The Jewish Situation

[Spiffier]

Yeah, fine job there.

Christian charity: means an organization that provides to the needy in general.

Jewish charity: means an organization that provides solely to Jews.

Many Jewish charities provide to the world at large, first of all, and second it's a matter of familial preference.

If your brother needed money and a stranger needed money, would you turn your brother away for the stranger?

Yes, of course, I know the 10% alms giving demanded by Judaism can just be given to your family. Although in Christ's time, the Pharisees were evidently in the habit of giving all 10% as corban and saying they didn't need to give anything to needy parents.

The answer is that question (we're assuming the money doesn't go to drugs) depends on who is the most needy, and if I have the means to help both, that is my obligation. Certainly, giving to one's family does not replace obligation to those outside it in Christianity.

[Spiffier]

Judaism used to be very oriented toward proselytizing, even forced at times. It didn't really become a religion almost exclusively for those born into it until the Middle Ages.

I don't know where your basing that information off of, but it is false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion#Judaism

From the Old Testament, it is clear that there were many converts to Judaism from day one (Exodus 12:38). There are plenty of passages about foreigners among the Jews and it is said to treat them "as one born among you" (Leviticus 19:34), which indicates the foreigners having converted to Judaism and needing acceptance, since Jews wouldn't even eat with non-Jews, and treating someone as a born Jew who wasn't a convert doesn't seem likely. Christ speaks of the Pharisees actively converting people, but rebukes them for leading converts away from righteousness (Matthew 23:15). Jews only did not seek converts when they were lorded over by a force hostile to them (and sometimes quite often even then), such as Christians, pagans, Muslims, and so on. Wherever they were independent, proselytism seems to have been common. This continued even into the Medieval era, as evinced by groups like the Khazar Jews, though it obviously declined due to the minimal power Jews had compared to competing religions. This is when Judaism was severed from a significant antecedent (it was already an entirely new religion regardless, Judaism came out of ancient Judaism, it wasn't a continuation of it), when rabbis started to say that actively canvassing for converts is objectionable, and that conversion is not to be encouraged. This made Judaism a closed religion, and completely shut the door on its ancestor religion.

[Menassa]

Many Jewish charities provide to the world at large, first of all, and second it's a matter of familial preference.

If your brother needed money and a stranger needed money, would you turn your brother away for the stranger?

Yes, of course, I know the 10% alms giving demanded by Judaism can just be given to your family. Although in Christ's time, the Pharisees were evidently in the habit of giving all 10% as corban and saying they didn't need to give anything to needy parents.

Ah, now I understand your vile hatred for Judaism, don't be put off by my review, it's not something I am not accustomed to. Your basing your opinions of Judaism off of the New Testament, a collection of books that, at times, can be rabidly anti-Jewish. You aren't basing your information off of lived experiences with actual human beings, alright, let's set a few things straight.

I don't recall anything in the New Testament saying that the Pharisees were giving their charity as sacrifices and saying they didn't need to give more.

The answer is that question (we're assuming the money doesn't go to drugs) depends on who is the most needy, and if I have the means to help both, that is my obligation. Certainly, giving to one's family does not replace obligation to those outside it in Christianity.

Say both are equal, you only have $10 to give, your own brother needs $10 and a stranger needs $10, who do you give to?

[Spiffier]

Ah, now I understand your vile hatred for Judaism, don't be put off by my review, it's not something I am not accustomed to. Your basing your opinions of Judaism off of the New Testament, a collection of books that, at times, can be rabidly anti-Jewish.

It's rabidly anti-Pharisee. And since most contemporary Judaism comes from Pharisaic Judaism, it will be pretty objectionable from that perspective.

I don't recall anything in the New Testament saying that the Pharisees were giving their charity as sacrifices and saying they didn't need to give more.

Mark 7.

Say both are equal, you only have $10 to give, your own brother needs $10 and a stranger needs $10, who do you give to?

To who needs it the most, especially if I proclaim myself a beacon of light to strangers.

[Menassa]

I don't know where your basing that information off of, but it is false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion#Judaism

Although the Pharisees did not support the wars of expansion of the Hasmoneans and the forced conversions ...

The hasmoneans are not representatives of normative Judaism, neither where the Sadducees, you should look into Jesus's own words in the issue of Normative Judaism where he mentions that the 'Pharisees' sit in Moses's seat, not. any. other. sect.

From the Old Testament, it is clear that there were many converts to Judaism from day one (Exodus 12:38).

You mean from before the time that Jews were a nation?

There are plenty of passages about foreigners among the Jews and it is said to treat them "as one born among you" (Leviticus 19:34), which indicates the foreigners having converted to Judaism and needing acceptance, since Jews wouldn't even eat with non-Jews, and treating someone as a born Jew who wasn't a convert doesn't seem likely.

I didn't say no one was allowed to convert to Judaism, I simply said that Judaism does not require everyone to convert to Judaism. Much unlike your Christianity which states that Jesus is the only way to salvation.

Christ speaks of the Pharisees actively converting people, but rebukes them for leading converts away from righteousness (Matthew 23:15).

I don't really take The New Testament's opinion of events into account, especially the polemical parts.

Jews only did not seek converts when they were lorded over by a force hostile to them (and sometimes quite often even then), such as Christians, pagans, Muslims, and so on. Wherever they were independent, proselytism seems to have been common. This continued even into the Medieval era, as evinced by groups like the Khazar Jews, though it obviously declined due to the minimal power Jews had compared to competing religions.

Yeah, no, that is a lie, the King of the Khazar people was doing religious investigation and he found Judaism most compelling.

This is when Judaism was severed from a significant antecedent (it was already an entirely new religion regardless, Judaism came out of ancient Judaism, it wasn't a continuation of it), when rabbis started to say that actively canvassing for converts is objectionable, and that conversion is not to be encouraged. This made Judaism a closed religion, and completely shut the door on its ancestor religion.

Whatever you need to do in order to tell yourself that the fact that Jesus's own people rejected him. However you decide to justify the notion that your God/King/Messiah was rejected by the very people he came to serve because his claims did not hold to par of what is expected of the Jewish Messiah. You do just that, as Christianity has always done.

Call us Khazars.
Call us a different religion.

It won't really matter in the end, I'm not to perturbed by your lack of facts, and your obvious bias.

[Menassa]

Ah, now I understand your vile hatred for Judaism, don't be put off by my review, it's not something I am not accustomed to. Your basing your opinions of Judaism off of the New Testament, a collection of books that, at times, can be rabidly anti-Jewish.

It's rabidly anti-Pharisee. And since most contemporary Judaism comes from Pharisaic Judaism, it will be pretty objectionable from that perspective.

All of contemporary Judaism comes from Pharisaic Judaism. And due to it's existence in pure polemic, I'm going to take it with a grain of salt.

I don't recall anything in the New Testament saying that the Pharisees were giving their charity as sacrifices and saying they didn't need to give more.

Mark 7.

So this chapter mentions nothing about the %10 tithe. What it does mention, again, polemically, has nothing to do with charity.

Say both are equal, you only have $10 to give, your own brother needs $10 and a stranger needs $10, who do you give to?

To who needs it the most, especially if I proclaim myself a beacon of light to strangers.

How immoral of you to turn away your own flesh and blood, like I said, they both need it the same amount.

[Spiffier]

The hasmoneans are not representatives of normative Judaism, neither where the Sadducees, you should look into Jesus's own words in the issue of Normative Judaism where he mentions that the 'Pharisees' sit in Moses's seat, not. any. other. sect.

He also said Matthew 16:12.

Jesus was most like an Essene, if anything. Christ's endorsement of Pharisees can't be taken in the context of how Pharisees take it, as in their being dogmatically correct; it is rather an endorsement of teachers, which are the Scribes and the Pharisees. They are to be respected because their are in an honored position, that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't propagating some very questionable things.

You mean from before the time that Jews were a nation?

Presuming you mean nation in the Biblical sense, yes. But not before they were a people.

I didn't say no one was allowed to convert to Judaism, I simply said that Judaism does not require everyone to convert to Judaism. Much unlike your Christianity which states that Jesus is the only way to salvation.

Judaism requires people to convert to belief in Judaism, they just don't require converting to practicing anymore.

I don't really take The New Testament's opinion of events into account, especially the polemical parts.

I think it is a fairly reasonable source on the early Pharisees. It is the first account to use the term "Pharisee", and compared to other sources like Josephus (a self-proclaimed Pharisee, who thought David built the Temple of Jerusalem), it is more doctrinally coherent.

Yeah, no, that is a lie, the King of the Khazar people was doing religious investigation and he found Judaism most compelling.

To be precise, many Jewish immigrants came to Khazar, and the king ended up marrying one, who convinced him to convert down the road, after which he converted the whole nation.

Whatever you need to do in order to tell yourself that the fact that Jesus's own people rejected him. However you decide to justify the notion that your God/King/Messiah was rejected by the very people he came to serve because his claims did not hold to par of what is expected of the Jewish Messiah. You do just that, as Christianity has always done.

And he said the Temple of Jerusalem would be destroyed, and it was. And all efforts to rebuild it failed. Because he replaced it.

[Spiffier]

So this chapter mentions nothing about the %10 tithe. What it does mention, again, polemically, has nothing to do with charity.

Of course it is about the 10% obligation, how else could giving to the Temple free you from obligation to help your parents?

How immoral of you to turn away your own flesh and blood, like I said, they both need it the same amount.

Now what if neither of them is my brother, but one of them is white (as I am), and one of them is black, and both are strangers. Is it immoral to give it to the black man?

[Jochistan]

Simply listing nations I support doesn't make your slanderous lies any more valid.

Oh, no no no no. You don't get to accuse me of slanderous lies when you baselessly accuse me of being a regressive leftist out of the standards of some cancerous breitbart editorial or youtube video by some smelly zionist cucked 30something populist "neocon" landwhale with autism.

I'll call you and accuse you of whatever the fuck I want after that.

[Jochistan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion#Judaism

Although the Pharisees did not support the wars of expansion of the Hasmoneans and the forced conversions ...

The hasmoneans are not representatives of normative Judaism, neither where the Sadducees, you should look into Jesus's own words in the issue of Normative Judaism where he mentions that the 'Pharisees' sit in Moses's seat, not. any. other. sect.

From the Old Testament, it is clear that there were many converts to Judaism from day one (Exodus 12:38).

You mean from before the time that Jews were a nation?

There are plenty of passages about foreigners among the Jews and it is said to treat them "as one born among you" (Leviticus 19:34), which indicates the foreigners having converted to Judaism and needing acceptance, since Jews wouldn't even eat with non-Jews, and treating someone as a born Jew who wasn't a convert doesn't seem likely.

I didn't say no one was allowed to convert to Judaism, I simply said that Judaism does not require everyone to convert to Judaism. Much unlike your Christianity which states that Jesus is the only way to salvation.

Christ speaks of the Pharisees actively converting people, but rebukes them for leading converts away from righteousness (Matthew 23:15).

I don't really take The New Testament's opinion of events into account, especially the polemical parts.

Jews only did not seek converts when they were lorded over by a force hostile to them (and sometimes quite often even then), such as Christians, pagans, Muslims, and so on. Wherever they were independent, proselytism seems to have been common. This continued even into the Medieval era, as evinced by groups like the Khazar Jews, though it obviously declined due to the minimal power Jews had compared to competing religions.

Yeah, no, that is a lie, the King of the Khazar people was doing religious investigation and he found Judaism most compelling.

This is when Judaism was severed from a significant antecedent (it was already an entirely new religion regardless, Judaism came out of ancient Judaism, it wasn't a continuation of it), when rabbis started to say that actively canvassing for converts is objectionable, and that conversion is not to be encouraged. This made Judaism a closed religion, and completely shut the door on its ancestor religion.

Whatever you need to do in order to tell yourself that the fact that Jesus's own people rejected him. However you decide to justify the notion that your God/King/Messiah was rejected by the very people he came to serve because his claims did not hold to par of what is expected of the Jewish Messiah. You do just that, as Christianity has always done.

Call us Khazars.
Call us a different religion.

It won't really matter in the end, I'm not to perturbed by your lack of facts, and your obvious bias.

As I said before, the Khazar theory does have a workable basis. And I hate how people use it as a derogatory thing.

Acknowledgement of common roots and unity under an deeper explored tradition could be a force of unity between Jews, Muslims, Christians and others. Against what's rearing it's head these days.
It could be a nicer world.

[Vistulange]

So, basically, there has been no rational answer as to why Jews need a state for themselves more than Ukrainians, Kurds, Belarusians, Scots, Zazas, Azerbaijanis, Bretons and Occitans do. Typical.

[Sichem]

So, basically, there has been no rational answer as to why Jews need a state for themselves more than Ukrainians, Kurds, Belarusians, Scots, Zazas, Azerbaijanis, Bretons and Occitans do. Typical.

Has anyone given the "might is right, and Israel has the might" answer?

[Souseiseki]

So, basically, there has been no rational answer as to why Jews need a state for themselves more than Ukrainians, Kurds, Belarusians, Scots, Zazas, Azerbaijanis, Bretons and Occitans do. Typical.

Has anyone given the "might is right, and Israel has the might" answer?

yes but it's also a very silly answer especially in the context of israel

[Great Sofannia]

So, basically, there has been no rational answer as to why Jews need a state for themselves more than Ukrainians, Kurds, Belarusians, Scots, Zazas, Azerbaijanis, Bretons and Occitans do. Typical.

I doubt such an answer even exists.

[Vistulange]

So, basically, there has been no rational answer as to why Jews need a state for themselves more than Ukrainians, Kurds, Belarusians, Scots, Zazas, Azerbaijanis, Bretons and Occitans do. Typical.

Has anyone given the "might is right, and Israel has the might" answer?

No, and we've moved beyond "might is right" in international affairs. We've been ahead of that for quite some time now, really.

Has anyone given the "might is right, and Israel has the might" answer?

yes but it's also a very silly answer especially in the context of israel

Well, they have proven themselves able to defend themselves from their neighbours, but said neighbours are corrupt, unstable, inefficient and cronyist dictatorships, mostly. Not a very high standard.

So, basically, there has been no rational answer as to why Jews need a state for themselves more than Ukrainians, Kurds, Belarusians, Scots, Zazas, Azerbaijanis, Bretons and Occitans do. Typical.

I doubt such an answer even exists.

Precisely. So the whole romanticising of "A STATE FOR JEWS", "A JEWISH STATE" is purely emotional bullshit. Other peoples have just as been oppressed, and that's if we accept oppression as a right to forging states.

[Crockerland]

Simply listing nations I support doesn't make your slanderous lies any more valid.

Oh, no no no no. You don't get to accuse me of slanderous lies when you baselessly accuse me of being a regressive leftist

You mean state that something you said is a common theme used by the regressive left islamic apologists?

out of the standards of some cancerous breitbart editorial or youtube video by some smelly zionist cucked 30something populist "neocon" landwhale with autism.

Was this a failed reference to something or just a bizarre insult at nothing in particular?

'll call you and accuse you of whatever the fuck I want after that.

So... Flamebaiting?

[Internationalist Bastard]

So, basically, there has been no rational answer as to why Jews need a state for themselves more than Ukrainians, Kurds, Belarusians, Scots, Zazas, Azerbaijanis, Bretons and Occitans do. Typical.

Honestly, I'll never get the idea of it all.

[Souseiseki]

So, basically, there has been no rational answer as to why Jews need a state for themselves more than Ukrainians, Kurds, Belarusians, Scots, Zazas, Azerbaijanis, Bretons and Occitans do. Typical.

Honestly, I'll never get the idea of it all.

personally i think we're just waiting for someone that fucks up and doesn't realize there's a very specific reason he picked those peoples specifically

[Menassa]

The hasmoneans are not representatives of normative Judaism, neither where the Sadducees, you should look into Jesus's own words in the issue of Normative Judaism where he mentions that the 'Pharisees' sit in Moses's seat, not. any. other. sect.

He also said Matthew 16:12.

That's why he said 'do as they say' but not as they do.

Jesus was most like an Essene, if anything. Christ's endorsement of Pharisees can't be taken in the context of how Pharisees take it, as in their being dogmatically correct; it is rather an endorsement of teachers, which are the Scribes and the Pharisees. They are to be respected because their are in an honored position, that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't propagating some very questionable things.

Do as they say, do what they teach, but not how they act.

You mean from before the time that Jews were a nation?

Presuming you mean nation in the Biblical sense, yes. But not before they were a people.

Again, no one was proselytize, if you saw what you saw in Egypt, you're probably gonna want to join the nation that just destroyed yours.

I didn't say no one was allowed to convert to Judaism, I simply said that Judaism does not require everyone to convert to Judaism. Much unlike your Christianity which states that Jesus is the only way to salvation.

Judaism requires people to convert to belief in Judaism, they just don't require converting to practicing anymore.

What? Judaism does not require people to convert to Judaism, do you know what a Noahide is? Someone who remains moral, and right with God but who is not Jewish.

I don't really take The New Testament's opinion of events into account, especially the polemical parts.

I think it is a fairly reasonable source on the early Pharisees. It is the first account to use the term "Pharisee", and compared to other sources like Josephus (a self-proclaimed Pharisee, who thought David built the Temple of Jerusalem), it is more doctrinally coherent.

Hah, the New Testament was written way after the events spoken about in the New Testament took place. It's logical inconsistencies on Pharasaic doctrine as well are to be noted. And many facts previously established in the Old Testament such as the burial place of Jacob and how many people went down to Egypt.

If you want to quibble over small things while ignoring huge theological ramifications, I am more than down.

Yeah, no, that is a lie, the King of the Khazar people was doing religious investigation and he found Judaism most compelling.

To be precise, many Jewish immigrants came to Khazar, and the king ended up marrying one, who convinced him to convert down the road, after which he converted the whole nation.

Even if you accept that story, the Jews did not go out to make converts of the Kahzars, they were probably fleeing from CHRISTIAN persecution.

Whatever you need to do in order to tell yourself that the fact that Jesus's own people rejected him. However you decide to justify the notion that your God/King/Messiah was rejected by the very people he came to serve because his claims did not hold to par of what is expected of the Jewish Messiah. You do just that, as Christianity has always done.

And he said the Temple of Jerusalem would be destroyed, and it was. And all efforts to rebuild it failed. Because he replaced it.

First of all, not really a prophecy, any political analyst does not a prophet make. Second of all, many stones of the Temple still remained such as the Western Wall.

Christ's replacing of the Temple slaps directly in the face of many Chapters of Ezekiel which state clearly that a third and Final PHYSICAL Temple will be constructed and that the Messiah will bring sacrifices to there on behalf of HIMSELF and on behalf of the People.

Nowhere is a qualification of the Messiah is one who claims the temple will be destroyed, just the opposite in fact. Upon your counter that Christ is the new Temple, that makes little sense given Ezekiel's position that sacrifices will be resumed in the Messianic age.

[Menassa]

So this chapter mentions nothing about the %10 tithe. What it does mention, again, polemically, has nothing to do with charity.

Of course it is about the 10% obligation, how else could giving to the Temple free you from obligation to help your parents?

I do not know, the whole thing is probably made up in the first place, like many things in the New Testament are... from the number of people who went down to Egypt, to the burial place of Jacob.

How immoral of you to turn away your own flesh and blood, like I said, they both need it the same amount.

Now what if neither of them is my brother, but one of them is white (as I am), and one of them is black, and both are strangers. Is it immoral to give it to the black man?

Ah, but that's changing my example completely, a Jew is not to a Jew as another white man ist to another white man, a Jew is to a Jew like brother to brother. We are all from the same father Abraham, all from his seed.

[Cobeidha]

What does that have to do with anything?

'Religion plays a very significant role in the state'

Obviously not that significant. It is the only country in the region with religious freedom.

I would like to dispute this. Kuwait has religious freedom. We have Churches and a Jewish Cemetery. The Old Synagogue is now gone as the Jews Migrated to Iraq.

[Cobeidha]

Oh, no no no no. You don't get to accuse me of slanderous lies when you baselessly accuse me of being a regressive leftist

You mean state that something you said is a common theme used by the regressive left islamic apologists?

out of the standards of some cancerous breitbart editorial or youtube video by some smelly zionist cucked 30something populist "neocon" landwhale with autism.

Was this a failed reference to something or just a bizarre insult at nothing in particular?

'll call you and accuse you of whatever the fuck I want after that.

So... Flamebaiting?

Another Islamophobe. Joy.

[Menassa]

'Religion plays a very significant role in the state'

Obviously not that significant. It is the only country in the region with religious freedom.

I would like to dispute this. Kuwait has religious freedom. We have Churches and a Jewish Cemetery. The Old Synagogue is now gone as the Jews Migrated to Iraq.

In terms of migration, Kuwait does not allow anyone into the country who has documentation of Israeli travel, Israel, let's Kuwait's into their country however.

[Souseiseki]

I would like to dispute this. Kuwait has religious freedom. We have Churches and a Jewish Cemetery. The Old Synagogue is now gone as the Jews Migrated to Iraq.

In terms of migration, Kuwait does not allow anyone into the country who has documentation of Israeli travel, Israel, let's Kuwait's into their country however.

israel will ban you if you come through certain countries as well, but what does that have to do with religious freedom?

[Menassa]

In terms of migration, Kuwait does not allow anyone into the country who has documentation of Israeli travel, Israel, let's Kuwait's into their country however.

israel will ban you if you come through certain countries as well, but what does that have to do with religious freedom?

What countries? It does not.