of Judaism is a lie. If Judaism is a lie then all of Christianity is a lie.

    and that’s the truth.


  34. Silhouette
    35 | November 23, 2009 3:38 pm

    WrathofG-d wrote:

    Because to the liberal G-d gave the 10 suggestions, not the 10 Commandments.

    They’re more of guidelines, really.

    /


  35. myselfandi
    36 | November 23, 2009 3:38 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    vagabond trader wrote:
    Simple solution here congressman,join the Unitarians.
    Or the Moon Unitarians, if he likes Frank Zappa.

    sputter


  36. coldwarrior
    37 | November 23, 2009 3:39 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ vagabond trader:
    Is that even a real church?

    yep, universalist unitarians

    they believe it all!

    /


  37. myselfandi
    38 | November 23, 2009 3:39 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    orthodox what?


  38. vagabond trader
    39 | November 23, 2009 3:40 pm

    @ lobo91:

    They are a liberal Protestant denomination.No need to stress over abortions and other pesty doctrine.


  39. song_and_dance_man
    40 | November 23, 2009 3:41 pm

    @ WrathofG-d:

    You shall not murder, sounds pointedly straightforward to me. It is this moral code that causes The Left to come up with arguments where the unborn/fetus is not really a human, yet. However, what the refuse to admit is, from the moment the egg is fertilized each cell contains 28 chromosomes and those cells multiply and this new human moves and grows from inception to death.


  40. AndyMacOP
    41 | November 23, 2009 3:41 pm

    It’s about time!

    Pro-abortion = pro-murder = you ain’t Catholic!


  41. 42 | November 23, 2009 3:41 pm

    If the Catholic Church were to actually enforce this across the board, there are a lot of CINOs out there who will have to find another denomination to pretend to believe in. Episcopalian will be popular, I suspect…


  42. myselfandi
    43 | November 23, 2009 3:41 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    I’m just a poor wafering stranger
    Travelin’ through this world of woe…

    I loaves your poetry


  43. lobo91
    44 | November 23, 2009 3:42 pm

    @ vagabond trader:

    They’re the ones who believe that Jesus was “a pretty cool dude,” basically. Right?


  44. Silhouette
    45 | November 23, 2009 3:42 pm

    OT --

    Iran makes “new” law: requires Jews and Christians to wear badges for identification

    The quotes are mine. Because the law isn’t so much new as it is back again.

    But remember, BUSH is Hitler.


  45. song_and_dance_man
    46 | November 23, 2009 3:43 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    I’m just a poor wafering stranger
    Travelin’ through this world of woe…

    Where is that quote from? It just happens to be the lines of a song performed by Degarmo and Key.


  46. coldwarrior
    47 | November 23, 2009 3:43 pm

    myselfandi wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:
    orthodox what?

    http://www.oca.org/

    it was russian orthodox…but now its american orthodox


  47. mawskrat
    48 | November 23, 2009 3:44 pm

    I know a few cafeteria Catholics


  48. 49 | November 23, 2009 3:45 pm

    @ lobo91:

    +1

    I like the way you said tha. That is exactly what they want. Financial help in killing their unwanted (and unloved) unborn children. Looks pretty bad when you say it that way. That is because it is pretty bad.


  49. vagabond trader
    50 | November 23, 2009 3:45 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Worse, they are into the “social justice” mem and possibly believe Jesus was a cool black chick or a many appendaged diety.More radical than I recall them being.

    http://www.uua.org/visitors/index.shtml


  50. buzzsawmonkey
    51 | November 23, 2009 3:46 pm

    song_and_dance_man wrote:

    Where is that quote from? It just happens to be the lines of a song performed by Degarmo and Key.

    “I’m just a poor wayfaring stranger
    Travelin’ through this world of woe
    But there’s no sickness, toil or danger
    In that bright world to which I go
    I’m goin’ there to meet my Father
    I’m goin’ there no more to roam
    I’m just a-goin’ over Jordan
    I’m just a-goin’ over home.”

    That’s the original—it is, I believe, a 19th-century folk hymn. I just quoted the first two lines as “wafering stranger” as a play on the Communion kerfuffle.


  51. vagabond trader
    52 | November 23, 2009 3:46 pm

    @ AndyMacOP:

    A higher authority has spoken. Thank you Father!

    :D


  52. buzzsawmonkey
    53 | November 23, 2009 3:46 pm

    mawskrat wrote:

    I know a few cafeteria Catholics

    I’ve met some Automat Atheists, too.


  53. myselfandi
    54 | November 23, 2009 3:46 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    I was born and raised Catholic, went to Catholic school, went to church etc. Now am divorced and cannot be remarried because I wont annul the marriage because that would make my children bastards in the eyes of the church. so I am a believer in 90% of Catholic teachings but the divorce thing bugs me.


  54. 55 | November 23, 2009 3:48 pm

    @ vagabond trader:

    Wow, knew nothing about these folk. Love ;) this though:

    Holidays
    Traditional Holidays

    Unitarian Universalism includes aspects of many of the world’s religions. Holidays from various religions are celebrated together in Unitarian Universalist (UU) congregations. Most Unitarian Universalist congregations celebrate the Christian holidays Christmas and Easter, the Jewish holidays Passover and Yom Kippur, and the Pagan Winter Solstice, among other holidays.

    In addition to these traditional religious holidays, many UU congregations also honor secular holidays including Earth Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. Sunday, Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, and Thanksgiving. While these are not traditionally spiritual holidays, Unitarian Universalism finds spiritual meaning and affinity with our Principles in the ideas behind these and other secular holidays.


  55. song_and_dance_man
    56 | November 23, 2009 3:49 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Those are the lyrics DeGarmo and Key used in the update of the hymn. For a moment I was thinking, man buzz can even quote 70′s Christian rock bands. You almost totally blew me away, almost.


  56. coldwarrior
    57 | November 23, 2009 3:49 pm

    myselfandi wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    I was born and raised Catholic, went to Catholic school, went to church etc. Now am divorced and cannot be remarried because I wont annul the marriage because that would make my children bastards in the eyes of the church. so I am a believer in 90% of Catholic teachings but the divorce thing bugs me.

    then check out your local orthodox church. divorce inst forbidden, it is hyper frowned upon, but there are no annulments or things of that nature. you can be forgiven of a poor marriage choice without the children thingy…


  57. 58 | November 23, 2009 3:49 pm

    @ mawskrat:

    I don’t see how you can really do that. Either the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth or he isn’t. If he isn’t? (or you don’t believe he is) then you have a HUGE disagreement in Doctrine with the Catholic Church. If you do believe it, and still support abortion, you are a heretic, and in danger of hell. By your own beliefs.

    Cafateria “Catholicism” rejects the core belief of Catholicism, as I see it as a Protestant.


  58. myselfandi
    59 | November 23, 2009 3:50 pm

    vagabond trader wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    Worse, they are into the “social justice” mem and possibly believe Jesus was a cool black chick or a many appendaged diety.More radical than I recall them being.
    http://www.uua.org/visitors/index.shtml

    Individual Unitarian Universalists may also identify as Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Humanist, Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, or with other philosophical or religious traditions.

    sounds fairly encompassing


  59. coldwarrior
    60 | November 23, 2009 3:50 pm

    @ WrathofG-d:

    we have somje uu’s up the road from here, itsa a MEGA church.

    but, if it helps them, so be it.


  60. Rule303
    61 | November 23, 2009 3:51 pm

    You know, this is one of the reasons I never went back to the Church; My mother was banned from taking the Eucharist because after her sixth child she started taking the pill but any number of “Catholic” politicians who support abortion with their votes were(are) taking communion every week without the slightest twitch from their parish priest or the Bishops who know them.
    I took the Churches teachings seriously while the Church itself didn’t really seem to.
    Now we have one Kennedy banned and sure, it’s a step in the right direction, but no more than a step.


  61. vagabond trader
    62 | November 23, 2009 3:51 pm

    @ WrathofG-d:

    I imagine they will be adding Ramadan and other Islamic observances depending on demand.Did not see Kwanza. :D


  62. Silhouette
    63 | November 23, 2009 3:52 pm

    myselfandi wrote:

    Individual Unitarian Universalists may also identify as Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Humanist, Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, or with other philosophical or religious traditions

    Note to self: never hire a UU. They’ll be on holiday 3 days out of every week!


  63. buzzsawmonkey
    64 | November 23, 2009 3:53 pm

    song_and_dance_man wrote:

    You almost totally blew me away, almost.

    Aw, heck. Another chance shot.

    I guess it doesn’t count since I learned it back in the folkie days, huh?


  64. 65 | November 23, 2009 3:54 pm

    @ myselfandi:

    I can understand that, and you are still living by the teachings of your Church in that you refuse to annul your first marriage and therefore chose not to remarry outside of the Church. That is a hard thing, but you are living up to your beliefs. People like Kennedy and Pelosie are not doing that at all. They are living, in reality, the kind of lives that lead to the Protestant Reformation in the first place. They may not call them indulgences, but the likes of Kennedy and Pelosie are given special dispensation from Church doctrine. You don’t have to be a Catholic to see that that is wrong.


  65. Empire1
    66 | November 23, 2009 3:54 pm

    @ AndyMacOP:
    Hi, Father Andy — good to “see” you! :)


  66. vagabond trader
    67 | November 23, 2009 3:54 pm

    @ myselfandi:

    Sounds like they have all the bases covered except stan worship.


  67. buzzsawmonkey
    68 | November 23, 2009 3:54 pm

    myselfandi wrote:

    sounds fairly encompassing

    Trying desperately here to come up with a Ganesha Redgrave joke.


  68. 69 | November 23, 2009 3:55 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    Yes, if it helps them then that is great. But as a Catholic wouldn’t one think it won’t “help them” enough (ie: they are still going to hell) and for a Jew we have strict Torah laws on dealing with pagans.

    When you believe in everything, you actually believe in nothing.


  69. 70 | November 23, 2009 3:55 pm

    Hey, if Vegans can eat meat once in a while, and PETA members go huntin’ and fishin’ once in a while, why can’t a Catholic support abortion?

    /ironic, isn’t it?


  70. lobo91
    71 | November 23, 2009 3:56 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Either the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth or he isn’t. If he isn’t? (or you don’t believe he is) then you have a HUGE disagreement in Doctrine with the Catholic Church. If you do believe it, and still support abortion, you are a heretic, and in danger of hell. By your own beliefs.

    See? That proves what a great man Kennedy is. He’s willing to risk his everlasting soul in order to help those poor uninsured people kill their unwanted children.

    // (just in case…)


  71. 72 | November 23, 2009 3:58 pm

    Ok, I’m confused.

    Catholics For “Choice” -- Pro Abortion, Pro Birth Control?

    “The morality and the legality of abortion is an important personal and political issue throughout the world. Catholic support for legal abortion is grounded in core principles of Catholic theology, which respect the moral agency of all women. It is bolstered by respect for the religious freedom and rights of people of all faiths and no religious faith, by respect for plural and tolerant democratic societies and, most importantly, by adherence to the Catholic principle of standing with the poor and marginalized of the world who are disproportionately women.

    Within this context, Catholics worldwide support the right of all women to follow their conscience when deciding about abortion.

    CFC also believes that rights should be exercised responsibly, which includes personal responsibility for pregnancy prevention and society’s responsibility to provide education, health care and economic security that will enable women to prevent pregnancy and have the children they want in a climate that welcomes all. “


  72. buzzsawmonkey
    73 | November 23, 2009 3:58 pm

    Why people expect politicians to believe they have souls is an interesting question.


  73. Silhouette
    74 | November 23, 2009 3:58 pm

    Every denomination has its cafeteria types. They had them in Biblical times, else there wouldn’t have been the need for these:

    Deuteronomy 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
    ——————————————————————————--
    Deuteronomy 12:32 “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.
    ——————————————————————————--
    Proverbs 30:6 Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.
    ——————————————————————————--
    Revelation 21:5 And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” And He said, “Write, for these words are faithful and true.”
    ——————————————————————————--
    Revelation 22:19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.


  74. vagabond trader
    75 | November 23, 2009 3:59 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Come on now, this is obviously in honor of his late fathers legacy.Perhaps a deathbed promise as it were./


  75. 76 | November 23, 2009 3:59 pm

    Its ironic, under the circumstances of manger story as told by Christians, liberals today probably would have aborted Jesus.

    Single mother, no place to stay…


  76. davehm
    77 | November 23, 2009 4:00 pm

    AndyMacOP wrote:

    It’s about time!
    Pro-abortion = pro-murder = you ain’t Catholic!

    You wouldn’t be Christian ether! The Catholic church threw out Kennedy because of he’s pro abortion and Tiller the killer was a deacon at his church?

    Taking communion is between the individual and God, 1st Corinthians 11:24-29 gives a biblical standard when it comes to taking communion, it states that we should examine ourselves and not take communion in an unworthy manner.


  77. 78 | November 23, 2009 4:00 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    They have to have something to sell to the lobbyists.


  78. coldwarrior
    79 | November 23, 2009 4:00 pm

    WrathofG-d wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:
    Yes, if it helps them then that is great. But as a Catholic wouldn’t one think it won’t “help them” enough (ie: they are still going to hell) and for a Jew we have strict Torah laws on dealing with pagans.
    When you believe in everything, you actually believe in nothing.

    if that catholic threw out the tenant that abortion is sin and communion is not for those who are not in a state of grace, then he really doesn’t believe in much anyway…why bother with hell and hevean. he can drive up to the uu’s and be accepted and ‘feel good’ about himself.

    and i’d rather see the uu church full, than empty.


  79. buzzsawmonkey
    80 | November 23, 2009 4:00 pm

    Silhouette wrote:

    Every denomination has its cafeteria types. They had them in Biblical times, else there wouldn’t have been the need for these:

    Don’t forget Elijah’s famous confrontation with the priests of Baal on Mount Carmel. The best part of that is when Baal does not answer them, and he suggests that maybe he’s taking a crap.


  80. song_and_dance_man
    81 | November 23, 2009 4:01 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Aw, heck. Another chance shot.
    I guess it doesn’t count since I learned it back in the folkie days, huh?

    You might like the updated version. wayfaring stranger For a 70′s Christian rock band they were ahead of the curve where most of the music in this genre didn’t sound like this.

    But Wait, there’s more.

    As a consolation prize I will admit you impress me with almost every one of your normally eloquent posts.


  81. lobo91
    82 | November 23, 2009 4:01 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    I was going to point out that it’s entirely likely that whatever deal Joe Kennedy Sr made with Stan is still in effect, so this generation of Kennedy’s is in no real spiritual danger. Their souls were sold long ago.


  82. song_and_dance_man
    83 | November 23, 2009 4:02 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    That line in the scriptures is one of my favs. Elijah also suggested Baal may have been on vacation.


  83. coldwarrior
    84 | November 23, 2009 4:03 pm

    WrathofG-d wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:

    When you believe in everything, you actually believe in nothing.

    i agree on that one.

    i just have no problem with the uu’s…they can do their own thing


  84. buzzsawmonkey
    85 | November 23, 2009 4:07 pm

    song_and_dance_man wrote:

    Elijah also suggested Baal may have been on vacation.

    Deity Spring Break! Woo-hoo!


  85. 86 | November 23, 2009 4:08 pm

    this is what happens when people start to think they deserve the godly gifts given by grace.


  86. song_and_dance_man
    87 | November 23, 2009 4:09 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Deity Spring Break! Woo-hoo!

    haha, gods gone wild.


  87. davehm
    88 | November 23, 2009 4:10 pm

    @ WrathofG-d:

    I can’t find it at the moment but I remember during the last election cycle liberal/progressive groups were starting their own “Christian” organizations in order to draw away those who were not well studied in scripture in an attempt rope them into a political agenda. They are also a lot of churches out there that don,t adhere to the word of God and will compromise their position on right and wrong just to fill a pew, the Episcopalian church comes to mind.


  88. lobo91
    89 | November 23, 2009 4:11 pm

    @ vagabond trader:

    Maybe these are the “Christians” that Muslims actually accept as being “people of the book,” since they basically don’t believe in the divinity of Christ.

    Or much of anything else, as far as I can see.


  89. myselfandi
    90 | November 23, 2009 4:11 pm

    WrathofG-d wrote:

    Its ironic, under the circumstances of manger story as told by Christians, liberals today probably would have aborted Jesus.
    Single mother, no place to stay…

    Unplanned pregnancy


  90. Silhouette
    91 | November 23, 2009 4:12 pm

    song_and_dance_man wrote:

    haha, gods gone wild.

    What’s the goddess with the multiple breasts? She’d rack up on the beads, dude. Totally.


  91. myselfandi
    92 | November 23, 2009 4:13 pm

    you all have a good night.


  92. buzzsawmonkey
    93 | November 23, 2009 4:14 pm

    WrathofG-d wrote:

    Its ironic, under the circumstances of manger story as told by Christians, liberals today probably would have aborted Jesus.

    Single mother, no place to stay…

    See, I have a problem with that crap.

    Mary was traveling with her husband, Joseph. They weren’t “homeless,” though the social-justice crowd likes to stress that; they were traveling in order to be counted for the census, and the rooms were all booked up.

    So both the “single mother” and the “homeless” things are complete garbage.


  93. myselfandi
    94 | November 23, 2009 4:15 pm

    Silhouette wrote:

    song_and_dance_man wrote:
    haha, gods gone wild.
    What’s the goddess with the multiple breasts? She’d rack up on the beads, dude. Totally.

    Kali has the multiple arms. I think there is a portrayal of Sheva as a multiple udder cow but I may be way off on that.


  94. 95 | November 23, 2009 4:16 pm

    @ myselfandi:

    Have you ever thought that it is a damned shame that Obama’s mother didn’t have access to affordable abortion?


  95. song_and_dance_man
    96 | November 23, 2009 4:16 pm

    @ Silhouette:

    That would be Diana of Ephesus.


  96. myselfandi
    97 | November 23, 2009 4:17 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    WrathofG-d wrote:
    Its ironic, under the circumstances of manger story as told by Christians, liberals today probably would have aborted Jesus.
    Single mother, no place to stay…
    See, I have a problem with that crap.
    Mary was traveling with her husband, Joseph. They weren’t “homeless,” though the social-justice crowd likes to stress that; they were traveling in order to be counted for the census, and the rooms were all booked up.
    So both the “single mother” and the “homeless” things are complete garbage.

    But church doctrine says that Joseph married her AFTER she was impregnated with Jesus Christ, therefore, until Joseph ‘made an honest woman of her’ she was a single mother so that is understandable. Homeless is entirely different.


  97. vagabond trader
    98 | November 23, 2009 4:18 pm

    @ WrathofG-d:

    My husband who used to be Catholic says they are not within the strict adherence of Catholic doctrine.In other words the Pope is not pleased.


  98. LGoPs
    99 | November 23, 2009 4:18 pm

    I recall a news story, back from the ’90′s I believe, where one of the Kennedy’s was able to get an annullment of marraige so they could marry their young chickie babe secretary. And the marriage in question had resulted in 4 children, IIRC. And the Archdiocese of Boston granted it after a tidy cash offering. It made me think who the hell were they fooling? I suspect that God wasn’t in on the deal.
    Made me ashamed to be a Catholic.


  99. vagabond trader
    100 | November 23, 2009 4:21 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    How do we know she didn’t try or at least make inquiries. Saddam Husseins mother attempted to abort him, more than once iirc. This may have had an influence on his rather disagreeable temperament.


  100. Silhouette
    101 | November 23, 2009 4:21 pm

    LGoPs wrote:

    And the Archdiocese of Boston granted it after a tidy cash offering.

    Anyone bought any carbon credits lately? Cash erases sin. And here I thought it was repentance.


  101. coldwarrior
    102 | November 23, 2009 4:23 pm

    LGoPs wrote:

    I recall a news story, back from the ’90’s I believe, where one of the Kennedy’s was able to get an annullment of marraige so they could marry their young chickie babe secretary. And the marriage in question had resulted in 4 children, IIRC. And the Archdiocese of Boston granted it after a tidy cash offering. It made me think who the hell were they fooling? I suspect that God wasn’t in on the deal.
    Made me ashamed to be a Catholic.

    and that was the reason i left the catholic church. i was getting a divorce to at the time but wasn’t a kennedy, so no big cash buyout for me. of course i COULD ‘donate’ a couple thousand dollars to the diocese and get it all taken care of…

    the hypocrisy of the entire thing made me sick, so i left. i also asked to be ex-communicated, but have yet to receive the papal bull on that.


  102. vagabond trader
    103 | November 23, 2009 4:23 pm

    @ Silhouette:

    I see a connection here, carbon credits are akin to medieval indulgences, the climate frauds find the medieval warm period troublesome. Very selrahC-like. :-) :-)


  103. LGoPs
    104 | November 23, 2009 4:24 pm

    Buzz has got mer thinking about his comments on the social justice theme of the left. You have to admit that the left is masterful in it’s capture of and manipulation of the language. Done correctly, you hardly have to muster the intellectual muscle to further your argument. You’ve won 3/4′s of the debate just using the label.
    We ought to fight back. We should label social justice as ‘Give me other people’s stuff that I haven’t done anything to earn”


  104. lobo91
    105 | November 23, 2009 4:24 pm

    @ LGoPs:

    That was the recently departed St Teddy of Chappaquidick.


  105. Empire1
    106 | November 23, 2009 4:25 pm

    myselfandi wrote:

    Kali has the multiple arms. I think there is a portrayal of Sheva as a multiple udder cow but I may be way off on that.

    A number of Hindu deities are depicted with multiple arms; Kali is only one of them. And no, Shiva (Siva) is a male, one of the Trimurti, or Hindu trinity (Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, Shiva the Destroyer).

    Shiva and Parvati are the parents of Ganesha, by the way.


  106. 107 | November 23, 2009 4:25 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Hey! What do I know. I’ll be honest, I know practically NOTHING about that story. Very uneducated when it comes to Christianity.


  107. buzzsawmonkey
    108 | November 23, 2009 4:25 pm

    myselfandi wrote:

    But church doctrine says that Joseph married her AFTER she was impregnated with Jesus Christ, therefore, until Joseph ‘made an honest woman of her’ she was a single mother so that is understandable. Homeless is entirely different.

    I’m not about to argue with the doctrine of a belief system not my own, but I will point out that in traditional Jewish custom there is both a “betrothal” and a “marriage ceremony,” which can take place at a remove from the betrothal.

    If Mary and Joseph were traveling together, they were betrothed, which is the bulk of the whole marriage arrangement; the actual marriage ceremony thereafter is a formalization of the betrothal, and if she married the person to whom she was previously betrothed, she would not have been an “unwed mother,” nor Jesus in any way illegitimate.

    I would also point out that the entire shuffle over the marriage has largely to do with two forms of dual status: Jesus being son of G-d and Jesus being son of Joseph, and the fact that in Talmudic tradition there is a “precursor” Messiah who is Moshiach ben (son of) Yosef (Joseph) who paves the way for the true Messiah, Moshiach ben David. By going into Mary’s descent from David, and by having her marry Joseph, Jesus ends up being a) Moshiach ben Yosef, b) Moshiach ben David, and the son of G-d, all rolled into one. So facts aside—I’m not disputing the accounts, it’s not my book—the birth between betrothal and marriage serves important geneological purposes.


  108. coldwarrior
    109 | November 23, 2009 4:26 pm

    Silhouette wrote:

    LGoPs wrote:
    And the Archdiocese of Boston granted it after a tidy cash offering.
    Anyone bought any carbon credits lately? Cash erases sin. And here I thought it was repentance.

    yes!

    indulgences!

    does this mean that the church of the global warming will be reformed, just like the catholic church back in the day?

    defenestrate pope algore!!!


  109. Silhouette
    110 | November 23, 2009 4:27 pm

    @ LGoPs:

    Social justice is the idea that if everyone doesn’t cross the finish line at exactly the same time, that PROVES the race was unfair.


  110. Truck Monkey
    111 | November 23, 2009 4:28 pm

    myselfandi wrote:

    WrathofG-d wrote:
    Its ironic, under the circumstances of manger story as told by Christians, liberals today probably would have aborted Jesus.
    Single mother, no place to stay…
    Unplanned pregnancy

    No visible means of support. No health insurance. Immigrant with no job skills. The list could go on and on and on. Oh, and Patrick Kennedy is a moron. Why the f*ck would the people of Rhode Island send this nitwit to congress?


  111. vagabond trader
    112 | November 23, 2009 4:28 pm

    @ LGoPs:

    Glenn Beck and David Horowitz were talking about conservatives organizing street theater as the left does. For instance “Die Ins” at womens health clinics to exaggerate the callous rationing of female preventative services suggested by big gov.Signs that read “Obama is Killing Women” Crude but effective.


  112. lobo91
    113 | November 23, 2009 4:28 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    How about if we launch a Crusade against it?

    I have a new Mini 14 I’m dying to try out. Fresh out of crossbows and catapults, though.


  113. coldwarrior
    114 | November 23, 2009 4:31 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:
    How about if we launch a Crusade against it?
    I have a new Mini 14 I’m dying to try out. Fresh out of crossbows and catapults, though.

    i like a good crusade!

    we’ll need a few trebouches tho.


  114. vagabond trader
    115 | November 23, 2009 4:32 pm

    @ lobo91:

    It would be kind of fun to launch pumpkins from a trebuchet aimed at the Capitol.


  115. davehm
    116 | November 23, 2009 4:32 pm

    @ WrathofG-d:

    That’s o.k. just read the gospels. Funny, the virgin birth was planned all the way back to Genesis 3:15, God said to Satan the He was going to “put an enmity between you and the women and between your seed and her seed” her seed? it’s a reference to the virgin birth.


  116. vagabond trader
    117 | November 23, 2009 4:33 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    LOL, owe me a martini! :-)


  117. davehm
    118 | November 23, 2009 4:35 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    I think the e-mail/data leak was a Martin Luther moment!


  118. coldwarrior
    119 | November 23, 2009 4:36 pm

    vagabond trader wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:
    LOL, owe me a martini!

    no doubt!
    gmta


  119. vagabond trader
    120 | November 23, 2009 4:37 pm

    @ davehm:

    LOLOLOL!


  120. buzzsawmonkey
    121 | November 23, 2009 4:38 pm

    vagabond trader wrote:

    It would be kind of fun to launch pumpkins from a trebuchet aimed at the Capitol.

    “Billy Corgan, Smashing Pumpkins.”

    “Homer Simpson, smiling politely.”

    —the Simpsons


  121. song_and_dance_man
    122 | November 23, 2009 4:38 pm

    @ vagabond trader:

    I would load the buggers with pork loins.


  122. lobo91
    123 | November 23, 2009 4:38 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    Here are directions for building one out of office supplies.


  123. coldwarrior
    124 | November 23, 2009 4:39 pm

    davehm wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:
    I think the e-mail/data leak was a Martin Luther moment!

    the timing on that leak was a godsend alright…i’d love to know who did it.

    so that the hackers nailing the 99 thesis to the door!


  124. Silhouette
    125 | November 23, 2009 4:39 pm

    I launched my own crusade against the Church of Global Warming. On “lights out” night, we turned all ours on.

    Of course, we’ve already won the battle of Global Warming. They had to call it Climate Change. Big news today in a UN report that CO2 percentages are at a high. But while they are trumping that as an “Ah ha!” moment, I was wondering how they squared that with the recent cool years. If CO2 is going up but temps down, that would seem to poo-poo their theory.


  125. lobo91
    126 | November 23, 2009 4:40 pm

    @ davehm:

    According to CJ and the WaPo, it was a “nontroversy.”

    Nothing to see here…move along…


  126. coldwarrior
    127 | November 23, 2009 4:40 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:
    Here are directions for building one out of office supplies.

    fabulous!

    LOL


  127. buzzsawmonkey
    128 | November 23, 2009 4:40 pm

    Silhouette wrote:

    the recent cool years

    Like, hey, Daddy-o, what’s shakin’?


  128. coldwarrior
    129 | November 23, 2009 4:42 pm

    Silhouette wrote:

    I launched my own crusade against the Church of Global Warming. On “lights out” night, we turned all ours on.
    Of course, we’ve already won the battle of Global Warming. They had to call it Climate Change. Big news today in a UN report that CO2 percentages are at a high. But while they are trumping that as an “Ah ha!” moment, I was wondering how they squared that with the recent cool years. If CO2 is going up but temps down, that would seem to poo-poo their theory.

    i’ve said it once, i’ll say it again: if someone were to enter his masters thesis defense and treat the data the way the agw people treated theirs, he would be laughed out of his defense and told not to come back.


  129. Silhouette
    130 | November 23, 2009 4:42 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Like, hey, Daddy-o, what’s shakin’?

    Like, you so can’t sit at our lunch table.


  130. bellamags
    131 | November 23, 2009 4:42 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    “Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage”. -- Smashing Pumpkins.


  131. lobo91
    132 | November 23, 2009 4:43 pm

    @ Silhouette:

    If CO2 is going up but temps down, that would seem to poo-poo their theory.

    As CJ would say,

    Burn the witch!


  132. Silhouette
    133 | November 23, 2009 4:43 pm

    And the topic has moved on since then, but here is the goddess with many breasts I was thinking about.

    At the Vatican museum, believe it or not.


  133. buzzsawmonkey
    134 | November 23, 2009 4:44 pm

    Silhouette wrote:

    Like, you so can’t sit at our lunch table.

    Only squares eat lunch, man.


  134. davehm
    135 | November 23, 2009 4:44 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    so that the hackers whistle blower nailing the 99 thesis to the door!

    yep!


  135. bellamags
    136 | November 23, 2009 4:46 pm

    @ Silhouette:

    Those are some gross looking boobs.


  136. song_and_dance_man
    137 | November 23, 2009 4:46 pm

    @ Silhouette:

    I answered you earlier. That is Diana of Ephesus.


  137. buzzsawmonkey
    138 | November 23, 2009 4:46 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    so that the hackers nailing the 99 thesis to the door!

    Get with the computer age. Nowadays, you nail the Theseus to the Mini-Tower.


  138. Silhouette
    139 | November 23, 2009 4:47 pm

    You can’t really smash a pumpkin, you can only turn it into squash.


  139. coldwarrior
    140 | November 23, 2009 4:48 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    so that the hackers nailing the 99 thesis to the door!
    Get with the computer age. Nowadays, you nail the Theseus to the Mini-Tower.

    schweet!

    and with that. i gotta go.

    really early day tomorrow.

    bye


  140. lobo91
    141 | November 23, 2009 4:49 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Probably use Post-It Notes, rather than nailing it, too.


  141. buzzsawmonkey
    142 | November 23, 2009 4:49 pm

    Silhouette wrote:

    You can’t really smash a pumpkin, you can only turn it into squash.

    You can stuff a whole beef with pumpkins, but that depends on whose ox is being gourd.


  142. Silhouette
    143 | November 23, 2009 4:51 pm

    @ song_and_dance_man:

    The one statue that is a fountain is disturbing.


  143. Silhouette
    144 | November 23, 2009 4:56 pm

    Are y’all watching the ACORN scandal unfold? Latest; California said they’d investigate, and then next you know ACORN San Diego threw out tons of files. Their explanation is that they were cleaning up to get new phones (what?) and that private forms accidentally were thrown out with what was supposed to be just pamphlets and such.


  144. davehm
    145 | November 23, 2009 4:57 pm

    I really think Joe Kennedy made a deal with the devil, just look at how many 1st borns died tragically out of that family.


  145. snork
    146 | November 23, 2009 4:58 pm

    @ Silhouette:

    That’s what’s so incoherent about it. Chuckles had a thread a while ago about how CO2 is the highest in 23 bazillion jillion years. So what? As you say, that weakens the argument, when the CO2 keeps steadily climbing, and the temperature doesn’t.

    Boy’s as sharp as a bowling ball. Doesn’t even see it when he’s destroying his own argument.


  146. davehm
    147 | November 23, 2009 4:58 pm

    @ Silhouette:

    At least the Clintons were smart enough to use shredders.


  147. Eliana
    148 | November 23, 2009 4:59 pm

    @ davehm:

    Funny, the virgin birth was planned all the way back to Genesis 3:15, God said to Satan the He was going to “put an enmity between you and the women and between your seed and her seed” her seed? it’s a reference to the virgin birth.

    Genesis 3:15 has nothing whatever to do with a birth that would happen roughly 3800 years later.

    “Your seed” means “your (the snake’s) offspring.”

    “Her seed” means “her (the woman he tricked) offspring.”

    Women who become mothers do tend to have offspring.


  148. lobo91
    149 | November 23, 2009 5:03 pm

    @ snork:

    Boy’s as sharp as a bowling ball. Doesn’t even see it when he’s destroying his own argument.

    That would require him to actually understand his own argument.

    Ctrl-C makes everyone a climate scientist…


  149. lobo91
    150 | November 23, 2009 5:05 pm

    @ davehm:

    At least the Clintons were smart enough to use shredders.

    Someone’s going to insert a provision into the health care bill giving ACORN millions to buy shredders as a result.

    Just watch.


  150. buzzsawmonkey
    151 | November 23, 2009 5:05 pm

    @ Eliana:

    One thing I have learned over the years is that Christians read the Torah very differently from Jews; things which Jews take as metaphoric are read literally, and things which Jews take literally are read metaphorically.

    In the interest of interfaith harmony, I generally attempt to avoid discussing such things, as they lead to pointless argument; every religion has its own doctrines, after all. I make an exception, as in #108 above, when material cannot be properly understood without some cross-reference—but I do such things in the full knowledge that these things will more than likely be ignored or dismissed.


  151. davehm
    152 | November 23, 2009 5:05 pm

    @ Eliana:

    Women don’t have seed, men do :)

    The very next line in that verse “He shall bruise your head and you shall bruise His heal”

    This is a reference to Christ, that He would be born of a virgin and have victory over Satan.


  152. buzzsawmonkey
    153 | November 23, 2009 5:07 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    Ctrl-C makes everyone a climate scientist…

    Climate change is mountin’
    
Hear polar bears scream

    Forcing climate stasis

    Is an insane dream

    --”The Sound of Moonbat”


  153. 154 | November 23, 2009 5:11 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Agreed, Christians and Jews have much in common. We should not discuss what divides us unless it’s explaining what we believe.

    Anyway good for the Catholic Church, now it is time to do this to other politicians.


  154. davehm
    155 | November 23, 2009 5:13 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Maybe there will be an “operative” in ACORN to share some email data info?


  155. song_and_dance_man
    156 | November 23, 2009 5:13 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    And some of us of the Christian persuasion study for understanding the written law as it relates to what we believe as step children.


  156. davehm
    157 | November 23, 2009 5:15 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    Agreed, Christians and Jews have much in common. We should not discuss what divides us unless it’s explaining what we believe.
    Anyway good fro the Catholic Church, now it is time to do this to other politicians.

    But I just busted out my Hebrew dictionary :)


  157. 158 | November 23, 2009 5:17 pm

    @ davehm:

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!


  158. bellamags
    159 | November 23, 2009 5:22 pm

    I got this from a website called GayPatriot. They did a piece about Palin Derangement Syndrome. This comment if from someone called. Ashpenaz. I thought this was a very telling, true and interesting perspective.

    “Imagine if the first homosexual VP candidate came out and said, “I’m against gay marriage–I prefer to call them covenants because I think same-sex relationships have a different dynamic than homosexual relationships. I also think that many in the gay community are using the marriage issue to push a sexual liberationist agenda. I plan to work hard, as VP, to get rid of the drugs, STDs, and exploitation of youth that run rampant in the gay ghetto and Pride parades. I, and my partner, Jason Statham, work hard at our lifelong, sexually exclusive, publicly accountable relationship, and we hope that becomes the norm for same-sex couples. We both will appear at ‘abstinence-only’ rallies for young homosexuals to encourage them to wait for their covenant-partner to have sex.” Do you think that the first homosexual VP, if he spoke like this, would get any backlash from the press?”


  159. buzzsawmonkey
    160 | November 23, 2009 5:23 pm

    song_and_dance_man wrote:

    And some of us of the Christian persuasion study for understanding the written law as it relates to what we believe as step children.

    Not trying to dump on anyone here; I’m merely trying to remind people that if Christians read the Bible as Jews do….they’d be Jews. Likewise, if Jews read the Bible as Christians do, they’d be Christians. I can live with that; we all should be able to, with mutual respect.

    It is sometimes necessary to do a little cross-referencing, as I have said; I would wager that the concept of Moshiach ben Yosef/Moshiach ben David (#108 above) is unfamiliar to most Christians, merely because it was also unfamiliar to me, as a Jew, until I started getting into religious arcana as an adult, and my experience is that Christians are generally (though less so than formerly) unfamiliar with the arcana of Jewish beliefs. I brought it up because it is, perhaps, useful for Christians to remember that there are a lot of things in the Gospels which were designed to reference Jewish belief which have been forgotten/elided over time.

    I’m not, however, about to try and argue a Christian into a Jewish understanding of the Torah (“Old Testament”)—though I may take the time to acquaint them with it. Arguing them into a Jewish understanding would be proselytization; acquainting them with it is something for them to marvel at, or not—to take or leave as they choose.


  160. 161 | November 23, 2009 5:25 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    As a Catholic I find that fair. Your just giving your interpretation and we whether we agree or not, you spoke your piece.

    It’s all food!


  161. AndyMacOP
    162 | November 23, 2009 5:25 pm

    myselfandi wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    I was born and raised Catholic, went to Catholic school, went to church etc. Now am divorced and cannot be remarried because I wont annul the marriage because that would make my children bastards in the eyes of the church. so I am a believer in 90% of Catholic teachings but the divorce thing bugs me.

    Not even close to the teachings of the Church. Please study up on this subject, you will be happy you did.


  162. Eliana
    163 | November 23, 2009 5:26 pm

    @ davehm:

    Women don’t have seed, men do.

    The very next line in that verse “He shall bruise your head and you shall bruise His heal”

    This is a reference to Christ, that He would be born of a virgin and have victory over Satan.

    The translation from the Hebrew is “offspring,” not sperm.

    The meaning of the line “He will pound your head and you will bite his heel” is this:

    Homiletically, the Sages derive from this description the proper tactics in the eternal war between man and the Evil Inclination, which is symbolized by the serpent. The serpent seduces the Jew to trample the commandments with his heel, and the Jew can prevail by using his head, meaning the study of Torah.

    It has nothing to do with a birth 3800 years later.


  163. buzzsawmonkey
    164 | November 23, 2009 5:29 pm

    @ AndyMacOP:

    “May divorce be with you.”

    —the Archbishop of Kenobi


  164. bellamags
    165 | November 23, 2009 5:33 pm

    @ Rodan:

    FB chat freezes up allll the time.


  165. AndyMacOP
    166 | November 23, 2009 5:33 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    <<>>


  166. AndyMacOP
    167 | November 23, 2009 5:34 pm

    @ AndyMacOP:
    that was supposed to be a long groaning sound.


  167. davehm
    168 | November 23, 2009 5:35 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Yes I can understand what you are saying, having a good understanding of Jewish traditions is something that a bible teacher would have to hone up on. the New Testament is full of Old Testament references that have to be studied. I’m currently teaching in the gospel of Matthew on Sunday morning, Matthew’s (Levi) gospel was written for a Jewish audience and quotes the Old Testament more than all the other gospels combined, so understanding a Jewish wedding and how they were preformed 2000 years ago is just one example of things that have to be learned.


  168. buzzsawmonkey
    169 | November 23, 2009 5:35 pm

    @ AndyMacOP:

    Not sure what the carets mean, but you surely couldn’t expect someone to pass up a setup like that.


  169. bellamags
    170 | November 23, 2009 5:36 pm

    Martha Stewart can suck it.


  170. snork
    171 | November 23, 2009 5:36 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    I usually stay out of this religious stuff, but I think a big part of the Jewish/Christian dichotomy is the King James translation. A serious Christian student of the Bible should 1) preferably learn Hebrew, and read the original Hebrew, or failing that, 2) get a modern translation of the Torah directly into modern English.

    Of course, the NT has to be dealt with separately.


  171. davehm
    172 | November 23, 2009 5:38 pm

    @ Eliana:

    I’ll have to disagree with you on that one. Isaiah 7:14 also speaks of a virgin birth.


  172. song_and_dance_man
    173 | November 23, 2009 5:39 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    There was a failure in my reply to explain my thoughts thoroughly. It is apparent, by just looking at the state of Christendom today and back to the time its central focus was vanquished by Titus, that it has moved radically away from it roots. And those roots lay in its heritage. And that means the Jew and all that entails.

    What many Christians forget, through ignorance of history, tradition and early interpretations of the scriptures, is our faith, the Christian variety, was based on the ascension of the Hebrew through the centuries from the time of promise to Abraham, and the fact Yeshua was also a Jew, who practiced ancient Judaism, as did his early followers. Granted, they brought a new twist to the accepted interpretation of the Law and Prophets in their time, but they were Jews nonethelesss.

    Christians, in an overwhelming majority, through the centuries, have moved away from what it really means to be a follower of one who rose from the nation of Israel and all that follows with his teaching about the Law and his heritage. I for one wish we would move back to the small beginnings.


  173. bellamags
    174 | November 23, 2009 5:41 pm

    I’m going for a walk with my dachshund and my dad. See ya’ll tomorrow.


  174. Eliana
    175 | November 23, 2009 5:42 pm

    @ davehm:

    I’ll have to disagree with you on that one. Isaiah 7:14 also speaks of a virgin birth.

    No, it doesn’t.

    In context, the passages talks about a young woman who was expecting a baby. Young women have been expecting babies and delivering babies (not all, but many) since the beginning of mankind.

    I know you get excited about teaching the Jewish Bible to Christians, but you don’t know the Jewish Bible as Jews know it. You only know it from the perspective of another religion that isn’t Judaism.

    I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t confront Jews here with claims to know our own Jewish Bible in ways that contradict our own Jewish religion. You don’t see us doing this to you.


  175. song_and_dance_man
    176 | November 23, 2009 5:42 pm

    @ song_and_dance_man:

    Well I fouled up the cadence a bit, here and there, but the point should be clear.


  176. buzzsawmonkey
    177 | November 23, 2009 5:45 pm

    @ snork:

    The KJV is wrong, as I understand it, in a number of areas—and, at the same time, it is my understanding that it is accurate in certain areas that are nowadays misinterpreted because people don’t understand English which was common speech back in the day, but now semi-archaic.

    As an example, let me point out that the “thees” and “thous” which pepper the KJV are nowadays considered harbingers of formality and solemnity, but “thee” and “thou” were, back when the KJV was written, the informal and intimate form of address—the “tu” as opposed to the “su” which one still sees in modern-day Spanish. In other words, what people today experience as deeply formalized and solemn language was, to the KJV translators (and to the readers of the Torah/”Old Testament” in the original) a very close, personal, and intimate form of address between the Deity and His people.

    I mention this merely to make people consider that, if we can so misunderstand the use of our own language at a mere remove of 500 years, how very difficult it is to read a document written thousands of years before that in a wholly different language with a wholly different alphabet.


  177. Eliana
    178 | November 23, 2009 5:46 pm

    People can believe whatever they want. There isn’t a problem in the world when it comes to interpretations of the Jewish Bible. People can see it all sorts of ways and they’re free to teach other people all sorts of things. It’s perfectly ok.

    It bothers me a lot when someone who is NOT a Jew starts to tell Jews what our own Bible means (in ways that contradict our religion).

    It borders on proselytizing, IMO.


  178. 179 | November 23, 2009 5:46 pm

    @ bellamags:

    Yup and crashes my Firebox.


  179. 180 | November 23, 2009 5:48 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    The problem with Reform Judaism is, first, that it is a thin gruel of watered-down Judaism, and second, that it instituted, on its own, the doctrine of patrilineal descent—that anyone who had one Jewish parent is a Jew. This flies in the face of over 2000 years of Jews abiding by the rule of matrilineal descent, and it means that many people claiming to be Jews who were born into families that are within the Reform movement are not, in fact, Jews.

    IIRC, patrilineal descent is biblical, while matrilineal descent is not. One place where, oddly enough, the Reformed are more orthodox than the Orthodox (somewhat).


  180. song_and_dance_man
    181 | November 23, 2009 5:49 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    That is correct. There is no way to accurately translate words that have deeper meaning when taken in context from the original Hebrew. That is why the commentaries of both the sages and those on our side are most valuable companion resources.


  181. buzzsawmonkey
    182 | November 23, 2009 5:51 pm

    song_and_dance_man wrote:

    Christians, in an overwhelming majority, through the centuries, have moved away from what it really means to be a follower of one who rose from the nation of Israel and all that follows with his teaching about the Law and his heritage. I for one wish we would move back to the small beginnings.

    Me, I admire the Christians who try and get to the root of things—and wish more Jews would do the same.

    FWIW, while we may occasionally talk past each other (as I have observed, the Internet can be an incredible means for miscommunication as well as communication), I don’t think we’ve ever quarreled on subjects of this nature. One of the things I was grateful for elsewhere, before the purges, was the ability to meet across doctrinal lines and kick things around in an atmosphere of mutual respect.


  182. davehm
    183 | November 23, 2009 5:52 pm

    @ Eliana:

    A young women giving birth isn’t a sign at all, young women give birth all the time, Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord will give you a sign: behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and you shall call His name Immanuel”


  183. Eliana
    184 | November 23, 2009 5:53 pm

    @ tqcincinnatus:

    IIRC, patrilineal descent is biblical, while matrilineal descent is not. One place where, oddly enough, the Reformed are more orthodox than the Orthodox (somewhat).

    Tribal designation is patrilineal. This is why the priesthood can only be passed from father to son.

    It goes all the way back to Abraham that his first born son to an Egyptian woman was not the proper heir of his spiritual legacy because the boy was not born to a Hebrew woman.

    His Hebrew wife (Sarah) is the reason why Abraham’s spiritual legacy was given to his second born son, Isaac (who was born of a Hebrew/Jewish mother).


  184. davehm
    185 | November 23, 2009 5:56 pm

    @ Eliana:
    @ Eliana:

    I am not confronting you or proselytizing you, nor do I fell threatened in anyway and neither should you :)


  185. buzzsawmonkey
    186 | November 23, 2009 5:56 pm

    tqcincinnatus wrote:

    IIRC, patrilineal descent is biblical, while matrilineal descent is not. One place where, oddly enough, the Reformed are more orthodox than the Orthodox (somewhat).

    I’m not an authority on how the Sages derived matrilineal descent—other than the fact that you always know who the mother is, which is pretty practical—but I would have to say that the Reform Movement’s very much latter-day adoption of patrilineal as well as matrilineal descent is anything but Biblical. Rather, it was the religious equivalent of an amnesty program for illegal aliens.


  186. Lolly Gator
    187 | November 23, 2009 5:57 pm

    AndyMacOP wrote:

    myselfandi wrote:
    @ Iron Fist:
    I was born and raised Catholic, went to Catholic school, went to church etc. Now am divorced and cannot be remarried because I wont annul the marriage because that would make my children bastards in the eyes of the church. so I am a believer in 90% of Catholic teachings but the divorce thing bugs me.
    Not even close to the teachings of the Church. Please study up on this subject, you will be happy you did.

    I went through an anullment about 9yrs ago.

    My children were not consider bastards, they were already here.

    I asked this question of the Bishop`s assistant, I was assured the church would not see my children as bastards.

    My girls are all practicing believers and knew how important my annullment was to me.

    I can assure you I was able to prove that he had never meant his vows!

    It has brought me a great amount of peace.

    For what it`s worth….It was exactly what I needed (for me).


  187. snork
    188 | November 23, 2009 5:58 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    And even though Hebrew has been revived from the status of a Liturgical language, there’s a lot of uncertainty about how closely modern Hebrew tracks ancient Hebrew, and in some cases, there are ancient Hebrew words, where the meaning is completely unknown. So you’re right, even the best of translations from Hebrew into modern English are questionable.


  188. Eliana
    189 | November 23, 2009 5:59 pm

    @ Eliana:

    It should be said at the outset that the word “virgin” does not appear in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word ha’almah as “a virgin.” This Hebrew word ha’almah does not mean “a virgin.” It means “the young woman,” with no implication of virginity. Most modern Christian Bibles1 have corrected this erroneous translation, and their Bibles now correctly translate this Hebrew word as “the young woman.” Let’s now examine the context of Isaiah 7:14.

    The seventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the military crisis that was confronting King Ahaz of the Kingdom of Judah. In about the year 732 B.C.E. the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Syria. These two armies had laid siege to Jerusalem. The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. Chapter seven relates how God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand — the Almighty would protect him, their deliverance was assured, and these two hostile armies would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem. In Isaiah 7:1-16 we read,

    king of Judah, that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, marched on Jerusalem to wage war against it, and he could not wage war against it. It was told to the House of David, saying, “Aram has allied itself with Ephraim,” and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind. The Lord said to Isaiah, “Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer’s field, and you shall say to him, ‘Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah. Since Aram planned harm to you, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying: “Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us.” So said the Lord God, “Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass . . . .” ‘ ” The Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, “Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God; ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above.” Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord.” Then he said, “Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well? Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign: Behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.”

    It is clear from this chapter that Isaiah’s declaration was a prophecy of the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two armies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a virgin birth more than 700 years later. If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus’ birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would have been long dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense.

    Verses 15-16 state that by the time this child reaches the age of maturity (“he knows to reject bad and choose good”), the two
    warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed. We see, in II Kings 15-16, that this prophecy was fulfilled when these
    two kings were suddenly assassinated. With an understanding of the context of Isaiah 7:14 alone, it is evident that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not referring to Jesus or to any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that Ahaz and his people would enjoy from their impending destruction at the hands of these two enemies, the northern Kingdom of Israel and Syria.


  189. davehm
    190 | November 23, 2009 5:59 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    FWIW, while we may occasionally talk past each other (as I have observed, the Internet can be an incredible means for miscommunication as well as communication), I don’t think we’ve ever quarreled on subjects of this nature. One of the things I was grateful for elsewhere, before the purges, was the ability to meet across doctrinal lines and kick things around in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

    You’re right about that, if we aren’t careful we get the wrong impression…texting emails etc. That’s why I take posts with a grain of salt and go heavy with God’s grace.


  190. Eliana
    191 | November 23, 2009 6:02 pm

    @ Eliana:

    Oops -- that response was meant for davehm.


  191. 192 | November 23, 2009 6:02 pm

    Eliana wrote:

    Tribal designation is patrilineal. This is why the priesthood can only be passed from father to son.

    Exactly. In fact, throughout the Hebrew scriptures, nearly all descent seems to be through the patrilineal line. This worked the same way for those who were *excluded* from the nation of Israel. For example, children of a Moabite or Ammonite father (the terms in Hebrew are specifically male in gender) were to be excluded from the congregation for ten generations. At the same time, we see Ruth, a Moabitess, readily accepted not only into the nation, but also into the direct lineage of David, and then Jesus on down the line -- even though this occurred during the period of the judged, which was not to far removed the giving of the Law itself on Sinai.

    I think what BSM is getting at with the Reformed has to do with the wily nilly intermarriage with Gentile women, such as Ezra and Nehemiah would have disapproved. A woman willing to join herself to Israel, come under the wings of her God, and join the nation is a bit different from someone who probably has no interest in that, and is just marrying the Jewish guy because he’s cute or makes a lot of money.


  192. Eliana
    193 | November 23, 2009 6:04 pm

    @ snork:

    So you’re right, even the best of translations from Hebrew into modern English are questionable.

    Artscroll has done an amazing job with translating from Hebrew to modern English. This organization is well respected throughout the Orthodox Jewish world.


  193. song_and_dance_man
    194 | November 23, 2009 6:06 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    I too have admiration for you and others who can discuss this with no hint of animus. One of the things I really enjoyed about 1.0, and more so here, is we can talk about things some say should not be discussed in polite company. Religion and Politics.

    And, we have quarreled before over at 1.0 about doctrinal issues involving the Law and Prophets. You, babba and I, with the addition of others who jumped in, had at least two rather civil discussions about homosexuality and its relation or reference in the Law. And as I recall they ended in mutual respect, and we moved on.


  194. 195 | November 23, 2009 6:08 pm

    Eliana

    Just wondering, have you ever told anybody what’s in the koran and what it means?

    Ha’Shem gave/entrusted the Tenakh to the descendants of Israel and they in turn were to be a “light unto the nations”. Sounds like a commandment to proselytize. Unless of course you hold Talmud as a higher authority than Torah, then never mind.


  195. 196 | November 23, 2009 6:09 pm

    Eliana wrote:

    With an understanding of the context of Isaiah 7:14 alone, it is evident that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not referring to Jesus or to any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that Ahaz and his people would enjoy from their impending destruction at the hands of these two enemies, the northern Kingdom of Israel and Syria.

    Not necessarily. In fact, the New Testament writers who utilised Isaiah 7:14 the way they did were using standard Jewish exegetical practices for their day. Further, there’s a lot more to the issue than can be settled with a few paragraphs of argument.


  196. Eliana
    197 | November 23, 2009 6:10 pm

    @ tqcincinnatus:

    In fact, throughout the Hebrew scriptures, nearly all descent seems to be through the patrilineal line.

    Only from a tribal perspective.

    Going all the way back to Abraham, a child’s mother is more important for the child’s connection to the Jewish people spiritually.

    At the same time, we see Ruth, a Moabitess, readily accepted not only into the nation, but also into the direct lineage of David

    Ruth was a convert. She would not have been accepted into the nation if she hadn’t converted.

    After converting, she was 100% Jewish (as all converts are if they go through a proper Orthodox Jewish conversion).

    She was the mother of a male child whose descendant was King David. King David himself had a Jewish mother who was not a descendant of Ruth, by the way.


  197. buzzsawmonkey
    198 | November 23, 2009 6:10 pm

    How the Snake Got His Fur


    So, we were talking at kiddush after services two Shabbats past, about the Haftorah--the portion of the Prophets read after the Torah reading--which deals with King David, on in years, being given Abishag the Shunnamite to “warm” him because he is so aged he “can get no heat.” 

The Hebrew says, “…but the King did not know her,” which the Artscroll translator translates as “but the king was not intimate with her.” But, the rest of the story tells of how Adonijah makes a bid for the throne--and several times, as a theme, there is repeated that “the King did not know.” 


    I was objecting to this translation on the grounds that it erases several layers of meaning. Maybe the King did not have sex with her, but “the King does not know” also suggests that perhaps the king was so out of it he did not “know” her, i.e., was hardly aware of her--also that the King, or those who agreed to place her with him, did not “know” who she was, that she was, perhaps, part of the plot to keep the King busy while Adonijah made his bid for the throne. That initial use of “the King did not know her” sets the ground for the ongoing reiteration of “the King does not know” about Adonijah’s bid to ensure that he instead of Solomon will succeed. 


    So, we’re talking about the layers of meaning in the Hebrew, starting with this bit about “the King does not know,” and my friend observes that there is a lot of wordplay in the Torah.



    As an example of this, he cited the story of Adam and Eve, where it says, “they were both naked, and they were not ashamed,” and the next line deals with the snake and says, “the snake was the most cunning of the animals…” 

This abrupt transition, I should say, has always bothered me, because the snake just sort of drops into the story, never having been mentioned before. Well, here’s the thing: the Torah uses the same word for “naked” and “cunning”: “arumim” (plural) for the man and woman, and “arum” (singular) for the snake. 

Now, why would the same word mean “naked” and “cunning?” After all, when one is naked one is unconcealed, and when one is cunning one is engaged in concealment. Seems odd, doesn’t it?


    Well, it’s not--because the same word can apply to both things with the same meaning. The snake is the most naked of the animals in the garden: it has no hair, no fur, no feathers; only skin. And it even sheds its skin; you can’t get more naked than that. 

So what you have in the Garden of Eden story is one of those stories where the animal that does not get what the other animals get--fur, feathers--out of envy, decides to stir up trouble. For a more modern example, think of the fairy who isn’t invited to the christening in “Sleeping Beauty”; think of Loki the trickster stirring up trouble in Asgaard because he is envious of what the others have. 


    So the snake convinces Eve, then Adam, to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which makes them aware that they are naked. Well, “knowledge,” as we know, also refers to sexual intercourse. For that matter, “snake” has for millennia been a euphemism/metaphor for the male organ; fur metaphors have been used for the female organ.

 The story of the eating from the Tree--of Knowledge of Good and Evil--relates to the “snake” getting the “fur” it envies in the other animals, i.e., to sexual intercourse, and to the awareness that sex can, in fact, be used for good or for evil.


    The story of Adam and Eve and the Snake tells “how the snake got his fur”--how sex came into the world, for good and for evil, by the “most naked” of the animals working off his envy at the clothing which the other animals received at Creation.

    Note, by the way, that there is a Talmudic tradition that prior to the Garden of Eden story the snake had limbs--otherwise, why should G-d decree as punishment that the snake would henceforth go on his belly? This is in keeping with the tradition that G-d rewards and punishes “measure for measure”--in this case, G-d saying to the snake, “You think you’re naked now? You’ve just lost your limbs!”

    You can draw an analogy between the Garden of Eden story and CS Lewis’ story of the Magician’s Nephew taking an apple from a walled garden to protect Narnia. You may remember that in that story the garden has a sign that says, 


    Come in by my gold gate or not at all

    Take of my fruit for others, or forbear

    For those who steal, and those who climb my wall

    Will find their heart’s desire and find despair.


    One may enjoy “knowledge,” in the sexual sense, for good or for evil, and I think that Lewis obliquely alludes to that. The Tree that enables you to use sex (knowledge & nakedness) not innocently, but for purposes of jealousy, envy, manipulation, and powerplay.

 You don’t have to use sex this way--but having one’s eyes opened to both the good and the evil that “knowledge” can do does make one godlike, and does endow one with free choice, which is a godlike aspect.


    In any event, the idea of the snake as “the most naked” is not something that I have ever previously heard discussed--and certainly, the “Just So Story” aspect of “how the snake got his fur” makes the snake’s abrupt appearance in the story much more logical.



  198. Eliana
    199 | November 23, 2009 6:12 pm

    @ tqcincinnatus:

    In fact, the New Testament writers who utilised Isaiah 7:14 the way they did were using standard Jewish exegetical practices for their day.

    They formed a different religion.

    What they did has nothing to do with Judaism or the real meaning of the Jewish Bible to the Jewish people who have been studying it for 3300 years.


  199. davehm
    200 | November 23, 2009 6:12 pm

    @ Eliana:

    I didn’t read your whole post yes in the Hebrew it means young maiden but still what kind of sign is that? The Lord said He was going to give us a sign that a Son was going to be born of a virgin.

    O.k. I just read it, and to me it’s clear. The Lord is giving king Ahaz the hope of salvation in the mist of all the craziness, I would have to say there is some good word in all that, looking beyond our situation and looking ahead to Jesus Christ. Yes, the Lord did protect Jerusalem but He didn’t use a child to do it.


  200. song_and_dance_man
    201 | November 23, 2009 6:14 pm

    This will only interest Christians and to some extent biologists. I heard one give a sermon where he talked about the Paternity of Yeshua and it centered around the blood. He claimed, and I have no idea it this is true, that the blood of a child is transferred, through conception, from the father. That is, the blood type is determined by the father of the child. His conclusion was, because Mary conceived Yeshua miraculously, the blood he shed was the blood of the Father.

    It was a most fascinating sermon.


  201. buzzsawmonkey
    202 | November 23, 2009 6:16 pm

    Eliana wrote:

    They formed a different religion.

    What they did has nothing to do with Judaism or the real meaning of the Jewish Bible to the Jewish people who have been studying it for 3300 years.

    You are being unjust to both Jews and Christians.

    The Christian religion represents a schism in Judaism nearly 2000 years ago—but you can see almost the same thing happening with the declarations today in Lubavitch that the late Rebbe was the Moshiach. The original Christians—Jews, all of them—would have been the equivalent, in their day, of, say, followers of Shlomo Carlebach (who was accounted a near-apostate by many Orthodox Jews in his lifetime), and whose followers took their beliefs in a different direction after the death of their inspiration.


  202. 203 | November 23, 2009 6:16 pm

    Eliana wrote:

    Only from a tribal perspective.
    Going all the way back to Abraham, a child’s mother is more important for the child’s connection to the Jewish people spiritually.

    While that may be tradition, I do not see how it is supported scripturally, which makes me think it is being anachronised backwards.

    Ruth was a convert. She would not have been accepted into the nation if she hadn’t converted.

    Yes, that was my point.


  203. snork
    204 | November 23, 2009 6:16 pm

    @ Eliana:

    My point to Buzz was that while you can’t do any better than the best, there are still some questions, even among the experts. I’m not saying that any of it is inaccurate; I’m saying that we can’t be completely sure about certain things.


  204. Eliana
    205 | November 23, 2009 6:17 pm

    @ davehm:

    O.k. I just read it, and to me it’s clear. The Lord is giving king Ahaz the hope of salvation in the mist of all the craziness, I would have to say there is some good word in all that, looking beyond our situation and looking ahead to Jesus Christ.

    According to your religion, anyway.

    You can think anything you want about the Jewish Bible, but what you say only has validity within your own religion’s doctrine.

    It has no impact on Judaism.


  205. song_and_dance_man
    206 | November 23, 2009 6:18 pm

    @ BenZacharia:

    That Israel would be a light to the nations does not mean proselytizing. It is more like a beacon that will draw others to the light. Hey, car dealerships understand this with the spotlights they use.


  206. davehm
    207 | November 23, 2009 6:19 pm

    @ song_and_dance_man:

    The beauty of this blog is that we can discuss things, you don’t find that in other places and yes there is respect and reverence when we do this.


  207. Eliana
    208 | November 23, 2009 6:20 pm

    @ tqcincinnatus:

    Only from a tribal perspective. Going all the way back to Abraham, a child’s mother is more important for the child’s connection to the Jewish people spiritually.

    While that may be tradition, I do not see how it is supported scripturally, which makes me think it is being anachronised backwards.

    What I described is in the scripture.

    Abraham’s first born son was thrown out of his tents. His spiritual legacy went to his second born son who had a Hebrew/Jewish mother.


  208. song_and_dance_man
    209 | November 23, 2009 6:20 pm

    @ tqcincinnatus:

    We must also remember that Yeshua, Paul and many of the other early followers were well versed in the written and oral Law.


  209. davehm
    210 | November 23, 2009 6:21 pm

    @ Eliana:

    It has no impact on Judaism.

    No it doesn’t, not in the physical sense.


  210. 211 | November 23, 2009 6:22 pm

    Eliana wrote:

    They formed a different religion.
    What they did has nothing to do with Judaism or the real meaning of the Jewish Bible to the Jewish people who have been studying it for 3300 years.

    Ah, but see? You can’t fairly say that. Just because they disagreed with the direction that Judaism has taken since 70 AD, and especially after the formulation of the Talmud between the 3rd and 6th centuries, does not negate their “Jewishness.”

    Peter, Paul, James, and John, were every bit as Jewish as any of the Rabbis of their day. Every bit. The way they exegeted the Bible was a standard practice in their time, even if it not now. The conclusions they drew from Scriptures were well within the acceptable milieu of Jewish interpretation of the Bible in their day. The notion that messianic expectations were not present in the Judaism of their day is a late, and unsupported, assertion.

    Yes, their message was taken to the Gentiles. But that’s because the prophets themselves said this would be so. Isaiah was quite vociferous that the Gentiles would take part in the blessings of Israel. Not that they would *replace* Israel, but that they would be a part of it -- just as Paul says happened in Romans 9.

    While you may disagree with what these early messianic believers held to -- and I certainly would not expect you not to -- what they believed cannot just be blithely dismissed by saying that they were a bunch of retards who didn’t understand the cultural and religious milieu that they were themselves a part of.


  211. Eliana
    212 | November 23, 2009 6:23 pm

    @ davehm:

    It has no impact on Judaism.

    No it doesn’t, not in the physical sense.

    Not in ANY sense.


  212. song_and_dance_man
    213 | November 23, 2009 6:25 pm

    @ Eliana:

    I’m curious. If we look at the roll call of descent in Genesis the father of the child is only referenced. How does that fit in with the idea that maternal heritage trumps the paternal?


  213. 214 | November 23, 2009 6:26 pm

    Eliana wrote:

    Abraham’s first born son was thrown out of his tents. His spiritual legacy went to his second born son who had a Hebrew/Jewish mother.

    That’s not the reason that Scripture gives, however, for the rejection of Ishmael, and the acceptance of Isaac. The issue was Abraham’s own faithfulness. Ishmael was the product of an union which was consummated in direct disobedience to the stipulations inherent in God’s promise to him. Isaac was the product an union of faith, which was the stimulation given to and about Abraham in the covenant made with him by God. Abraham was accounted righteous because he believed God -- and that most proximately had to do with the promise of the son of faith.


  214. Eliana
    215 | November 23, 2009 6:26 pm

    @ tqcincinnatus:

    Ah, but see? You can’t fairly say that. Just because they disagreed with the direction that Judaism has taken since 70 AD, and especially after the formulation of the Talmud between the 3rd and 6th centuries, does not negate their “Jewishness.”

    The “direction” that Judaism took was to remain Jewish.

    While you may disagree with what these early messianic believers held to – and I certainly would not expect you not to – what they believed cannot just be blithely dismissed by saying that they were a bunch of retards who didn’t understand the cultural and religious milieu that they were themselves a part of.

    Well, I didn’t say they were retards, but they took their own religious beliefs in a direction where Jews could not follow.

    Judaism remained Jewish rather than going along with them.


  215. song_and_dance_man
    216 | November 23, 2009 6:33 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    There are so few of us that can keep up with you. And the beer doesn’t help on my end.

    I will add this to that. Eve was deceived, but the Adam knew exactly what he was about to do and was influenced by Eve and not the serpent.


  216. davehm
    217 | November 23, 2009 6:33 pm

    @ Eliana:

    God promised Abraham and Sara a child and he would become a great nation. The promise wasn’t given to Abraham and Hagar but Sara said to Abraham go into her maidservant Hagar and conceive and what did we get?
    Ismael!!!

    God keeping with His promise Abraham and Sara had Isaac (laughter)
    In Gen 21:9 we see Ishmael scoffing at Isaac and that continues to this day.


  217. 218 | November 23, 2009 6:34 pm

    The schism didn’t occur until the Bar Kochba revolt, Rabbi Akiva declared the General to be the Moschiach and they lost a goodly portion of their army. Funny thing, were you still Jewish if you believed Akiva? Does it make Rabbi Akiva a Messianic Jew? How ’bout Schneerson? And the other 13 that have been acclaimed the Moschiach? Jewish non-Jewish? Who decides?


  218. 219 | November 23, 2009 6:34 pm

    Eliana wrote:

    The “direction” that Judaism took was to remain Jewish.

    True…but the reasoning is sort of circular. Judaism remained Jewish, because those who followed it defined themselves as Jews in contradistinction to those who had become Christians. I’m sure the early Jewish Christians probably thought of themselves as Jews, however. Paul definitely did, indeed, he was an Hebrew of the Hebrews, of the tribe of Benjamin, and a Pharisee as touching the Law.


  219. Eliana
    220 | November 23, 2009 6:34 pm

    @ tqcincinnatus:

    Ishmael was the product of an union which was consummated in direct disobedience to the stipulations inherent in God’s promise to him. Isaac was the product an union of faith, which was the stimulation given to and about Abraham in the covenant made with him by God. Abraham was accounted righteous because he believed God – and that most proximately had to do with the promise of the son of faith.

    Again, you’re talking about the view of the Jewish Bible from another religion.

    Abraham didn’t have mere “faith” in G-d. He KNEW G-d existed, as all Jews are required to know (even though we don’t get to speak to G-d personally). Sarah arranged the marriage of Abraham to Hagar so that a child would be born since she was barren.

    The covenant with G-d happened later. Isaac was conceived to Abraham and Sarah after the covenant.

    Jews are not bound by the beliefs of another religion.


  220. snork
    221 | November 23, 2009 6:37 pm

    song_and_dance_man wrote:

    That Israel would be a light to the nations does not mean proselytizing. It is more like a beacon that will draw others to the light

    Unfortunately, too many moonbat Jews take that to mean that they’re expected to be dogooders. And that always translates into political activity, which is always negative.

    A better interpretation would be Israel, who simply by being Israel, shines the light of civilization on a group of neighbors who prefer the darkness. That’s the true meaning of “light unto nations”.

    And the neighbors are screaming “shut off the damn light”.


  221. davehm
    222 | November 23, 2009 6:38 pm

    Eliana wrote:

    @ davehm:
    It has no impact on Judaism.
    No it doesn’t, not in the physical sense.

    Not in ANY sense.

    I disagree


  222. Eliana
    223 | November 23, 2009 6:38 pm

    @ tqcincinnatus:

    Judaism remained Jewish, because those who followed it defined themselves as Jews in contradistinction to those who had become Christians.

    The Jewish people didn’t need a new definition.

    Another religion was formed.

    Most of the Jewish people didn’t go along with it.

    Jews still exist with the same religion and commandments today.


  223. Eliana
    224 | November 23, 2009 6:41 pm

    @ davehm:

    I disagree

    You’re free to think whatever you want.

    Your thoughts have no impact of any kind on Judaism.


  224. buzzsawmonkey
    225 | November 23, 2009 6:42 pm

    @ song_and_dance_man:

    I think I’ve just received an extremely beautiful compliment, for which I thank you.

    If the discussion of how the snake got his fur is useful or enlightening in any way, I am glad.


  225. Eliana
    226 | November 23, 2009 6:43 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    By the way, did you see the story of the snake who was found (in Australia, I think) who was born with a foot?

    I’ve seen photos of it.


  226. davehm
    227 | November 23, 2009 6:44 pm

    @ Eliana:

    It has nothing to do with what I think.


  227. Eliana
    228 | November 23, 2009 6:45 pm

    @ davehm:

    It has nothing to do with what I think.

    Believe whatever you want.

    Your beliefs have NO impact on Judaism.


  228. jakee308
    229 | November 23, 2009 6:47 pm

    eliana
    By impact, I take you to mean that Christianity can and will have no influence over Judaism as a religious philosophy and in that you are correct.

    However, unlike in most of the rest of the world, in this country there has been NO government organized pogroms since it’s inception. A birth that owes much to the Jews in it’s founding principles.

    Principles which most Christians embrace and that can be seen as an expression of the teachings of Jesus. Teachings that surely were the offspring of his Judaic learning as a child (he is reported in the New Testament to be a prodigy and could be found arguing his beliefs with his elders).

    Although Christians can have no direct impact on Judaism as a religion, we are at present the only allies (I understand that this is a relatively recent position and that in the past it was just the reverse but it is what it is NOW) that Israel has and THAT has had and will have an impact on Judaism forevermore.


  229. 230 | November 23, 2009 6:48 pm

    Covenant was made in Gensis 15:18 Hagar shows up in chap 16. Covenant affirmed and restated in several verses in 17.


  230. Eliana
    231 | November 23, 2009 6:48 pm

    Here’s the photo of the snake born with a foot.

    It was born in China.

    Snake Born with a Foot -- Discovery Channel


  231. 232 | November 23, 2009 6:48 pm

    Eliana wrote:

    Again, you’re talking about the view of the Jewish Bible from another religion.
    Abraham didn’t have mere “faith” in G-d. He KNEW G-d existed, as all Jews are required to know (even though we don’t get to speak to G-d personally). Sarah arranged the marriage of Abraham to Hagar so that a child would be born since she was barren.
    The covenant with G-d happened later. Isaac was conceived to Abraham and Sarah after the covenant.
    Jews are not bound by the beliefs of another religion.

    Well, I’m just looking at what the Scriptures themselves have to say, and going from there!

    Abraham did have “faith” in God -- though please don’t interpret that term in the shallow sense that so much of American “Christendom” means when it uses it. The Scripture says that Abraham “believed in God” -- which is the essence of faith, for the word used is ‘aman, which has the idea of being established in something, being confirmed, or of finding something to be verified and trustworthy. Faith is a willing trust in God that takes Him at His word, which is what Abraham did. The passage is talking about a willingness on Abraham’s part to make a total commitment of his future wellbeing and disposition into God’s hands. It was this faith that the Scripture says was counted to Abraham for righteousness. In other words, it was by means of that willing trust and total commitment and loyalty to God that Abraham was counted as judicially pure before God.

    Indeed, the promise made to Abraham, and the confirmation of the covenant of promise, came before both Ishmael and Isaac. In Genesis 15, we see these things take place after the confirmation of Abraham’s faith and being declared righteous.


  232. song_and_dance_man
    233 | November 23, 2009 6:49 pm

    @ snork:

    I tend to think it is more to the effect that this great light is meant to illuminate the world about the one and only living and true God. This promise to Abraham-a light to the nations-was at a time when all had abandoned the oral traditions of Noah about whom God was, and the world then was steeped in idolatry. Its meaning, imho, is as a beacon to draw the world, or at least those willing, to return to belief in the God of Abraham.

    And the promise also included that Israel would be a blessing to all nations. The children of Abraham have divine purpose, and that is certain. This providential adventure of being chosen is why the Ishmael’s of the world hate them and us.


  233. 234 | November 23, 2009 6:51 pm

    Eliana wrote:

    Here’s the photo of the snake born with a foot.

    Quick -- somebody send this over to selrahC -- here’s the evidence he needs to prove evolution!


  234. snork
    235 | November 23, 2009 6:52 pm

    @ Eliana:

    I think it’s fair to say that Christianity had a lot of influence on Reform Judaism. And it also has a lot of cultural influence that is osmotically absorbed into people’s thinking, without them even realizing it.


  235. 236 | November 23, 2009 6:53 pm

    song_and_dance_man wrote:

    And the promise also included that Israel would be a blessing to all nations. The children of Abraham have divine purpose, and that is certain. This providential adventure of being chosen is why the Ishmael’s of the world hate them and us.

    My money’s on Israel, when all is said and done!


  236. davehm
    237 | November 23, 2009 6:53 pm

    Eliana wrote:

    @ davehm:
    It has nothing to do with what I think.
    Believe whatever you want.
    Your beliefs have NO impact on Judaism.

    It’s not what I believe.


  237. buzzsawmonkey
    238 | November 23, 2009 6:53 pm

    Eliana wrote:

    Here’s the photo of the snake born with a foot.

    It was born in China.

    I bet the foot was made of melamine.


  238. Eliana
    239 | November 23, 2009 6:55 pm

    @ BenZacharia:

    In Genesis 16:11, an angel from G-d tells Hagar that she will conceive a son and that G-d had heard her prayer.

    The covenant with G-d was ratified in Genesis 17. This is where Abraham was circumcised. In 17:15, G-d tells Abraham that he and Sarah will have a son.


  239. Eliana
    240 | November 23, 2009 6:56 pm

    @ davehm:

    It’s not what I believe.

    Think whatever you want.


  240. snork
    241 | November 23, 2009 6:57 pm

    @ song_and_dance_man:

    BUT

    Talk to a liberal Jew, and you’ll get a completely different spin. They insist that it means that they’re required to be dogooders community organizers.


  241. 242 | November 23, 2009 6:58 pm

    Bye all, I’ve got a squalling youngin’ who needs some attention!


  242. davehm
    243 | November 23, 2009 6:59 pm

    Eliana wrote:

    @ davehm:
    It’s not what I believe.
    Think whatever you want.

    It’s the true and living God who I know


  243. davehm
    244 | November 23, 2009 7:01 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Eliana wrote:
    Here’s the photo of the snake born with a foot.
    It was born in China.
    I bet the foot was made of melamine.

    probably some Chinese experiment gone wrong, or just a mutant!


  244. jakee308
    245 | November 23, 2009 7:03 pm

    BTW, Aren’t Kerry and Pelosi Catholics?

    I’d like to see THEIR Bishops do the same to them. Of course they may already HAVE but they haven’t said anything because THEY respect the privacy of the relationship of a person and their spiritual advisor (unlike pat) so unless John F’n Kerry or Nancy (I get free botox treatments) Pelosi decide to spew their guts in some cheap shot to get sympathy from their secular/atheist constituency, we won’t hear about it.

    I’m not Catholic so I can’t be certain but I believe that if you support abortion IN ANY FORM FOR ANY REASON then you aren’t really a Catholic anymore until you repent and withdraw that support.


  245. song_and_dance_man
    246 | November 23, 2009 7:04 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    It is the type of post that brings illumination to many who have problems interpreting the scriptures. Rambam and the other sages, and well as the prominent Christian commenters/scholars, understood the scriptures have deeper meaning that just what is being said on the surface, and it takes a lifetime from one less well mentally blessed to understand even a portion of the truth of the deep wisdom embodied in the words of those touched by God, from whom we get the thoughts of the Eternal.


  246. Eliana
    247 | November 23, 2009 7:05 pm

    @ davehm:

    It’s the true and living God who I know

    You have done His work by bringing billions of people to ethical monotheism.

    Jews have our own job given to us by G-d.


  247. jakee308
    248 | November 23, 2009 7:05 pm

    @ jakee308:
    Whoop, already covered. exsqueeze my redundancy.


  248. jakee308
    249 | November 23, 2009 7:12 pm

    @ song_and_dance_man:
    I wish I could read/interpret the Pentateuch/Torah/Bible in the original. It would be fascinating and enlightening.

    I have pointed out before the possibility of misinterpretation, typos and just plain meddling (I don’t think our climate change scientists are the first to bend the facts to fit a belief) that has resulted in errors in ALL works derived from the majority of the holy books of all religions.

    (yes, eliana, I remember about the identical wording etc. of an out of touch sect and a current Torah. I’m not going argue but I’m a skeptic)


  249. davehm
    250 | November 23, 2009 7:12 pm

    Eliana wrote:

    @ davehm:
    It’s the true and living God who I know
    You have done His work by bringing billions of people to ethical monotheism.
    Jews have our own job given to us by G-d.

    To salvation..The Lord stills has a plan for the nation of Israel, and He will this those who bless them and He will curse those who curse them.


  250. song_and_dance_man
    251 | November 23, 2009 7:14 pm

    @ tqcincinnatus:

    Agreed. We will prevail in the end.

    Do you have any thoughts about Jacobs trouble.


  251. song_and_dance_man
    252 | November 23, 2009 7:15 pm

    I need the edit feature back.


  252. song_and_dance_man
    253 | November 23, 2009 7:16 pm

    never mind, moving upthread.


  253. Eliana
    254 | November 23, 2009 7:20 pm

    @ davehm:

    G-d talked to us directly in the place where the entire nation heard Him at Mt. Sinai.

    G-d’s voice and the giving of the Torah to us trumps anything and everything any human being could possibly say to us about G-d’s plans for us. Our nation heard G-d himself at Mt. Sinai so we already have our path.

    Thanks anyway.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David