First time visitor? Learn more.

Palm Beach County Democratic Chairman apologizes and takes leave of absence after claiming that Christians want to slaughter the Jews

by Speranza ( 117 Comments › )
Filed under Christianity, Democratic Party, Hate Speech, Israel, Politics, Progressives at September 7th, 2012 - 2:30 pm

Memo to Mr. Siegel:  It is Muslims who want to slaughter the Jews (‘Itbah Al-Yahud’ or ‘Khaybar ya Yahod’  is usually their battle cry, meaning “Slaughter the Jews” and “Jews, Remember Khaybar!”). Can you imagine if a Republican had said something as stupidly bigoted as that?

by WPTV Web Team

Palm Beach County Democrats are calling for Mark Alan Siegel, the Palm Beach County Democratic Party Chairman to resign. Siegel is creating controversy on the sidelines of the party’s national convention in Charlotte, saying he believes Christians want Jews “slaughtered.”

“What he did was extremely inappropriate. There’s a certain line and when you cross that line, you have to do the right thing. If he wants to do the right thing, he needs to stepdown as Democratic Party Chairman officially,” says State Rep. Joseph Abruzzo, a Democrat  from Wellington.

Siegel agreed to take a leave of absence, but would not officially step down from his position as Chairman.

In an interview posted on the conservative website, PatriotUpdate.com , Siegel said, “I’m Jewish. I’m not a fan of any religion other than Judaism.” When asked if he’s not a fan of Christianity, Siegel responded, “No, I’m not. The Christians just want us to be there so we can be slaughtered and converted and bring on the second coming of Jesus Christ.”

Siegel went on to say, “They’re not our friends. They want Israel to pursue policies which are antithetical with its security and existence. The worst possible allies for the Jewish state are the fundamentalist Christians who want Jews to die and convert so they can bring on the second coming of their Lord. It is a false friendship. They are seeking their own ends and not ours.”

[......]

Local Jews and Christians are responding to his remarks.

“I don’t know any Christian who believes what he just said, let alone all Christians. I was very surprised and disappointed by his remarks,” says Dr. Tom Duncan, the President of Northwood University Florida, and an ordained minister.

“When someone speaks with such a broad paint brush, it can have very damaging effects between those who might identify with the label, but don’t agree with what was said,” says Temple Israel Rabbi Cookie Lea Olshein.

According to the Palm Beach Post, Siegel later apologized.

Here’s his statement: “I apologize to all Democrats and Floridians for my ill chosen words last night. After watching the interview I realize that what I said did not accurately make the point I was trying to establish. More importantly I apologize to all Christians, Jews and other people of faith for any embarrassment or anger my remarks may have caused. Throughout my life I have practiced religious tolerance among all people of faith. I am sincerely sorry for any remarks I made that may have diminished that record. I alone am responsible for my remarks and I pray that they are not taken as the position of the Palm Beach County Democratic Party.”

Lois Frankel, who is running for Congress says in a statement, “I disagree with Mr. Siegel’s comments in the strongest terms. His remarks were offensive. Mr. Siegel has decided to take a leave of absence from his position in the Palm Beach County Democratic Party. This is not enough.”

[.........]
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkOluULXTGw

Read the rest – Mark Alan Siegel: Palm Beach Democratic Party Chairman says Christians want Jews slaughtered

 

Tags:

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!

117 Responses to “Palm Beach County Democratic Chairman apologizes and takes leave of absence after claiming that Christians want to slaughter the Jews”
( jump to bottom )

  1. Speranza
    1 | September 7, 2012 2:36 pm

    The liberal mind is something to behold.


  2. Speranza
    2 | September 7, 2012 2:45 pm

    Everyone on a siesta break?


  3. 3 | September 7, 2012 2:53 pm

    His “apology” is clearly lame and pathetic meant only to gloss over what he said. He is vile and deluded if he believes that Christians want Jews to “die and convert”. I’m Christian and want no such thing. No Christian I have ever known wants any such thing. This misguided fool needs to resign from public life and quietly educate himself.


  4. 4 | September 7, 2012 2:54 pm

    You know what – his statement is stupid beyond all belief.


  5. buzzsawmonkey
    6 | September 7, 2012 2:58 pm

    As I observed here before:

    Much as it grieves me to say so, there is a deep and almost entirely unacknowledged streak of anti-Christian bigotry among American Jews. This prejudice is deeper, and more unrecognized, among less-religious, or “secular,” Jews—who are the vast majority of Jews in the United States. Indeed, for many nonreligious Jews, this anti-Christian prejudice has largely replaced Judaism as an article of faith.

    The vast majority of American Jews are “secular.” Among Jews who are barely at all religious, having rejected their own religion they are terrified of anyone who does not equally reject faith. They are scared to death of Orthodox Jews, but Orthodox Jews are not any kind of major political presence in the US; if they were, these barely-observant Jews would be just as opposed to them. The terror of Orthodox Jews is one of the things that erodes “secular” Jews’ support for Israel, and allows them to believe that Obama is a friend of Israel, because he stands against the Orthodox.

    In this country, they are terrified of visible or overt Christians because the Christians believe what they believe. Nonobservant Jews have jettisoned the observance of their parents, grandparents, etc.—and the only thing they have to hold onto as “part of their tradition,” aside from a very few empty holiday observances, is the hostility and suspicion that was inherited from grandparents who experienced actual persecution from Christians a hundred years ago. They’ve tossed the religion; the memory of persecution is the only thing they have retained.


  6. MikeA
    7 | September 7, 2012 2:58 pm

    His apology was not an apology. He did not say… “What I said was wrong and a resign”. When he says what I said does not reflect the point he wanted to make, that is total BS. These people want to see us dead. Oh wait, that not what I wanted to say. Really?!?!? How can you make a mistake like that?


  7. Bob in Breckenridge
    8 | September 7, 2012 2:59 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    The liberal mind is something to behold.

    The “liberal mind” is an oxymoron.


  8. 9 | September 7, 2012 2:59 pm

    Kirly wrote:

    You know what – his statement is stupid beyond all belief.

    Well, yes it is, and yet simultaneously not at all uncharacteristic for a modern leftist.


  9. Speranza
    10 | September 7, 2012 3:02 pm

    Kirly wrote:

    His “apology” is clearly lame and pathetic meant only to gloss over what he said. He is vile and deluded if he believes that Christians want Jews to “die and convert”. I’m Christian and want no such thing. No Christian I have ever known wants any such thing. This misguided fool needs to resign from public life and quietly educate himself.

    It was an absolutely repulsive statement. He would never say that about Muslims although that would be a correct statement.


  10. Speranza
    11 | September 7, 2012 3:03 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Much as it grieves me to say so, there is a deep and almost entirely unacknowledged streak of anti-Christian bigotry among American Jews.

    I think you might very well be right.


  11. AZfederalist
    12 | September 7, 2012 3:03 pm

    Sounds kind of bigoted and intolerant to me.


  12. My 2 Cents
    13 | September 7, 2012 3:04 pm

    As happens far too often, his “apology” makes no sense. Instead of apologizing for embarrassment, anger, etc, that he “may” have caused, why didn’t he simply state that he was wrong? After all, does he or doesn’t he believe that Christians want to slaughter Jews? If he truly believes that, then he has nothing to apologize for. And if he doesn’t believe it, then he should declare that he was wrong, and offer some kind of quasi-explanation, e.g., that he was drunk, that he was under the influence of prescription drugs, that he was having an anxiety attack, or who knows what else that would make him act like such an idiot (and he should, in fact, call himself an idiot). And then he should beg for the public’s forgiveness, while stating that he understands perfectly if the public is unwilling to forgive him, considering how outlandish his remarks were. That, at least, would BE an apology! So what is this other BS that he said supposed to be, exactly? Cause it sure doesn’t sound like a genuine, heart-wrenching, please-forgive-me, type of apology to me!


  13. Speranza
    14 | September 7, 2012 3:04 pm

    MikeA wrote:

    His apology was not an apology. He did not say… “What I said was wrong and a resign”. When he says what I said does not reflect the point he wanted to make, that is total BS. These people want to see us dead. Oh wait, that not what I wanted to say. Really?!?!? How can you make a mistake like that?

    His only regret is that he got called out for it. he comes across like the type of Jew that was all too prevalent from the 1930′s to 1950′s and beyond – Stalinist apologists.


  14. Speranza
    15 | September 7, 2012 3:05 pm

    AZfederalist wrote:

    Sounds kind of bigoted and intolerant to me.

    Ya’ think?


  15. MikeA
    16 | September 7, 2012 3:05 pm

    @ Speranza:

    Its the ultimate in liberal speak.

    HE can say this about Christians because they do not want to kill him and even if offended will just forgive him as is our belief. Now the muzzies, those guys are mean, behead people and do want to kill him so he can’t say anything bad about them.
    Add to that the general hostility of the MSM toward anything Christian makes him think its OK.


  16. Speranza
    17 | September 7, 2012 3:07 pm

    MikeA wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Its the ultimate in liberal speak.
    HE can say this about Christians because they do not want to kill him and even if offended will just forgive him as is our belief. Now the muzzies, those guys are mean, behead people and do want to kill him so he can’t say anything bad about them.
    Add to that the general hostility of the MSM toward anything Christian makes him think its OK.

    Quite concur! What galls me is his utter cowardice – he would never say that about Muslims or rabid Marxists.


  17. buzzsawmonkey
    18 | September 7, 2012 3:07 pm

    @ Speranza:

    There are certainly historical reasons for Jews to view Christianity and Christians warily. Christianity, after all, began as a breakaway sect of Judaism, and as a breakaway was hostile to those who did not agree to come along. The Gospels hold the Jews responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, and this accusation of the Jews being “Christ-killers” with inherited guilt was the source of much persecution in Europe; blood libels, Host-desecration libels, forced conversions, Talmud burnings, ghettoization, expulsions and massacres appear repeatedly as features of the history of the Jews in Europe.

    When Napoleon conquered Europe, he emancipated the Jews; he tore down the ghetto walls and decreed that Jews were citizens of the nations and principalities in which they resided—something which had not, until then, been true. When Napoleon was defeated, this emancipation was in some places revoked, and Jews returned to non-citizen status—but by the end of the 19th century, Western Europe had, in name at least, “accepted” Jews as fellow-citizens.

    Jews are still struggling with the results of their emancipation in Europe during the 19th century. Faced with the possibility of participating in the wider culture for the first time, many Jews looked to jettison as much traditional Jewish practice as possible—the kosher laws, habits of dress, etc.—which set them apart from the rest of society. Reform Judaism was born of some Jews’ efforts to embrace emancipation; Zionism was born of the realization that emancipation had not eliminated Jew-hatred.


  18. AZfederalist
    19 | September 7, 2012 3:09 pm

    @ Kirly:

    As a Christian, I would like to see those who do not believe come to faith. However, our purpose is only to serve as messengers. If the message is rejected, we move on, we don’t wish physical ill upon those who reject the message.


  19. MikeA
    20 | September 7, 2012 3:13 pm

    @ AZfederalist:

    Now just think if we were to market it like the muzzies!!!

    Convert or Die!!!!
    Be baptised or we will hold you underwater forever!!!

    Got to admit, the muzzies do have a catchy marketing ploy.

    ////


  20. 21 | September 7, 2012 3:18 pm

    @ Speranza:

    He would never dare!


  21. 22 | September 7, 2012 3:19 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    The Gospels hold the Jews responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus,

    No they don’t. Some have over the centuries have twisted that way, but nowhere in Gospels does it Blames Jews for the crucifixion.


  22. buzzsawmonkey
    23 | September 7, 2012 3:20 pm

    MikeA wrote:

    Convert or Die!!!!
    Be baptised or we will hold you underwater forever!!!

    Well, there was a bunch of that going on, say, five, six, seven hundred or a thousand years ago. For that matter, even in the late 19th century the Czars had ministers who said openly that their plan for the Jews under Czarist rule was “1/3 killed, 1/3 converted, 1/3 expelled.” Things like that are not as long ago as you might imagine.

    Looking at this guy, he could very well have had a father who fled the Nazis, or a grandfather who came here to escape the Cossacks. My own grandfather, who died when I was young, left Russia because he saw his own father cut down in the street by a sword-wielding Cossack. My other grandfather came here in 1910, and his entire family had been wiped out by a combination of cholera and Cossacks.


  23. Speranza
    24 | September 7, 2012 3:20 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    I would take my chance with Christians over Muslims any day and twice on Sundays.


  24. Speranza
    25 | September 7, 2012 3:21 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    He would never dare!

    He would literally shit his pants if they pronounced a fatwa on him.


  25. 26 | September 7, 2012 3:22 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    When Napoleon conquered Europe, he emancipated the Jews; he tore down the ghetto walls and decreed that Jews were citizens of the nations and principalities in which they resided—something which had not, until then, been true. When Napoleon was defeated, this emancipation was in some places revoked, and Jews returned to non-citizen status—but by the end of the 19th century, Western Europe had, in name at least, “accepted” Jews as fellow-citizens.

    Yup, that is true. Napoleon for all his faults, believed that all must be equal under the law.


  26. 27 | September 7, 2012 3:23 pm

    @ Speranza:

    He would take the Shahada.


  27. Speranza
    28 | September 7, 2012 3:23 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    The Gospels hold the Jews responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus,
    No they don’t. Some have over the centuries have twisted that way, but nowhere in Gospels does it Blames Jews for the crucifixion.

    Jesus’s mission as pronounced in the Gospels was to be executed for man’s sins.
    As for the actual crucifixion itself (33 A.D.)- that was a purely Roman affair.


  28. Speranza
    29 | September 7, 2012 3:23 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    He would take the Shahada.

    In a heart beat.


  29. RIX
    30 | September 7, 2012 3:25 pm

    Throughout my life I have practiced religious tolerance among all people of faith

    In other news, Atilla the Hun has released a statement
    saying that ” I have always opposed violence.”


  30. buzzsawmonkey
    31 | September 7, 2012 3:26 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    Some have over the centuries have twisted that way, but nowhere ion Gospels does it Blames Jews for the crucifixion.

    I forget which Gospel it is that has the Jews choosing Barabbas, and in which they are quoted as saying of Jesus, “Let his blood be upon us and upon the heads of their children!” But I’ve read it.

    Regardless of what the proper interpretation of the Gospels is, as we see it today, over many centuries there were many, many Christian authorities who considered the Jews cursed for having rejected Jesus; who subjected Jews to forced conversions, etc. By comparison with those things, the Catholic kids who beat my father up in elementary school for being a “Christ-killer” are relatively benign—but these memories linger.

    My purpose in saying all of this is not to point fingers; rather it is to explain, as I’ve tried to do at length, that there is a long and very checkered history here. The tragedy is that there are many Jews in this country who have not learned to take “yes” for an answer—for reasons I have stated above regarding their own abandonment of religion, they cling to these old hatreds and resentments in the absence of, and as a substitute for, religion, and cannot see that one of the great blessings of American exceptionalism is that the level of antisemitism in the US has, until now, been extremely low compared with the rest of the world.


  31. 32 | September 7, 2012 3:29 pm

    @ AZfederalist:

    I agree with that but I don’t apply it to the Jewish people. The Jews have their covenant with God and we have a different covenant with God.

    Not better, not worse, just different.

    …in my opinion, your mileage may vary…

    ~:)


  32. 33 | September 7, 2012 3:30 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    OK fair enough and we can have different takes on this. But that would be a theological debate and not pertinent to your greater point, which I agree with.

    The truth is the reason there is a checkered history between Christians and Jews is because it’s was a family feud. You know every well, that family spats are nasty. It’s really that simple. But most Christians and Jews have moved beyond this love/hate history and that is a good thing!


  33. 34 | September 7, 2012 3:34 pm

    @ Speranza:

    Charles Johnson agrees with what this jerk said.


  34. Speranza
    35 | September 7, 2012 3:34 pm

    AZfederalist wrote:

    @ Kirly:
    If the message is rejected, we move on, we don’t wish physical ill upon those who reject the message.

    As Clint “Dirty Harry” Eastwood second in the second Dirty Harry film “That’s mighty white of you”.
    lol


  35. Speranza
    36 | September 7, 2012 3:34 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Charles Johnson agrees with what this jerk said.

    Oh I have no doubt that he does.


  36. 37 | September 7, 2012 3:39 pm

    @ Speranza:

    In his mind Christians are the #1 enemy.

    Hey stay tuned, I have a DOD in the works. Lawhawk and Gus claim the economy is booming!


  37. buzzsawmonkey
    38 | September 7, 2012 3:41 pm

    @ Rodan:

    Theological debates are both interesting and a phenomenal waste of time. I was in an “interfaith couple” group many years ago, and it became obvious in short order that many things which Jews take literally in the Bible, Christians take symbolically, and vice versa. No surprise, really—if Christians read the Bible the way Jews do, they’d become Jews, and if Jews read it the way Christians do, they’d become Christians.

    The great thing about America is that despite the religious intolerance of its roots—however eager for their own religious freedom they were, the Puritans were not tolerant of others—it was constructed as a country where everyone can believe, or not, as they choose, and go to hell (or not) their own way. There are, of course, some politically-active Christians who overstep in this area, seeking to impose their religious beliefs via secular law. There are also some politically-active atheists (many of them, it grieves me to say, Jews—at least by descent) who do this. That is to be expected; the problem is not that either side does this, but that only one side is currently considered legitimate. There is a certain amount of craziness abroad in the Orthodox Jewish world, also—and a lot of it is sparked as pushback against the aggressive assault upon traditional Judaism by “liberal” Jews.

    In any event, believing Christians and believing Jews tend to get along together quite well. It is the Jews who have abandoned their own heritage, as far as I can see, that make the problems on my side of the aisle.


  38. 39 | September 7, 2012 3:49 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    The Gospels hold the Jews responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus,

    The gospels place the blame on certain specific Jews as well as on certain specific Romans, but only as a vehicle to convey a metaphysical concept, that is where ignorant and bigoted people in the middle ages proved the extent of their ignorance and bigotry.

    The writers of the Christian Scriptures were not trying to blame all Jews nor all Romans, they were placing the blame on what Christianity defines as “Original Sin” or the sinful human nature.

    According to the Gospels, Jesus Christ was a Jewish man, who lived in a Jewish community, inside a Jewish nation. Who was put to death by Roman Centurions at the demand of the Jewish Authorities. Whose death was determined by those Jewish Authorities to be a lessor evil than the slaughter that the Roman occupiers would have brought about over the social unrest that Jesus Christ was causing.

    To quote the Gospels, “And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high-priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high-priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also be should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. Then from that day forth they took counsel together to put him to death.” – John 11:49-53.


  39. RIX
    40 | September 7, 2012 3:52 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    To be fair ,the level of antisemitism is highest
    in the Dem Party & academia.
    Those are to say the least not pro Christian
    institutions.


  40. 41 | September 7, 2012 3:54 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    In any event, believing Christians and believing Jews tend to get along together quite well.

    Absolutely!


  41. Speranza
    42 | September 7, 2012 3:54 pm

    RIX wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    To be fair ,the level of antisemitism is highest
    in the Dem Party & academia.
    Those are to say the least not pro Christian
    institutions.

    That is absolutely correct – along with radical/anarchist groups.


  42. 43 | September 7, 2012 3:55 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    that is where ignorant and bigoted people in the middle ages proved the extent of their ignorance and bigotry.

    I should point out, that like the poor that Jesus promised us would always be with us, so these ignorant and bigoted folks remain with us even to this very day. :sad:

    It is the Jews who have abandoned their own heritage, as far as I can see, that make the problems on my side of the aisle.

    And it is the ignorant bigoted and prejudiced on our side who keep it going as well.


  43. Speranza
    44 | September 7, 2012 3:56 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    I thought the Romans had a lot to do with the execution. Crucifixion was not a Jewish form of death penalty. The earliest Gospels (Mark) was written almost 40 years after the event.


  44. Speranza
    45 | September 7, 2012 3:57 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    In his mind Christians are the #1 enemy.
    Hey stay tuned, I have a DOD in the works. Lawhawk and Gus claim the economy is booming!

    Dazed and confused – the two of them.


  45. Bob in Breckenridge
    46 | September 7, 2012 4:00 pm

    Great news!!!

    No convention bounce in polls for Obama!


  46. RIX
    47 | September 7, 2012 4:05 pm

    @ Speranza:

    That is absolutely correct – along with radical/anarchist groups.

    I am struck by one similarity between Hitler & Obama.
    Hitler isolated Jews as the cause of financial woes.
    After the break up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire Jews
    were allowed full economic participation.
    Their crime? They were auccessful & controlled one in five
    of the largest estates in Germany.
    Sounds a little like the vitriol & hatred of the 1%
    here directed by by Obama & his ilk.


  47. 48 | September 7, 2012 4:05 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    I thought the Romans had a lot to do with the execution. Crucifixion was not a Jewish form of death penalty. The earliest Gospels (Mark) was written almost 40 years after the event.

    Indeed they did. History has taken a metrosexual brush to Pontius Pilate and repainted him as a soft weak-kneed wishy-washy individual that not one single individual living in his time would recognize. The actual historical Pontius Pilate was a brutal and demanding individual.

    He was sent to Israel by Rome for exactly 2 reasons. 1) To collect taxes and 2) to crush any rebellions, insurrections or civil unrest. That is exactly what he did, and he did it by crucifying anyone who even looked like they either were not going to pay their taxes, or were going to cause any kind of disturbance.


  48. Buffalobob
    49 | September 7, 2012 4:11 pm

    A peek into the mind of a prog.


  49. 50 | September 7, 2012 4:12 pm

    Oh… And I am watching the Animated Star Trek:razz:


  50. 51 | September 7, 2012 4:12 pm

    This could be a 3-hour movie.

    Barry’s most egotistical moments.

    httpv://youtu.be/9TwKUDCQHis


  51. 52 | September 7, 2012 4:13 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    Everyone on a siesta break?

    More of a wireline log editing/synthetic seismogram building break…


  52. 53 | September 7, 2012 4:16 pm

    @ Speranza:

    Clearly, the diaspora is meant to continue on for a few minutes longer.


  53. buzzsawmonkey
    54 | September 7, 2012 4:22 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    I thought the Romans had a lot to do with the execution. Crucifixion was not a Jewish form of death penalty. The earliest Gospels (Mark) was written almost 40 years after the event.

    @ doriangrey:

    I’m not trying to argue theology here. There is, from my point of view, a lot of political stuff in the Gospels, which were written down after Jesus’ death—and, to be fair, there’s a lot of political stuff in the Talmud, too. As Rodan pointed out upthread, the schism between Judaism and Christianity was a huge family quarrel—and some aspects of that quarrel simply have to be overlooked for everyone’s sake. For one small example, the “scribes and Pharisees” who are uniformly slagged in the Gospels are, on the Jewish side, the sages of the Talmud—and Jesus, if he were going around teaching Scripture to the commonalty, would have been one of them at least originally.

    What I’m trying to deal with here is some elements of historical fact. Yes, crucifixion was a Roman punishment, not a Jewish one. And it was the Romans who had the power to put Jesus to death. That said, it is in no way inconceivable that Caiaphas was a Biblical equivalent of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, currying favor with the powers that be.

    Whether the interpretations of Christianity which obtained at various points in history were correct, I am not about to try and say. The historical fact, however, is that Jews were blamed for Jesus’ crucifixion; that the “blood libel” came from tales that Jews needed innocent Christian blood to re-enact that event, and Host-desecration libels came from the same source. There is a long and ugly history of these things, and there is at least one local child-saint in Austria, as well as a couple in England, who are considered victims of Jewish blood-lust.

    The great thing about Western civilization, however, and about America in particular, is that we have become less brutal and ignorant than we were some hundreds of years ago. It is the West that conceived of the idea that slavery was wrong, and should be abolished; much of the world, including the Islamic world, has not yet caught up to that. The greatest crimes of Western civilization in recent history came from the anti-religious ideologies, Nazism and Communism—and in the wake of the Holocaust, the Catholic church has made great efforts to expunge vestiges of its historical antisemitism. I give credit where it’s due.

    It sickens me to see secular Jews in effect choosing to wallow in inherited hatred and anger as the sole vestige of a much larger heritage. There is a grotesque irony in this, in that the very Jews who have most embraced secularism and the alleged non-insularity of non-Jewish society are precisely those who view those of Christian background with the most fear and loathing. In this, they resemble the highly successful blacks whose deep racism seems inversely proportional to their success in the larger society. This similarity is perhaps why both have found a home in the Democratic Party.


  54. buzzsawmonkey
    55 | September 7, 2012 4:27 pm

    By the way, all of this is nothing new. The great essayist Ahad Ha’Am (“One of the people,” the pen name of writer Asher Ginzburg), who was very much a Jewish Orwell, wrote an essay called “Slavery in Freedom” at the time of the Dreyfus case.

    In that essay, he contrasted the timorous Jewish community of France, cowering before the anti-Dreyfus hysteria, with the oppressed Jewish community of pre-revolutionary Russia. He showed how the “civil rights” granted the French Jews were a sad delusion, and concluded that in Russia, “while I may not have any civil rights, at least I have not sold my soul for them.”


  55. 56 | September 7, 2012 4:51 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    My apologies if I seemed to be trying to pick a theological fight, that was not my intent. Only as you yourself pointed out, to say that it “was a huge family quarrel” and that most of us do in fact recognize that “some aspects of that quarrel simply have to be overlooked for everyone’s sake”

    Nor would I ever quarrel with your assessment that ” For one small example, the “scribes and Pharisees” who are uniformly slagged in the Gospels are, on the Jewish side, the sages of the Talmud—and Jesus, if he were going around teaching Scripture to the commonalty, would have been one of them at least originally.”

    I make every attempt to be objective and unbiased about the historical facts surrounding Jesus and the birth of Christianity. I know that it was ugly on both sides and pretty much everybody involved got painted as the bad guy by the other side in the quarrel. That is human nature. I honestly feel that it is sad and tragic that the animosity between both Christians and Jews has survived for so unconscionably long.

    Yes, we Christian did start off as a heretical Jewish cult. In the beginning we were persecuted but that in no way, shape or form excuses us for having persecuted the Jew’s in return, and the historical record simply cannot be ignored that we did in fact do exactly that once our political and economic fortunes made it possible.

    Christianity is now over 2000 years old, it is long long long past time for this family feud to end.


  56. Lily
    57 | September 7, 2012 4:52 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Well said buzz. As Dorian and Rodan.


  57. 58 | September 7, 2012 4:55 pm

    @ doriangrey:
    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Have a beer on me tonight fellows, and remember this,

    Roses are red, violets are bluish, If it weren’t for Jesus, we’d all be at the same thanksgiving table driving each other batty.


  58. Bob in Breckenridge
    59 | September 7, 2012 4:56 pm

    Urban Infidel wrote:

    This could be a 3-hour movie.

    It could be a mini-series.


  59. Lily
    60 | September 7, 2012 5:03 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    Jesus was meant to be the Sacrafical Lamb. He was meant to die. End of it as I say. Hence also the DNC denying God 3 times.
    1. Christ preached for 3 years
    2. Rised from the dead after 3 days
    3. Peter denying knowing Christ 3 times
    4. Christ died at 3 in the afternoon
    The number 3 is very spiritual and I could go on about it. But was horrified at the DNC Conveniton the denying of God 3 times and also the Capital of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.
    To be honest Christians and Jewish people were denied 3 times by the DNC Convention.


  60. buzzsawmonkey
    61 | September 7, 2012 5:04 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    My apologies if I seemed to be trying to pick a theological fight, that was not my intent.

    No apology needed, no offense taken—and, I trust, none given on my part.

    We here largely agree that the family quarrel needs to end, or at least be put aside (given that we are dealing with matters of differing belief, with overlapping Scriptures, it will never entirely disappear) in the interest not only of social tolerance, but in the face of the greater threats posed both by Islam and by the modern-day Tower of Babel which is militant secularism.

    In going on at length, as I have, I’ve merely tried to explain the historical roots, of which many may be unaware, for the fears and prejudices which exist on the Jewish side of this divide, and for the reasons why these fears and prejudices remain so tenacious when there seems to be no reason for them to continue.


  61. Lily
    62 | September 7, 2012 5:08 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    You did this very the bottom line for both us Christians and Jewish people we both believe in the one true God.

    I do have a question what does Abba mean in the Jewish religion. I was told it was more like a form of saying Father to God or like daddy.
    Was I misinformed?


  62. Lily
    63 | September 7, 2012 5:09 pm

    @ Lily:

    PIMF VERY WELL
    /darn keyboard


  63. buzzsawmonkey
    64 | September 7, 2012 5:11 pm

    Lily wrote:

    I do have a question what does Abba mean in the Jewish religion. I was told it was more like a form of saying Father to God or like daddy.
    Was I misinformed?

    “Abba” does mean “Father.” In Hebrew prayers it usually takes the form of “Avinu,” “Our Father”; “Avinu She’ba’shamayim,” literally “Father of ours Who is in the Heavens,” or “Avinu Malkeinu,” which translates to “Our Father, our King.”


  64. coldwarrior
    65 | September 7, 2012 5:16 pm

    its been a week and i havent seen the flooding in LA and the gulf coast blamed on Obama / Biden yet…


  65. Lily
    66 | September 7, 2012 5:21 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Thank you so I have been using the term correctly in my prayers.
    Thank you so much buzz…I just want to make sure I used it correctly.
    :)


  66. 67 | September 7, 2012 5:23 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    doriangrey wrote:
    My apologies if I seemed to be trying to pick a theological fight, that was not my intent.
    No apology needed, no offense taken—and, I trust, none given on my part.
    We here largely agree that the family quarrel needs to end, or at least be put aside (given that we are dealing with matters of differing belief, with overlapping Scriptures, it will never entirely disappear) in the interest not only of social tolerance, but in the face of the greater threats posed both by Islam and by the modern-day Tower of Babel which is militant secularism.
    In going on at length, as I have, I’ve merely tried to explain the historical roots, of which many may be unaware, for the fears and prejudices which exist on the Jewish side of this divide, and for the reasons why these fears and prejudices remain so tenacious when there seems to be no reason for them to continue.

    Though they be related, a father is never his son and the son never the father. As you say, there will always be differences in how we read and interpret the scriptures. Though many on both sides of this divide may take offense at the fact, Judaism is the parent of Christianity.

    Woe to the child that despises or disrespects their parent. We have been guilty of this in the past, it does not have to be our future. One day, perhaps the parent will be more forgiving of it’s child’s past transgressions. Hopefully the Child will one day likewise cease all such transgressions.


  67. Lily
    68 | September 7, 2012 5:23 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    its been a week and i havent seen the flooding in LA and the gulf coast blamed on Obama / Biden yet…

    No but we do have Issac’s ghost. Really it went inland then went straight back to the gulf right around New Orleans.


  68. Speranza
    69 | September 7, 2012 5:24 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    Indeed they did. History has taken a metrosexual brush to Pontius Pilate and repainted him as a soft weak-kneed wishy-washy individual that not one single individual living in his time would recognize. The actual historical Pontius Pilate was a brutal and demanding individual.

    He was a capable Prefect of Judaea (he lasted for 10 years, 26 -36 A.D.) which was unusually long since most Roman Prefects/Procurators in Judaea lasted 2 – 4 years) and he could be cruel and rapacious. Josephus and Philo of Alexandria are the only real sources for Pontius Pilate (outside of the Gospels).


  69. Lily
    70 | September 7, 2012 5:27 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    I know how important it is to pray for Israel and not for it’s conversion…but for it being the Land of the Chosen People.


  70. coldwarrior
    71 | September 7, 2012 5:29 pm

    Lily wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:

    its been a week and i havent seen the flooding in LA and the gulf coast blamed on Obama / Biden yet…

    No but we do have Issac’s ghost. Really it went inland then went straight back to the gulf right around New Orleans.

    that would have been cheney controlling the weather.


  71. waldensianspirit
    72 | September 7, 2012 5:33 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    as a breakaway was hostile to those who did not agree to come along.

    Horse puckey

    Romans 11 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.

    18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches [Covenant with Abraham that endures longer than the physical universe]. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.

    After Christianity got distorted with paganism then horrible misdeeds and persecution against the Jewish people occurred/occurs. Only as Christianity restitutes to the original teachnigs does it meet its own Covenant with the G-d of Abraham. Romans 11 and other passages are beautiful on this subject


  72. huckfunn
    73 | September 7, 2012 5:33 pm

    I had never been around Jewish culture until I spent several months adjusting Hurricane Andrew claims in Miami in 1992-3. I met Steve on the first day I walked into the claims office in Fort Lauderdale. If there ever was a stereotypical caricature of an obnoxious New York Jew, it was Steve. Steve was on the phone with someone and the first thing I ever heard him say was “if I have to come down there, I’m gonna fuckin’ rip your heart out your asshole and eat it front of you”. I’d never heard that one before. At any rate, Steve had that hard Bronx accent and proudly displayed a silver dollar sized Star of David at about the 3rd button of his unbuttoned shirt. For whatever reason, he and I were teamed up on some claims in the same neighborhood and we became good friends. He would say the damnedest things to anybody and this often got him in trouble with the office. He was living in one of those big condo towers in Miami that was populated entirely by retired Jews from New York and New Jersey. I went to a few parties there and met the little old ladies and men. Even when talking to the old folks, Steve still managed to bring up his dick as a topic in the conversation. It was crazy. He was funny as hell.


  73. buzzsawmonkey
    74 | September 7, 2012 5:38 pm

    If I had another, extra life, I would go through the Gospels and the Torah and Talmud and chronicle certain connections, parallels, and overlaps.

    For example, it is my understanding that at one point in the Gospels Jesus is accused of being “a glutton and a drunkard.” This is a particular reference to the Law of the Wayward Son, about which much is written in the Talmud.

    Similarly, it is possible to draw a parallel between the story of the woman taken in adultery and the law of the Ordeal of Jealousy. The Talmudic sages at the time of Jesus were engaged in making this law largely unenforceable on procedural grounds; it appears that the story in the New Testament is trying to nullify it by, for want of a better term, executive order.

    Likewise, the story of the Good Samaritan has a number of interesting wrinkles when you consider that the first two people who pass by the man set upon by robbers an left for dead are a Cohen and a Levi, who have stricter rules against personal defilement by touching a dead body; and that there is also a law relating to determining what to do with a corpse found between two cities.

    In short, cross-referencing these New Testament passages to sections of Torah and Talmud could be extremely interesting. It is my understanding that this has not been done, or at least not extensively, because the Jews who could do it have, for the most part, no interest in the New Testament and the Christians, for the most part, have no interest in the Torah/Talmud passages on the grounds that the New Testament was new teaching.


  74. Da_Beerfreak
    75 | September 7, 2012 5:39 pm

    MikeA wrote:

    @ Speranza:

    Its the ultimate in liberal speak.

    HE can say this about Christians because they do not want to kill him and even if offended will just forgive him as is our belief. Now the muzzies, those guys are mean, behead people and do want to kill him so he can’t say anything bad about them.
    Add to that the general hostility of the MSM toward anything Christian makes him think its OK.

    Folks need to Remember; it is not “Islamaphobia” if they really are trying to kill you! :shock:


  75. 76 | September 7, 2012 5:52 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    That would indeed make for a very interest project. As you say, many Christian (so called ) Scholars are under the delusion that the teaching of Jesus Christ were new teaching, even though Jesus Christ himself denied any such notion.

    I suspect that the reason for such silly and foolish notions are simply that those of us who come from a strictly Christian background are simply for the most part ignorant of the incredibly rich and detailed literary history of the Jewish people. Almost as if it is somehow inconceivable that literature existed before Christianity or, Gutenberg anyway.


  76. 77 | September 7, 2012 5:54 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    For example, it is my understanding that at one point in the Gospels Jesus is accused of being “a glutton and a drunkard.”

    Oh, don’t forget James and John, who were called the “Sons of Thunder” that is not a nickname you get for being a teetotaler. :wink:


  77. buzzsawmonkey
    78 | September 7, 2012 5:55 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    I figure I’d either effect one of the greatest reconciliations in the history of the world, or spark one hell of a religious war.

    Or both.


  78. Guggi
    79 | September 7, 2012 5:56 pm

    Please can anybody explain to me what a “straight cisgender man” is ?


  79. buzzsawmonkey
    80 | September 7, 2012 5:57 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    Oh, don’t forget James and John, who were called the “Sons of Thunder” that is not a nickname you get for being a teetotaler.

    They probably consumed a lot of really strong beer and some hardboiled eggs on the side while hanging with those publican types, so the “Sons of Thunder” nickname was in all likelihood loudly and repeatedly earned…


  80. Lily
    81 | September 7, 2012 5:58 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    LOL! Oh my!


  81. 82 | September 7, 2012 6:02 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    doriangrey wrote:
    Oh, don’t forget James and John, who were called the “Sons of Thunder” that is not a nickname you get for being a teetotaler.
    They probably consumed a lot of really strong beer and some hardboiled eggs on the side while hanging with those publican types, so the “Sons of Thunder” nickname was in all likelihood loudly and repeatedly earned…

    Yup, that’s pretty much what I figured as well. :lol: :lol: :lol:


  82. 83 | September 7, 2012 6:03 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    I figure I’d either effect one of the greatest reconciliations in the history of the world, or spark one hell of a religious war.
    Or both.

    Probably both… :shock:


  83. buzzsawmonkey
    84 | September 7, 2012 6:05 pm

    Guggi wrote:

    Please can anybody explain to me what a “straight cisgender man” is ?

    The Wiki entry on “cisgender” describes it as someone who actually “identifies” with the sex they actually are. In other words, it’s another bullshit term equivalent to “gender normative.” If you’re a “straight cisgender man” then it’s academy-babble for saying that you’re physically a man, you don’t have sex with men, and you “identify with the behavior” of people who are physically male and don’t have sex with men.

    Yabbada yabbada yabbada.


  84. Guggi
    85 | September 7, 2012 6:08 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    OmG, thank you, buzz :-)


  85. Guggi
    86 | September 7, 2012 6:10 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    So Zach Wahls at the DNC was saying nothing else then: “I was raised by an lesbian couple but hey, I’m not gay”.


  86. Lily
    87 | September 7, 2012 6:15 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    That is very interesting. I know that the New Testament does have references to the Old Testament in certain Bibles. It is very interesting!

    One Book I’ve been looking for is The Book of the Prophets this book is not in the Old Testament part of our Bible.


  87. Lily
    88 | September 7, 2012 6:18 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    I know in my Bible which is very thick maybe 5 to 6 inches think has references to the Old Testament at the bottom and of the page.


  88. Lily
    89 | September 7, 2012 6:19 pm

    @ Lily:

    PIMF THINK = THICK
    /Dorian my keyboard is out to get me today. ;)


  89. 90 | September 7, 2012 6:20 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    So if Judaism is the parent, and Christianity the child, that must make Islam the Spawn from Hell! Imagine that!

    /snicker


  90. Lily
    91 | September 7, 2012 6:22 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    @ doriangrey:

    I figure I’d either effect one of the greatest reconciliations in the history of the world, or spark one hell of a religious war.

    Or both.

    No religious war. It would clarify how we come from the tree of Judaisam. ;)
    /and honestly I don’t know how any Christian doesn’t understand this.


  91. Lily
    92 | September 7, 2012 6:23 pm

    Guggi wrote:

    Please can anybody explain to me what a “straight cisgender man” is ?

    Cisgender man? I have no idea.


  92. Lily
    93 | September 7, 2012 6:24 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    In other words psycho-babble! Good grief.


  93. buzzsawmonkey
    94 | September 7, 2012 6:25 pm

    Guggi wrote:

    So Zach Wahls at the DNC was saying nothing else then: “I was raised by an lesbian couple but hey, I’m not gay”.

    Sounds like it. Isn’t Zach Wahls the Eagle Scout who is whoring for same-sex marriage and the Boy Scouts betraying their principles? I didn’t see him/read about him.

    I will note, however, that the Left loves to create bad society-wide policy on the strength of the Single Personal Sob Story.


  94. Lily
    95 | September 7, 2012 6:25 pm

    I’ve killed another thread. Oh my.


  95. waldensianspirit
    96 | September 7, 2012 6:28 pm

    Jesus frequently started discussions with:
    “It is written…”
    “For it is written…”
    “Is it not written…”

    And the apostles did the same


  96. Lily
    97 | September 7, 2012 6:29 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    Yep.


  97. Guggi
    98 | September 7, 2012 6:30 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Isn’t Zach Wahls the Eagle Scout who is whoring for same-sex marriage and the Boy Scouts betraying their principles? I didn’t see him/read about him.

    Yup.


  98. buzzsawmonkey
    99 | September 7, 2012 6:31 pm

    @ Guggi:

    He was tapped for Order of the Asshole a long time ago.


  99. waldensianspirit
    100 | September 7, 2012 6:34 pm

    60 days


  100. Guggi
    101 | September 7, 2012 6:38 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    but his video – which led him to some internet prominence – was viewed by 20 million people.


  101. AZfederalist
    102 | September 7, 2012 6:40 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    In short, cross-referencing these New Testament passages to sections of Torah and Talmud could be extremely interesting. It is my understanding that this has not been done, or at least not extensively, because the Jews who could do it have, for the most part, no interest in the New Testament and the Christians, for the most part, have no interest in the Torah/Talmud passages on the grounds that the New Testament was new teaching.

    Actually, that has been done extensively. Orthodox Christian teaching recognizes that the Old Testament (Old Covenant) was the history from creation to the coming of Christ and encompassed the promise of the coming Savior. The teachings of Christ in the Gospels included the exposition of Himself as the fulfillment of the promised savior. Significant biblical scholarship was spent in correlating the promises in the Old Testament with their fulfillment in the New Testament. This was not an exercise later in history, but occurred even during the first century church. For example, the Bereans (in the book of Acts) were identified in Acts 17:11: “Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” The original text for the word “examined” means to “tear apart, literally ransack”, so they extensively reviewed the scriptures (which would have been the Old Testament writings of Moses and the Prophets) to make sure that what Paul and the apostles were teaching agreed with the prophecies. Christians don’t view Old and New Testaments as two separate worlds, but the New Testament being the fulfillment of the prophecies revealed during the Old Testament era.


  102. Lily
    103 | September 7, 2012 6:42 pm

    @ Guggi:

    Who knows why? I could think of several different reasons..look at who he is etc.


  103. Lily
    104 | September 7, 2012 6:44 pm

    @ AZfederalist:

    I would have to agree …. my Bible shows the references to each Book.


  104. Lily
    105 | September 7, 2012 6:46 pm

    Everyone has left? Say it isn’t so!


  105. The Osprey
    107 | September 7, 2012 6:49 pm

    I interrupt this learned theological discussion with this link from the American Thinker, which explains a lot about Chuncky, his hunger for Cheetos™ and Mountain Dew™, and his sudden switch from “conservative” to passionate Obamabot.

    “See-Get”…C-GET…Choom Gang Economic Theory

    When I read the other day that food stamps are being used to buy pop tarts, cookies, honey buns, candy bars, corn dogs, taffy, and cheesecake, it finally clicked: liberal economic and social policies reward stoners.

    In honor of the president’s old gang, let’s call this new Chicago school of economic and social policy Choom Gang Economic Theory (“CGET” or the more descriptive “See-Get Economics,” particularly given the theory’s heavy reliance on entitlement and notable lack of emphasis on work).

    CGET’s apparent goal is to extend adolescence indefinitely, and then mire it in vice. This will have devastating effects on American youth and the economy, but it completes the link between Summer of Love irresponsibility and modern liberal economic theory.


  106. Lily
    108 | September 7, 2012 6:51 pm

    @ Lily:

    And what he said if you don’t want to go to the link…
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    If America reelects Barack Obama to a second term, we deserve all the pain and misery that will ensue.

    Last night’s speech by Barack Obama was a weak plea for another four years to decimate our economy, retard our energy security future, and reduce the greatest fighting force known to the world.

    It was a complete and utter failure.

    In Barack Obama’s own words he stated that if he could not turn this economy around in four years he would be a one-term proposition. He also stated that he would cut the deficit in half, yet we have had four years of trillion-dollar-plus deficits. This morning we found out, again, that we are still at 8% or higher unemployment for 43 straight months. This comes knowing that we were promised by Barack Obama unemployment never higher than 8% with the almost trillion dollar stimulus. We have the lowest workforce participation rate in 31 years…Obama will tout a decrease in unemployment from 8.3% to 8.1%, but that is a scam. We have 368,000 people who have been dropped from the labor accountability rolls. We only added 96, 000 jobs to our economy in August. If America reelects Barack Obama to a second term, we deserve all the pain and misery that will ensue.


  107. Lily
    109 | September 7, 2012 6:54 pm

    @ The Osprey:

    I think he just switched sides because once obammer was elected he thought he was on the winning side.
    /and of course what you just put up makes sense too…but cj didn’t know about the choom gang yet when he flip-flopped like someone making a pancake. ;)


  108. buzzsawmonkey
    110 | September 7, 2012 6:57 pm

    AZfederalist wrote:

    This was not an exercise later in history, but occurred even during the first century church. For example, the Bereans (in the book of Acts) were identified in Acts 17:11: “Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” The original text for the word “examined” means to “tear apart, literally ransack”, so they extensively reviewed the scriptures (which would have been the Old Testament writings of Moses and the Prophets) to make sure that what Paul and the apostles were teaching agreed with the prophecies. Christians don’t view Old and New Testaments as two separate worlds, but the New Testament being the fulfillment of the prophecies revealed during the Old Testament era.

    Not quite the same thing that I’m talking about.

    Saying, “Jesus said X and Y, which is a fulfillment of what was said here” in order to establish that Jesus was who he was claimed to be, and saying, “When Jesus says X, or the account of his life uses the term Y, that is a direct (or oblique) reference to this passage in a parallel tradition which is the tradition from which he came.”

    The first is an attempt at proof of a particular proposition. The second is a form of compare/contrast which is merely aimed at enlarging understanding.


  109. buzzsawmonkey
    111 | September 7, 2012 6:58 pm

    Shabbos is imminent. Later, all!


  110. Lily
    112 | September 7, 2012 7:00 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Later Buzz! Have a good one! :)


  111. coldwarrior
    113 | September 7, 2012 7:02 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Shabbos is imminent. Later, all!

    good sabbath, buzz.


  112. AZfederalist
    114 | September 7, 2012 7:19 pm

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    Romans 11 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.

    18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches [Covenant with Abraham that endures longer than the physical universe]. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.

    That has to be read very carefully in context. Paul was not saying that the Jews had no worries if they rejected Christ. If so, then he would not have written that if it were possible, he would give up his salvation so that his fellow Jews would be saved. Further, there would have been no need for the apostles to go the the Jewish Synagogues to preach if the Jews did not need to hear the message of Christ.


  113. waldensianspirit
    115 | September 7, 2012 10:05 pm

    AZfederalist wrote:

    to preach

    My point it is not in hostility if in the Spirit of G-d and most definitely wasn’t hostile by the disciples of Jesus or the apostolic church. The hostility came with the paganization of Christianity


  114. Da_Beerfreak
    116 | September 8, 2012 4:30 am

    A Florida Democrat has resigned from his county chairmanship after anti-Christian comments he made at the Democratic National Convention spread through an online video.

    Mark Siegel resigned Friday from his post in the Palm Beach County Democratic Party, according to the communications director of the state’s Democratic Party, Brannon Jordan.

    :twisted:


  115. 117 | September 8, 2012 7:35 pm

    MikeA wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Its the ultimate in liberal speak.
    HE can say this about Christians because they do not want to kill him and even if offended will just forgive him as is our belief. Now the muzzies, those guys are mean, behead people and do want to kill him so he can’t say anything bad about them.
    Add to that the general hostility of the MSM toward anything Christian makes him think its OK.

    As Christians we are, of course, free to argue against any false statement made by him (or anybody else, for that matter), but Christian doctrine forbids us to retaliate by doing him any harm. And yes, we can forgive him as a person without condoning his misguided words and deeds.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David