-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
You haven't proved a **** thing, except that you're an anti-semite.
EVERY time you've tried to cite a Jewish source, it has an ENTIRELY different meaning from what you are actually saying.
I have REPEATEDLY told you that there IS INDEED a distinction between all of these terms. "Jew" is a subset of "Isrealite" so of course, they can NOT be used unter-changably.
Nonetheless, if you're referring to the use of the term "Anti-semite" well it is what it is. You ask any English speaking person what does this mean, and it's universally understood to mean a person who hates Jews.
If you object to my use of the word in this manner, too bad. I'm not worried about catering to the preferred vocabulary of those who hate G-d's firstborn Son, by ANY name.
And you continue to refer to bloodlines, just the same as the nazis did. I say once again, that Judaism IS NOT, and NEVER WAS a blood cult. It is NOT a racist religion. It is NOT a system wherein a person is of higher standing due to their lineage. Converts are considered no different than anyone BORN Jewish, and yet you inevitably keep referring back to these same dubious strings of lineage as proof for what you claim, without considering the effects of inter-marriage, and conversion.
Great, so an entire nation converted. Baruch Hashem! (Praise G-d!) That doesn't do a thing to prove that the "real" Jews (apparently, in your eyes) just disappeared, or are for some reason known only to you, no longer counted AMONG the Israelites, or among the Jews.
In fact, the more I'm reading about the Khazars, the less sense your story makes. The Khazars were apparently a TURKISH people, so it's not exactly clear that they're COMPLETELY of non-semitic origin. Since there are none left around, we can't exactly ask them, or run a DNA trace on them. Regardless, their STATE religion was not declared to be Judaism until about the 10th century.
Certianly we can see the effects Judaism had on them, in the relatively little importance THEY put on race. There were Ak-Khazars (white Khazars) and Kara-khazars (black Khazars), and I can't find anything that says one was subservient to the other. So they WERE a racially and ethnically diverse people, just like Israel herself.
I now present to you all, the REAL motivation behind Cup of Ruin's theology, taken straight from the wikipedia article on the Khazars-
The theory that the majority of Ashkenazic Jews are the descendants of the non-Semitic converted Khazars was advocated by various racial theorists[15][16] and antisemitic sources[16][17][18][19] in the 20th century, especially following the publication of Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe. Despite recent genetic evidence to the contrary,[20] and a lack of any real mainstream scholarly support, this belief is still popular among groups such as the Christian Identity Movement, Black Hebrews, British Israelitists and others (particularly Arabs[21][22][23]) who claim that they, rather than Jews, are the true descendants of the Israelites, or who seek to usurp the connection between Ashkenazi Jews and Israel in favor of their own.
EVERY time you've tried to cite a Jewish source, it has an ENTIRELY different meaning from what you are actually saying.
I have REPEATEDLY told you that there IS INDEED a distinction between all of these terms. "Jew" is a subset of "Isrealite" so of course, they can NOT be used unter-changably.
Nonetheless, if you're referring to the use of the term "Anti-semite" well it is what it is. You ask any English speaking person what does this mean, and it's universally understood to mean a person who hates Jews.
If you object to my use of the word in this manner, too bad. I'm not worried about catering to the preferred vocabulary of those who hate G-d's firstborn Son, by ANY name.
And you continue to refer to bloodlines, just the same as the nazis did. I say once again, that Judaism IS NOT, and NEVER WAS a blood cult. It is NOT a racist religion. It is NOT a system wherein a person is of higher standing due to their lineage. Converts are considered no different than anyone BORN Jewish, and yet you inevitably keep referring back to these same dubious strings of lineage as proof for what you claim, without considering the effects of inter-marriage, and conversion.
Great, so an entire nation converted. Baruch Hashem! (Praise G-d!) That doesn't do a thing to prove that the "real" Jews (apparently, in your eyes) just disappeared, or are for some reason known only to you, no longer counted AMONG the Israelites, or among the Jews.
In fact, the more I'm reading about the Khazars, the less sense your story makes. The Khazars were apparently a TURKISH people, so it's not exactly clear that they're COMPLETELY of non-semitic origin. Since there are none left around, we can't exactly ask them, or run a DNA trace on them. Regardless, their STATE religion was not declared to be Judaism until about the 10th century.
Certianly we can see the effects Judaism had on them, in the relatively little importance THEY put on race. There were Ak-Khazars (white Khazars) and Kara-khazars (black Khazars), and I can't find anything that says one was subservient to the other. So they WERE a racially and ethnically diverse people, just like Israel herself.
I now present to you all, the REAL motivation behind Cup of Ruin's theology, taken straight from the wikipedia article on the Khazars-
The theory that the majority of Ashkenazic Jews are the descendants of the non-Semitic converted Khazars was advocated by various racial theorists[15][16] and antisemitic sources[16][17][18][19] in the 20th century, especially following the publication of Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe. Despite recent genetic evidence to the contrary,[20] and a lack of any real mainstream scholarly support, this belief is still popular among groups such as the Christian Identity Movement, Black Hebrews, British Israelitists and others (particularly Arabs[21][22][23]) who claim that they, rather than Jews, are the true descendants of the Israelites, or who seek to usurp the connection between Ashkenazi Jews and Israel in favor of their own.
A
I stand corrected! What's he doing saying that God will judge America, then???? Why doesn't he talk about how Australia needs to repent??
I'm afraid other countries don't see it that way. They want to build up their own supply in order to defend themselves from America. I think most of their weapons of mass destruction are left over from the Cold War.
That's a great idea! I mean, enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world 20 times over is far more than we need.
Do they? Well, Pakistan and other countries out there aren't exactly known for their justice and equality. I don't think it's ok for Christians to ignore injustices, but we do know that there's only so much we can do about what goes on in other countries without violating their soverignty. I mean, I worry that too many Christians here don't know or care about the injustices going on in such countires. Sure, we can't go in and stop them, but at least we can pray. See, I can't think of a time when the US didn't fall short, even before 1776 when they weren't technically the US, hence the 400 year history of the Jeremiad. I mean, I just hate the fact that there are Christians who believe that God would come down hard on them now, worse than He did during the time of slavery. I mean, things were really hard in the south after the Civil War and some people took that as God's judgement. BUT, what bothers me is the number of Christians who believe that America is more out of line than ever, even during slavery. Why? I mean there were a heck of a lot of abortions during slavery because when the slave women got pregnant they didn't have to work and then they'd abort so they wouldn't have to bring another child into slavery (which was usually fathered by the white plantation owners or employees anyway). The point I'm trying to make is that these Jeremiads can really turn people off Christianity because they poorly represent who Jesus really is.
I really like this paragraph. It just says it all.
I'm afraid other countries don't see it that way. They want to build up their own supply in order to defend themselves from America. I think most of their weapons of mass destruction are left over from the Cold War.
That's a great idea! I mean, enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world 20 times over is far more than we need.
Do they? Well, Pakistan and other countries out there aren't exactly known for their justice and equality. I don't think it's ok for Christians to ignore injustices, but we do know that there's only so much we can do about what goes on in other countries without violating their soverignty. I mean, I worry that too many Christians here don't know or care about the injustices going on in such countires. Sure, we can't go in and stop them, but at least we can pray. See, I can't think of a time when the US didn't fall short, even before 1776 when they weren't technically the US, hence the 400 year history of the Jeremiad. I mean, I just hate the fact that there are Christians who believe that God would come down hard on them now, worse than He did during the time of slavery. I mean, things were really hard in the south after the Civil War and some people took that as God's judgement. BUT, what bothers me is the number of Christians who believe that America is more out of line than ever, even during slavery. Why? I mean there were a heck of a lot of abortions during slavery because when the slave women got pregnant they didn't have to work and then they'd abort so they wouldn't have to bring another child into slavery (which was usually fathered by the white plantation owners or employees anyway). The point I'm trying to make is that these Jeremiads can really turn people off Christianity because they poorly represent who Jesus really is.
I really like this paragraph. It just says it all.
Ancilla-
In fairness, in slavery days, only PART of the country were being born into servitude.
Today, EVERY American child is born into about $40k worth of debt, and without the consent of that child, or her parents. No, it's not the same as having NO civil rights, and being considered as property...
But some of the fundamental principles remain the same, such as the future labor of our children being traded as a commodity. That's really no different. We could say that the condition of today's American child was closer to indentured servitude, than slavery, except that term "indentured servant" as we use it implied a specific term, after which a person once again owned the product of their labor. Whereas today's American child has no term limits, they are going to work the rest of their lives (as long as they do so in America) to pay a debt they never agreed to take on.
So, in some ways, it may be better, but in other ways, it's not. Since we no longer separate the "haves" from the "have nots" along racial lines, that means those of us who might wish to oppose this system have a much harder time doing so.
Our enemy is decentralized. They do not stand out, as racists do, for us to present a united front. They aren't slavemasters, and plantation owners. They are, often, the very ones we elect to represent us. And since it is both sides of the political spectrum that ARE selling our children into bondage, we have frighteningly few options for changing the system from within.
We don't want to start a revolution over money... except then we remember, that's kind of exactly what our forefathers did.
And there were people in American history treated as worse than slaves. There still are. Historically, we can look at the Salem Witch Trials, whose modern equivilent would be the "War on (some) Drugs." In both cases, a person can be deprived of their property, without bothering to wait for a trial, in violation of Constitutional principles. In such cases, property can be not only seized, but disposed of, without waiting to see the outcome of any such charges. The most any wrongly accused person can legally reclaim is the disposed value, not the market value, meaning that in both cases, the State is ruining lives, for what? An interest-free loan.
Also, such people (alleged drug users today, and alleged witches back then) were expected to pay for their own incarceration, and if they are unable to do so, they are held beyond any fixed term, until such time as they ARE able to pay.
The very concept of the State acting as Plaintiff in the majority of criminal cases today works against Constitutional principles, although it DOES explain how in the WORLD the "land of the free" can house more total prisoners than any other country on the planet.
No harm, no foul. If there is no victim, there is no crime. But the State doesn't restrict its witnessing against We The People to cases of "victim's advocacy" where perhaps a victim is killed and thus CAN'T testify.... it's simply the way things are done. But it wasn't always.
We got along for 70 years without a single uniformed police officer in this country. Yes, the need was eventually going to arise. But I think it also shows the self-sufficiency of those early Americans. And maybe if we today took care of ourselves, and our neighbors, the way that they did, for one thing, we would have to show a greater amount of tolerance than we do today, since we and our neighbors would be mutually reliant on one another, despite whatever idealistic differences may exist... but we could stop looking to the government to solve all our problems for us.
Just a little food for thought. I saw the Canadian flag, and I thought maybe you're not aware of the burden lain on each newborn American's shoulders at birth.
In fairness, in slavery days, only PART of the country were being born into servitude.
Today, EVERY American child is born into about $40k worth of debt, and without the consent of that child, or her parents. No, it's not the same as having NO civil rights, and being considered as property...
But some of the fundamental principles remain the same, such as the future labor of our children being traded as a commodity. That's really no different. We could say that the condition of today's American child was closer to indentured servitude, than slavery, except that term "indentured servant" as we use it implied a specific term, after which a person once again owned the product of their labor. Whereas today's American child has no term limits, they are going to work the rest of their lives (as long as they do so in America) to pay a debt they never agreed to take on.
So, in some ways, it may be better, but in other ways, it's not. Since we no longer separate the "haves" from the "have nots" along racial lines, that means those of us who might wish to oppose this system have a much harder time doing so.
Our enemy is decentralized. They do not stand out, as racists do, for us to present a united front. They aren't slavemasters, and plantation owners. They are, often, the very ones we elect to represent us. And since it is both sides of the political spectrum that ARE selling our children into bondage, we have frighteningly few options for changing the system from within.
We don't want to start a revolution over money... except then we remember, that's kind of exactly what our forefathers did.
And there were people in American history treated as worse than slaves. There still are. Historically, we can look at the Salem Witch Trials, whose modern equivilent would be the "War on (some) Drugs." In both cases, a person can be deprived of their property, without bothering to wait for a trial, in violation of Constitutional principles. In such cases, property can be not only seized, but disposed of, without waiting to see the outcome of any such charges. The most any wrongly accused person can legally reclaim is the disposed value, not the market value, meaning that in both cases, the State is ruining lives, for what? An interest-free loan.
Also, such people (alleged drug users today, and alleged witches back then) were expected to pay for their own incarceration, and if they are unable to do so, they are held beyond any fixed term, until such time as they ARE able to pay.
The very concept of the State acting as Plaintiff in the majority of criminal cases today works against Constitutional principles, although it DOES explain how in the WORLD the "land of the free" can house more total prisoners than any other country on the planet.
No harm, no foul. If there is no victim, there is no crime. But the State doesn't restrict its witnessing against We The People to cases of "victim's advocacy" where perhaps a victim is killed and thus CAN'T testify.... it's simply the way things are done. But it wasn't always.
We got along for 70 years without a single uniformed police officer in this country. Yes, the need was eventually going to arise. But I think it also shows the self-sufficiency of those early Americans. And maybe if we today took care of ourselves, and our neighbors, the way that they did, for one thing, we would have to show a greater amount of tolerance than we do today, since we and our neighbors would be mutually reliant on one another, despite whatever idealistic differences may exist... but we could stop looking to the government to solve all our problems for us.
Just a little food for thought. I saw the Canadian flag, and I thought maybe you're not aware of the burden lain on each newborn American's shoulders at birth.
Oh, please, Cup o Ramen. They don't "admit it themselves." You found some isolated putz who nobody takes seriously anymore, and you've just completely run away with a theory that has been thoroughly debunked.
Wikipedia is fully sourced, and verified. TEN, yes, count them, TEN citations in that ONE paragraph alone. If you don't like what they have to say, you can click the links, and see WHY they say it.
But here's what Judaism ACTUALLY has to say on the matter. From the Encyclopedia of Judaism, 1989 edition,
"The notion that Ashkenazi Jewry is descended from the Khazars has absolutely no basis in fact."
And if you DO check the citations in that wiki, you'll find a PDF showing that actually they DID manage to find enough DNA to debunk the Khazar theory. If you continue to push this antiquated, hateful, and thoroughly disproven theory, you do so not ONLY flying in the face of Judaism's own beliefs (race is not what makes one a Jew) and common sense, but also you go against established methods of scientific inquiry, which were used TO debunk your theory.
But then, again, I'm gonna go ahead and guess that you're okay with pushing theories that go against science, since you DID just make the statement that blood doesn't pass from mother to child during pregnancy....
Wikipedia is fully sourced, and verified. TEN, yes, count them, TEN citations in that ONE paragraph alone. If you don't like what they have to say, you can click the links, and see WHY they say it.
But here's what Judaism ACTUALLY has to say on the matter. From the Encyclopedia of Judaism, 1989 edition,
"The notion that Ashkenazi Jewry is descended from the Khazars has absolutely no basis in fact."
And if you DO check the citations in that wiki, you'll find a PDF showing that actually they DID manage to find enough DNA to debunk the Khazar theory. If you continue to push this antiquated, hateful, and thoroughly disproven theory, you do so not ONLY flying in the face of Judaism's own beliefs (race is not what makes one a Jew) and common sense, but also you go against established methods of scientific inquiry, which were used TO debunk your theory.
But then, again, I'm gonna go ahead and guess that you're okay with pushing theories that go against science, since you DID just make the statement that blood doesn't pass from mother to child during pregnancy....
L
science can actually be pretty cool sometimes, despite how much I hate it.
http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site636/mainpageS636P0.html
I'm gonna take a stab in the dark here, and say that site can be trusted, since Harvard Medical School is a credible source (bottom of the page, says Children's Heart Hospital is the primary pediatric teaching hospital for Harvard Medical School).
http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site636/mainpageS636P0.html
I'm gonna take a stab in the dark here, and say that site can be trusted, since Harvard Medical School is a credible source (bottom of the page, says Children's Heart Hospital is the primary pediatric teaching hospital for Harvard Medical School).
C
The Israel of God are a people not geographical location, whom are all now Christian, and this is prophecised by Jeremiah 31:31-38 and confirmed in the NT, Hebrews 8:8-12. All the House of Judah and all the House of Israel had their hearts and minds written on and were saved by their God whom is Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - God incarnated in human flesh for the salvation of man, the concept of the modern international jewry represents ancient Israel is absurd and completely unfounded.
- Status