Octopus Overlords

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:09 pm Or he’s looking past all prejudices and trying to be inclusive in these dark times of division and hate.

That's... gibberish.

Next time a Baptist describes Jesus as not the son of God in the name of inclusivity we can talk.

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:29 pm All the Jews in my social media are PISSED at this.

"Jews for Jesus" are Jews the way Moonies are Christian.

I'm sure they are. And I don't expect them not to be...
it's not like they haven't seen this before... I mean - the origins of Christianity could very well be described as Jews for Jesus. That's the part that's annoying to my brain... I'm just thinking they should kinda join the other group of jews for jesus and get over the label.

I think Zimmerman counts himself among the JFJ.

This timeline makes less sense every day. WTF were they thinking? Were they confused because his 'title' is Rabbi? Did they just see Jews in 'Jews for Jesus' and figured it was all the same? I can't figure this one out. Doing nothing would have been far better.

Unagi wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:41 pm I'm just thinking they should kinda join the other group of jews for jesus and get over the label.

For a lot of people, Judaism is more of a cultural identity than a religion. I know a couple of people of Jewish descent who still self-identify as Jews but don't believe their holy writ or follow the rituals or even observe the holidays, except in the same way that nonbelievers observe Christmas. So I can understand why some Jews might adopt Christian beliefs without wanting to give up their Jewish identity. It's more than a label...it's an ethnicity.

In the context of this discussion, letting a J4J give the benediction was tone-deaf at best, and that's a charitable interpretation. The conservative Jewish victims would have been appalled.

Wow, I completely misread this as I didn’t know who Jacobs was. I thought it was just a rabbi mentioning Jesus during a sermon

Kraken wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:45 pmIn the context of this discussion, letting a J4J give the benediction was tone-deaf at best, and that's a charitable interpretation. The conservative Jewish victims would have been appalled.

I've been looking into this because I literally can't grok it and it seems a lot more mendacious than not now. The Pence camp is claiming that Lena Epstein arranged the J4J Rabbi. That seems preposterous on its face. Since she is actually a Conservative Jew.



Put that aside, Pence's spokeperson also claimed that Pence didn't put the Rabbi forward as a leader in the Jewish community. Of course there is video of Pence doing exactly that!



I can't even figure out what the angle is here. I honestly think they just didn't do any research whatsoever so the likelihood in my estimation is these people are bizarre and probably stupid. But always mendacious in the face of that stupid.

Learned what mendacious means.

It's a good day (when I learn a new word without having to read the dictionary).

I'm willing to wait to hear what Lena Epstein has to say. Presumably there is an army of journalists outside her front door as we speak. After that, assuming she did not in fact invite J4J priest, It's burn the witch time. Witch being Pence of course.

I'm a freakin' atheist and I know better than this. Even if I did not, I would FIND OUT before making any decisions. No one is this stupid, it had to be intentional. Christians wouldn't have been shot up like this. Maybe it's time to re-evaluate your faith? I'm just asking questions.

She released a statement saying that she "invited the prayer", and any criticism (of her divisive choice) is religious intolerance.

Wait. She's a GOP candidate? So she's nobody?

I actually thought she was either part of the community that suffered the attack or a leading member of the Jewish faith in the US. That's my mistake, I didn't read the tweet closely enough.

With that said, who gives a crap what her opinion is? I misunderstood who she was, otherwise I would have never cared one way or the other. It is literally meaningless that she's Jewish. She does not speak for the community or the faith. Clearly.

Separately, I'm 100% confident that VP office didn't bring pressure to bear on this GOP-tied politician. 100%

Also, drumpf is neither a misogynist because some women support him nor a racist, because some non-white people do too. QED.

A Jewish woman picked the J4J preacher? Not insensitive to the Jewish community.

What pisses me off is that the JEWISH COMMUNITY that suffered the attack is unhappy about this, and Epstein is calling them intolerant because of it. There is literally no depth to which the GOP won't sink.

Listen. We're Jewish. We were attacked because we're Jewish. We assumed and expected that you bring in an actual Rabbi, and we are unhappy that you brought in a speaker from a religious group that specifically targets members of the Jewish faith for conversion to Christianity.

Epstein - INTOLERANCE!

Unreal. The world is completely tilted.

Good thread on the so-called rabbi. Pence took a Jewish memorial and tried to make it a Christian campaign event.

One of the comments attached to his tweet made me laugh. It simply reads, "FAKE JEWS!"

Washington state Representative Rep. Matt Shea takes credit, criticism for document titled ‘Biblical Basis for War’.

The document is organized in 14 sections with multiple tiers of bullet points and a smattering of biblical citations. Under one heading, “Rules of War,” it makes a chilling prescription for enemies who flout “biblical law.” It states, “If they do not yield – kill all males.”

After the document was leaked online Tuesday, the Spokane Valley Republican insisted he was not promoting violence and that the message had been taken out of context.

This is not normal.

EDIT: You can read the 4 page document here. But yeah, we need to worry about ISIS sneaking across the Mexican border.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Nov 01, 2018 12:27 pm Washington state Representative Rep. Matt Shea takes credit, criticism for document titled ‘Biblical Basis for War’.

The document is organized in 14 sections with multiple tiers of bullet points and a smattering of biblical citations. Under one heading, “Rules of War,” it makes a chilling prescription for enemies who flout “biblical law.” It states, “If they do not yield – kill all males.”

After the document was leaked online Tuesday, the Spokane Valley Republican insisted he was not promoting violence and that the message had been taken out of context.

This is not normal.

EDIT: You can read the 4 page document here. But yeah, we need to worry about ISIS sneaking across the Mexican border.

When I heard this news, I assumed that someone was taking something out of context. It seemed at least possible that the document was quoting a broad swath of Old Testament rules on Israelites at war that included such a verse, and that a reporter misunderstood the nature of quoting the Bible in order to adapt it to a modern point.

But, nope. It really doesn't look that way.

Oh, and here's another nice point from the document: "God doesn’t use majorities. The majority is usually wrong." This is in a section not on morality or religious instruction but on government.

12.m.v is interesting when cross referenced with 5.d.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Nov 01, 2018 12:27 pm Washington state Representative Rep. Matt Shea takes credit, criticism for document titled ‘Biblical Basis for War’.

The document is organized in 14 sections with multiple tiers of bullet points and a smattering of biblical citations. Under one heading, “Rules of War,” it makes a chilling prescription for enemies who flout “biblical law.” It states, “If they do not yield – kill all males.”

After the document was leaked online Tuesday, the Spokane Valley Republican insisted he was not promoting violence and that the message had been taken out of context.

This is not normal.

EDIT: You can read the 4 page document here. But yeah, we need to worry about ISIS sneaking across the Mexican border.

Was "in context" ever provided? I really want to see it. I'm trying to imagine in context for the 10 c and 10 d one two punch.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Nov 01, 2018 4:31 pm

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Nov 01, 2018 12:27 pm Washington state Representative Rep. Matt Shea takes credit, criticism for document titled ‘Biblical Basis for War’.

The document is organized in 14 sections with multiple tiers of bullet points and a smattering of biblical citations. Under one heading, “Rules of War,” it makes a chilling prescription for enemies who flout “biblical law.” It states, “If they do not yield – kill all males.”

After the document was leaked online Tuesday, the Spokane Valley Republican insisted he was not promoting violence and that the message had been taken out of context.

This is not normal.

EDIT: You can read the 4 page document here. But yeah, we need to worry about ISIS sneaking across the Mexican border.

Was "in context" ever provided? I really want to see it. I'm trying to imagine in context for the 10 c and 10 d one two punch.

At *best* it could be claimed that this list is a run-down of what God tells the ancient Israelites about war (in a brutal time nothing like our own, etc etc), and that certain principles of moderation can be derived thereby. (In the same sense that "an eye for an eye" is not an endorsement of brutal punishment but actually a proscription against escalation and vendettas.)

But it really doesn't look that way. There's definitely a "This is God's plan, we should follow it" about the whole thing.

Most of all, this is a perfect example of Christians (who formally and theologically consider Jewish law to have been overturned and no longer applicable) jumping back to treat the Old Testament as current when it suits their purposes. (e.g. "We don't have to keep Kosher, but it's totally fine to hate Muslims like the Hebrews hated Canaanites.")

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 01, 2018 4:46 pm At *best* it could be claimed that this list is a run-down of what God tells the ancient Israelites about war

God told the Israelites Sherman's should not March to the Sea and commie's suck? I think I may have underestimated the Bible and should read it.

Texas

An El Paso pastor accused of sexual abuse of a child says that the allegations are the work of the devil.

Jean Jacob Jeudy, 48, was arrested Thursday at the Walk By Faith International Missionary Church, which operates out of a strip mall near the city's airport, according to the El Paso County Sheriff's Office. Jeudy was booked into the El Paso County jail on one count of sexual assault of a child and two counts of indecency with a child by sexual contact.
...
In a number of posts on his personal Facebook page and the church's page, Jeudy wrote that there was no time for "demonic distractions" and urged his congregants to stay focused on their Christian work.

The right to kill vs. the right to life:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/09/th ... fanticide/

Are these traditions that should be respected, or traditions that need to die as indigenous peoples are shown that other options exist?

Yeah, no thanks. Not touching that one with a 10' pole tonight.

If we build a bigger border wall and burn more coal, these problems will eventually solve themselves.

Amid Russia Tensions, Ukraine Moves Toward Separate Church.

Ukraine took a major step on Saturday toward establishing its own, autonomous Orthodox Church, setting the stage for increased tensions with Russia by altering a centuries-old religious tradition under which the Kiev church answered to Moscow.

Some 190 bishops, priests and other church figures spent the day closeted in St. Sophia’s Cathedral in downtown Kiev to elect the newly unified Ukrainian church’s head, Metropolitan Epiphanius. He is scheduled to travel in January to Istanbul, the historical seat of the Eastern Orthodox Church, to receive an official order granting autonomy.

The Russian Orthodox Church, which puts its membership at 150 million, will lose up to 30 to 40 percent of its most ardent followers; around 16 percent of Ukrainians attend church regularly, compared with half that in Russia. Perhaps more important, a smaller church could undermine Moscow’s longstanding effort to portray itself as the protector of all 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide.

In post-Cold-War terms, this is just more Eastern European tension. In history-of-Christendom terms, it's a huge deal.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity finally split from Roman Catholicism over theology and church government in 1054 A.D., making its division twice as old as the break between Catholics and Protestants. Since that time, Eastern Orthodoxy has enjoyed the usual crises and revisions but has remained essentially unified. Due to demographic concentration, Orthodoxy has always been strongly influenced by Russian culture, and since the Early Modern era the churches have often been more or less closely aligned with Russian national identity, whether medieval, imperial, even (with great complications) Soviet, and now post-Soviet.

In the 21st century, Putin has put great emphasis on the role of the Russian state in protecting the Russian soul, and he has made space for the Orthodox church in political and public life that it hasn't occupied since the end of the Tsars. Orthodox officials have been only too happy to embrace the offer.

That is almost right. Orthodox has always been a united single church, but it is organized along national lines. There is a Greek Orthodox Church, an Armenian Orthodox Church, a Russian Orthodox Church, etc. The largest of course is the Russian one, and it has been closely aligned or controlled at times by whoever holds the power in Moscow, but it would be incorrect to say that all of the orthodox churches have been aligned with Moscow (if that is what you were saying).

Now that Ukraine is independent, it makes a lot of sense that they have a national church, and one less beholden to Moscow. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Grifman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:56 am That is almost right. Orthodox has always been a united single church, but it is organized along national lines. There is a Greek Orthodox Church, an Armenian Orthodox Church, a Russian Orthodox Church, etc. The largest of course is the Russian one, and it has been closely aligned or controlled at times by whoever holds the power in Moscow, but it would be incorrect to say that all of the orthodox churches have been aligned with Moscow (if that is what you were saying).

Now that Ukraine is independent, it makes a lot of sense that they have a national church, and one less beholden to Moscow. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I know the national Orthodox churches are somewhat independent (in fact my sister belongs to the very small American Orthodox Church), but in practical fact the theological and (due to the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union) political/cultural directions of Orthodoxy in Europe have long been set by Moscow (or St. Petersburg, whatever). Even the church in Greece has for centuries tended to nod to Russia.

Things have changed somewhat since 1991, but in this century Putin's embrace (and funding) of the Russian church for nationalist purposes has actually strengthened its influence.

I probably overstated the unprecedentedness, but I think what we're seeing now is still more significant than the nominal separation we're used to.

I guess if you're looking for a topic to bring up with family over the holidays, perhaps discuss why Toblerone earning halal-certification is an outrage.

"Islamization does not take place -- neither in Germany nor in Europe," the AfD's Jörg Meuthen wrote sarcastically on social media. "It is therefore certainly pure coincidence that the depicted, known chocolate variety is now certified as 'HALAL.'"

The post prompted some of his followers to react with similar outrage, with several people throughout Europe tweeting that they would not be purchasing the product in the future.

"I will never, EVER buy another toblerone!!! #BOYCOTTTOBLERONE," one Twitter user wrote. "Too bad, I like to eat. But I don't like Muslim food," another said on Facebook, while a third announced: "Toblerone is now on my list!"

Smoove_B wrote:I guess if you're looking for a topic to bring up with family over the holidays, perhaps discuss why Toblerone earning halal-certification is an outrage.

"Islamization does not take place -- neither in Germany nor in Europe," the AfD's Jörg Meuthen wrote sarcastically on social media. "It is therefore certainly pure coincidence that the depicted, known chocolate variety is now certified as 'HALAL.'"

The post prompted some of his followers to react with similar outrage, with several people throughout Europe tweeting that they would not be purchasing the product in the future.

"I will never, EVER buy another toblerone!!! #BOYCOTTTOBLERONE," one Twitter user wrote. "Too bad, I like to eat. But I don't like Muslim food," another said on Facebook, while a third announced: "Toblerone is now on my list!"

Just wrap the damn thing in bacon. You'll show them damn islamists what's what

Just tell them water and air are halal certified.

Problem solved.

Racists and bigots should be be frequently reminded that nearly all major American breweries are Kosher-certified.

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 2:34 pm Just tell them water and air are halal certified.

Problem solved.

Son, I like the way you think!

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 6:20 pm Racists and bigots should be be frequently reminded that nearly all major American breweries are Kosher-certified.

Is He-Brew still around?

Jeff V wrote: ↑Mon Dec 24, 2018 12:08 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 6:20 pm Racists and bigots should be be frequently reminded that nearly all major American breweries are Kosher-certified.

Is He-Brew still around?

When I go drinking with my buddy who's orthodox, he can order any but the smallest craft brewery's stuff with confidence. (He does his research.)

He has to drink out of the bottle, though, as a bar's kitchen (where the glasses are washed) is never kosher.

Jesuit shade.

As an atheist, I sometimes find myself envying how religious people believe they'll see the people they love after they've died. All I see is a stark cancellation of being and the following absence.

Some days, I wonder if I'm wrong - but absolutely nothing I've ever seen or experienced gives me any genuine doubt.

I'd rather not live under a delusion that death is basically meaningless since I'll be reunited some day. It makes you appreciate people more when there's no magic loophole.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Sat Jan 05, 2019 12:30 am I'd rather not live under a delusion that death is basically meaningless since I'll be reunited some day. It makes you appreciate people more when there's no magic loophole.

Stawman, religious people don't think death is meaningless. And if you are held to account for your actions in this world, you might actually care MORE about how you treat people. Using your logic, why care about some slub you treated badly if you can get away with it?

Fear of an old man in the sky is not a rational reason not to murder people if you can get away with it.

Grifman wrote:Stawman, religious people don't think death is meaningless. And if you are held to account for your actions in this world, you might actually care MORE about how you treat people. Using your logic, why care about some slub you treated badly if you can get away with it?

Maybe I should clarify that I was referring to how I feel, not trying to generalize it. I don't care what other people's religious beliefs are, and I'm not trying to argue for or against religion in any way. I think it's a personal choice and everybody has the right to believe what they want to believe.

The only time it becomes is a problem when people try to use their personal religious beliefs (*cough* GOP) to impose their morals on me.

Plus, I *already* don't feel I'm accountable for my actions in the afterlife. Yet I've never been in trouble with the law, I've never cheated on my wife, I (try) to treat others with respect, I function in society, etc. So it's not like belief in God is a pre-requisite for being a good person.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:38 am . Yet I've never been in trouble with the law, I've never cheated on my wife, I (try) to treat others with respect, I function in society, etc. So it's not like belief in God is a pre-requisite for being a good person.

My point wasn't that unbelievers can't be good. It was a counterpoint to your comment that believers might care less because of a "magic loophole".

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:59 am Fear of an old man in the sky is not a rational reason not to murder people if you can get away with it.

Who said anything about an old man in the sky? Try thinking a little deeper