Scum Hamas Terrorists Slaughter Jews In Israel

[Slarti]

1 hour ago, W6er said:

So the president of the US and many others in top positions are not Evangelicals, then? How many of them actually are? I would say that America's foreign policy has largely been influenced by the Wolfowitz Doctrine and Paul Wolfowitz is not an Evangelical, either. If you assert something it's good practice to evidence it.  

The meaning of the names from the genealogy in Genesis is very interesting: https://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/284/

The human Jesus' father is God, the creator of the universe - that's an impressive enough lineage, IMHO. However, legally I would imagine he'd inherit his earthly father's lineage, particularly as it was not known that Joseph wasn't his biological father. 

The fact that the current POTUS and those he appointed are (mainly) not Evangelicals does not negate the point I was making.

The Religious Composition of the 117th Congress

 

By their very nature, evangelicals are more outspoken and more likely to "take action" against those who do not agree with them and so even those politicians who are not themselves evangelicals are more likely to "be influenced".  And, YES, they do also put a lot of money into politics.

 

Christians are over-represented in congress (especially Protestants - the majority of which are from evangelical denominations -  and Catholics).  The Jewish contingent in congress is also larger percentagewise that Jews in the population.  It's not a new thing and US foreign policy towards the middle east has, at least since the early 20th century, been influenced by this.  Whether any specific person is an evangelical is irrelevant.

 

Anyway, the point I was actually making about the bible being self contradictory is borne out by the fact that there are so many denominations of Christianity, if there were no contradictions or ways to derive different meanings from the same text, there would only be one denomination.  Let's face it, those that move from one denomination to another (or one religion to another) do so because they find that denomination (or religion) agrees more with their own self determined ideas and ideals, not because it doesn't.  The same applies, to a lesser degree, to those that go from religious to non-religious - but in that case it's more that they find that they can't believe or agree with what religion teaches.

[W6er]

59 minutes ago, Slarti said:

The fact that the current POTUS and those he appointed are (mainly) not Evangelicals does not negate the point I was making.

The Religious Composition of the 117th Congress

 

By their very nature, evangelicals are more outspoken and more likely to "take action" against those who do not agree with them and so even those politicians who are not themselves evangelicals are more likely to "be influenced".  And, YES, they do also put a lot of money into politics.

 

Christians are over-represented in congress (especially Protestants - the majority of which are from evangelical denominations -  and Catholics).  The Jewish contingent in congress is also larger percentagewise that Jews in the population.  It's not a new thing and US foreign policy towards the middle east has, at least since the early 20th century, been influenced by this.  Whether any specific person is an evangelical is irrelevant.

 

Anyway, the point I was actually making about the bible being self contradictory is borne out by the fact that there are so many denominations of Christianity, if there were no contradictions or ways to derive different meanings from the same text, there would only be one denomination.  Let's face it, those that move from one denomination to another (or one religion to another) do so because they find that denomination (or religion) agrees more with their own self determined ideas and ideals, not because it doesn't.  The same applies, to a lesser degree, to those that go from religious to non-religious - but in that case it's more that they find that they can't believe or agree with what religion teaches.

 

Your claim that evangelicals are more outspoken appears speculative. Not that I necessarily disagree with you, though.

Christians are over-represented. My maths is rubbish, so please correct me if I'm wrong (not that I feel I need to invite you to do so  ) but Jewish people are over-represented by > 300%, according to that, whilst Christian Congressmen are over-represented by 135%, is that correct? It would be interesting to see those figures for the cabinet. 

Something being contradictory and open to different interpretation is not the same thing. The often cited 'eye for an eye, tooth for tooth' actually established the limits on retribution. It is also from the Old Testament. As a Christian the New Testament supersedes the Old, regardless. It is a new covenant.

Christianity was unified for approx 800 years. Then came the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Church. Afterwards, protestants decided anybody can interpret the Bible however they liked, the floodgates opened. 

Edited October 9, 2023 by W6er

[Albanian Buddy]

So many deaths have been caused by differences in religious beliefs. Fcuking arseholes the lot of them. 

[Slarti]

 
Your claim that evangelicals are more outspoken appears speculative. Not that I necessarily disagree with you, though.
Christians are over-represented. My maths is rubbish, so please correct me if I'm wrong (not that I feel I need to invite you to do so  ) but Jewish people are over-represented by > 300%, according to that, whilst Christian Congressmen are over-represented by 135%, is that correct? It would be interesting to see those figures for the cabinet. 
Something being contradictory and open to different interpretation is not the same thing. The often cited 'eye for an eye, tooth for tooth' actually established the limits on retribution. It is also from the Old Testament. As a Christian the New Testament supersedes the Old, regardless. It is a new covenant.
Christianity was unified for approx 800 years. Then came the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Church. Afterwards, protestants decided anybody can interpret the Bible however they liked, the floodgates opened. 

Evangelising is about speaking out so it's not speculative at all. There will obviously be exceptions but again, that doesn't negate my point.

The page tells you about the over representation.

I know it's not the same thing, I never said it was. If they were the same thing there would have been no need to mention both.

Yes, I know it's the limit of retribution, I've mentioned that on here before.

You don't get to have a New Testament without an Old Testament, you can't just throw it away. Jesus said that he never came to change the law:

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

Christianity was never unified. That was the main crux of a lot of Peter's writings. He was chastising others for not believing/behaving as he thought they should. It was also the reason for all of the Councils, they were trying to unify it.

The fact that people interpret it differently (and also have different books in their bibles) just adds weight to my claim.

[Cookie Monster]

The meaning of the genealogy in Genesis?  It's an attempt to show that the Jews are direct descendants of Adam (who didn't exist - at least in the biblical sense).  Are you talking about something else?
 
The Messiah was supposed to be a direct descendent of David but Jesus wasn't as it was Joseph that was supposedly descended from David, not Mary, and the bible goes out of its way to say that Joseph wasn't Jesus' auld man.

Mary was also a descendent of David [emoji6]

Joseph through David's son Solomon and Mary through David's son Nathan.

[Slarti]

Mary was also a descendent of David [emoji6]

Joseph through David's son Solomon and Mary through David's son Nathan.

Really? Where in the bible does it mention Mary's lineage? It mentions Joseph's in 2 gospels (or more accurately, Jesus' lineage through Joseph) but nothing about Mary's as far as I know.

[shull]

 

[W6er]

3 hours ago, Slarti said:

 

 

Evangelising is about speaking out so it's not speculative at all. There will obviously be exceptions but again, that doesn't negate my point.

The page tells you about the over representation.

I know it's not the same thing, I never said it was. If they were the same thing there would have been no need to mention both.

Yes, I know it's the limit of retribution, I've mentioned that on here before.

You don't get to have a New Testament without an Old Testament, you can't just throw it away. Jesus said that he never came to change the law:

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

Christianity was never unified. That was the main crux of a lot of Peter's writings. He was chastising others for not believing/behaving as he thought they should. It was also the reason for all of the Councils, they were trying to unify it.

The fact that people interpret it differently (and also have different books in their bibles) just adds weight to my claim.

 

Evangelising means proselytising - converting folk to the Christian faith. Most faiths are 'evangelical' in that respect - the only two that I can think of which aren't are Zoroastrianism and Judaism, and I may be mistaken about the former.

Jesus fulfilled the law.

Indeed, you are correct with respect to the councils, however the Catholic (i.e. universal) Church existed up until the Great Schism, in ~1050. I suppose there were other wee offshoots such as the Cathars, but by and large the faith was united.

Getting back on topic, assuming this is genuine (which I cannot verify) it is a chilling example of how the Palestinians have been treated by the IDF:

This is an interesting observation:

 

Palestinians being described as 'human animals' apparently:

 

[Slarti]

Evangelising means proselytising - converting folk to the Christian faith. Most faiths are 'evangelical' in that respect - the only two that I can think of which aren't are Zoroastrianism and Judaism, and I may be mistaken about the former.
Jesus fulfilled the law.
Indeed, you are correct with respect to the councils, however the Catholic (i.e. universal) Church existed up until the Great Schism, in ~1050. I suppose there were other wee offshoots such as the Cathars, but by and large the faith was united.
Getting back on topic, assuming this is genuine (which I cannot verify) it is a chilling example of how the Palestinians have been treated by the IDF:

Exactly, they advocate or promote their religion in an attempt to win converts. They are outgoing by definition.

To a certain extent you are correct, just some are more evangelical than others.

What do you mean "fulfilled the law"? Do you mean fulfilled the prophecy?

Just because something calls itself universal, it doesn't mean it is. Similar to the WORLD Series in baseball. 1054 was the big break but the whole time there were disagreements and "little schisms" not just on religious matters but on cultural and political ones. At one point there were 5 patriarchs who were all equals and controlled their own areas. Many in the east thought that Jesus wasn't equal to God. Etc, etc, etc. Basically they were different but tried to agree a consensus on the major issues.

This is all really irrelevant to modern day Evangelical Christians in the US trying to bring about the end times and the end of the world by supporting Israel.

[StanleySaint]

I've read the above debate with interest and thank the contributors for their clear and knowledgeable posts, whatever the religious and geopolitical origins and justifications for the situation in the region I think we can all agree this is going to be a massive humanitarian disaster and pressure needs to be brought to bear to resolve the current situation quickly, the long term issue is one of those almost unsolveable puzzles which will unfortunately trundle on for many years and likely decades to come.

[faraway saint]

10 hours ago, Albanian Buddy said:

So many deaths have been caused by differences in religious beliefs. Fcuking arseholes the lot of them. 

Aye, the news is really depressing and tragic.

The brutality by both sides, the death of "innocent" civilians and the hatred is so strong it's beyond belief for any of us.

 

[Doakes]

Difficult to put into words how depressing this is

I noticed on instagram that one of Stav Nahmani's best mates girlfriend was killed - if you're Stav - you're thinking that your homeland is under attack by terrorists who are willing to murder, rape and kidnap innocent people at a concert

If you're a Palestinian, your homeland has been turned into an open air prison that is currently being flattened by Israel

By applying empathy, you can easily make a case for both sides to be absolutely f**king seething inside

There is no obvious route to peace and that is extremely concerning 

[DougJamie]

And the world's eyes turn to Palastine... deflection is how World wars start... 

[Albanian Buddy]

6 minutes ago, DougJamie said:

And the world's eyes turn to Palastine... deflection is how World wars start... 

Just when St Mirren were about to embark on European domination. Typical.

[ALBIONSAINT]

2 hours ago, Albanian Buddy said:

Just when St Mirren were about to embark on European domination. Typical.

It’s only Tuesday, but I am putting this forward for post of the week 😂

[shull]

 

[W6er]

 

[ALBIONSAINT]

 

[W6er]

 

[Doakes]

From BBC
 

1. The Israeli military says hundreds of thousands of troops are near the Gaza border "ready to execute the mission we have been given"
2. Israel is expected to launch a ground offensive on the Gaza Strip soon - it says the mission is to "make sure Hamas won't have any military capabilities"
3. The death toll in Israel has reached 1,200 - while more than 900 people have been killed by Israeli air strikes on Gaza
4. The head of the Palestinian Energy Authority says Gaza's only power station will run out of fuel today
5. Earlier this week, Israel announced a "siege" of Gaza - cutting its supplies of electricity, fuel, and water
6. Details of a massacre in an Israeli village have emerged - with an Israeli general speaking of babies killed in their bedrooms
7. Israeli soldiers also told BBC International Editor Jeremy Bowen that some of the dead in the village had been beheaded

 

Can't see Biden having much influence to halt anything, guy can't string a sentence together. The world is in a dangerous place right now

[W6er]

47 minutes ago, Doakes said:

From BBC
 

1. The Israeli military says hundreds of thousands of troops are near the Gaza border "ready to execute the mission we have been given"
2. Israel is expected to launch a ground offensive on the Gaza Strip soon - it says the mission is to "make sure Hamas won't have any military capabilities"
3. The death toll in Israel has reached 1,200 - while more than 900 people have been killed by Israeli air strikes on Gaza
4. The head of the Palestinian Energy Authority says Gaza's only power station will run out of fuel today
5. Earlier this week, Israel announced a "siege" of Gaza - cutting its supplies of electricity, fuel, and water
6. Details of a massacre in an Israeli village have emerged - with an Israeli general speaking of babies killed in their bedrooms
7. Israeli soldiers also told BBC International Editor Jeremy Bowen that some of the dead in the village had been beheaded

 

Can't see Biden having much influence to halt anything, guy can't string a sentence together. The world is in a dangerous place right now

I'm sure I read yesterday that the Scottish Government' s facing criticism for not flying the Israeli flag! 😮 

 

ETA:

 

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by W6er

[Doakes]

The only flag we should be flying is one that promotes a peaceful resolution

Taking sides on this is like throwing petrol on a fire

[WeeBud]

1 hour ago, W6er said:

I'm sure I read yesterday that the Scottish Government' s facing criticism for not flying the Israeli flag! 😮 

 

ETA:

 

 

Criticism from a "Political Advisor" (and Rangers fan so possibly/probably Unionist), probably more of an opportunity to discredit SNP/Hollyrood than a deep-rooted feeling......I see Russell Findlay tweeting similarly (almost identically). I absolutely hate this kind of "positional politics".

The flip question would be "how would any Palestinians feel about Scottish Government or But House flying the Israeli flag.....I'm with Doakes on this, we should only be supporting peaceful resolution and not taking sides.

 

[beyond our ken]

1 hour ago, W6er said:

I'm sure I read yesterday that the Scottish Government' s facing criticism for not flying the Israeli flag! 😮 

 

ETA:

 

 

za-yousaf-gives-update-family-trapped-gaza/

[beyond our ken]

The tories are shamelessly trying to cream cash from Jewish donors with this hideous virtue signalling