Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

Full story: Newsday

Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family.
Comments
65,621 - 65,640 of 69,030 Comments Last updated 3 hrs ago
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72495 Apr 28, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Havent since the inception and it didnt strike me as a huge amount - but I dont recollect what the deductible is. Right now I am on my spouses plan which has reasonable monthly charge but totally unreasonable deductable. So the devil is always in the details
Same with me.

Yes, you have to look at the whole package.

Raising the deductible is always the sure way to lower the premium.

Which is why I have high deductibles on my auto and home owners.

It's a form of being partially self-insured.

CT is known to be very expensive for health ins (and I noticed for auto as well compared with PA, not to mention gasoline, income tax, heating oil and don't get me started on the $500 I dropped at the DMV when we moved in - titles, tags, licenses.......)
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72496 Apr 28, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I got probably similar results to you for Silver - the deductible is slightly lower than what I am paying, but the premiums are considerable higher - over all more expensive
Back when I first started working the employer paid 80% to the employee's 20%(Higher for spouses/dependents as I recall.)

Now I think the mix is more like 60/40 - no standard but that seems to be what it runs.

So it's hard to compare employee sponsored with buying it on the open market.
As the boss is still picking up a big chunk of the premiums.

But there's still no doubt in my mind that Obamacare is a good thing. All the other features considered.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72497 Apr 28, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
And as I said (in different words), it in itself is a straw man. As I doubt most atheists take that position.
Though as you say, more for fun and snarkiness than for continuing the the conversation..
(I was going to say "moving the conversation forward" but, really! What's the point?:)))
I think the most fascinating part of that saying is that it is has been attributed to a Rabbi from a few hundred years ago, i,.e. even back them they were arguing this back and forth

and I do think even you (with all respect) are guilty of it a little bit, so I dont agree its a straw man criticism.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72498 Apr 28, 2014
oneworld wrote:
<quoted text>
Just butting in here Former.
no problem
oneworld wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems christianity they did not start in roughly the same place.
It seems the big part concerning the main concepts employed arose from discussions on the nature of the world, humans and gods presented in a meta-physical form.
The other contributing factor has been antagonism between judaism and the greek world.
Most arguements of this kind came from Alexandria.
A mix of myth and fact ending up in the gospel text.
And what ended up in the Old Testament?(As my people referred to it..)

(The rest of your post is interesting but over my pay grade...thanks for commenting...Frijoles can handle it..)
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72499 Apr 28, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the most fascinating part of that saying is that it is has been attributed to a Rabbi from a few hundred years ago, i,.e. even back them they were arguing this back and forth
and I do think even you (with all respect) are guilty of it a little bit, so I dont agree its a straw man criticism.
But since I spend half my time here (or so it seems) ASKING you just what nature of god you believe in?.......

How can you then turn around and claim that I claim to know what nature of god you believe in??

I see a bit of a hole in your reasoning.

The only thing I claim with which you clearly disagree is that you're a theist. And that to me is simply a matter of nomenclature/semantics.

Labels don't describe your god, only what we call him.....or the study of him.....theology...vs ???
oneworld

Den Helder, Netherlands

#72500 Apr 28, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Interestingly enough, the first country to declare Christianity as the state religion was not Rome but Armenia.
So they claim, but tracking the actual history shows something different.

I have to go, back in a few hours.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72501 Apr 28, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
But since I spend half my time here (or so it seems) ASKING you just what nature of god you believe in?.......
How can you then turn around and claim that I claim to know what nature of god you believe in??
I see a bit of a hole in your reasoning.
I claim that you think you know the nature of the god that I DISbelieve in.

Another way of articulating this is that we all approach the issue on different wavelengths regarding what god is or is not, but assume what we are rejecting is the exact same thing that the "other" is rejecting.

The extension of that (and where I put your comment above) is that often what some reject, they assume the other accept, and that isnt necessarily the case either.
former res wrote:
<quoted text>The only thing I claim with which you clearly disagree is that you're a theist. And that to me is simply a matter of nomenclature/semantics.
Labels don't describe your god, only what we call him.....or the study of him.....theology...vs ???
Actually I never disavowed theism. rather I have stated over and over that I feel it is a irrelevant framework to understand theology from a Jewish perspective. Because 1) the thought process is alien to the tradition - your framework comes from Greek philosophy not Jewish theology; 2) it involves a static sense of belief while Jewish theology values experience through ritual practice; 3) the real defining sense of Jewish theology is the "mono", not the "theism" part of the term monotheistic - as evidenced by the Shema prayer; and 4) in the strictest of theological inspection, dominant traditional Jewish paradigms that flirt into nondualism are not really incompatible with the theist/atheist binary description at all but yet still account for a theistic outlook in human situations such as prayer.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72502 Apr 28, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
I claim that you think you know the nature of the god that I DISbelieve in.
Another way of articulating this is that we all approach the issue on different wavelengths regarding what god is or is not, but assume what we are rejecting is the exact same thing that the "other" is rejecting.
The extension of that (and where I put your comment above) is that often what some reject, they assume the other accept, and that isnt necessarily the case either.
<quoted text>
This is the flip side of what I already addressed. Recall the associative and commutative principles from math class?

It seems you're the one making a lot of assumptions about what my assumptions are.(We could go on all day like this...)

The only god I'm aware of that you reject (and I wouldn't call this an assumption as you've stated this), is the anthropomorphic old man up in the sky.

Not sure what else you could be referring to.
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I never disavowed theism. rather I have stated over and over that I feel it is a irrelevant framework to understand theology from a Jewish perspective. Because 1) the thought process is alien to the tradition - your framework comes from Greek philosophy not Jewish theology; 2) it involves a static sense of belief while Jewish theology values experience through ritual practice; 3) the real defining sense of Jewish theology is the "mono", not the "theism" part of the term monotheistic - as evidenced by the Shema prayer; and 4) in the strictest of theological inspection, dominant traditional Jewish paradigms that flirt into nondualism are not really incompatible with the theist/atheist binary description at all but yet still account for a theistic outlook in human situations such as prayer.
Ok, we'll just leave it as you don't accept the label theist.

The rest is a little too much in the weeds for me.
oneworld

Den Helder, Netherlands

#72503 Apr 28, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
So what you are saying is that all this philosophy of God stuff actually arose as the dominant theme during the period of Greek philosophy? Thats what I have been saying....
In a nutshell, however intentionally mis-interpreted.
And that could have happened at any time.
Philosophers would not recognize their own statements.

I do not suscribe to the notion of judeo-christianity as origin.
But an antagonistic theme being used by a group of middleman to exempt them from paying taxes.

By now i'm at neo-paganism and the 6th-7th century push this gave to formulating concepts.
oneworld

Den Helder, Netherlands

#72504 Apr 28, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
no problem
<quoted text>
And what ended up in the Old Testament?(As my people referred to it..)
(The rest of your post is interesting but over my pay grade...thanks for commenting...Frijoles can handle it..)
What ended up in the[(mythical bc translation) or equally mythical 3rd c. CE rendition ] final version is multiple interpretations, corrections, chapters ending at the wrong place and hundred-thousands of mistakes.

So a pre-chewed interpretation. Books were only written for nobility.

The whole only appeared at a very late date. Before that time we only find part translations.
And it is reasonable and ever more likely that early versions are actually bound versions of various centuries.

The most Obvious is of course the ' one-god ' introduction and the interpretations allready provided.(getting it immensely wrong, which is strange*)
The essense of the hebrew version is that many interpretations are possible, the more found the more kudos.
*So let's say they find 26 reasonable interpretations, nevertheless the christians will come up with the odd-bal and can't find the options for the others in their variant version.

Apropos tax: those that not paid it were called atheists.
So jews were not atheists.
Christians were.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72505 Apr 28, 2014
If the above is not a match made in heaven....I don't know what is....

;)
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72506 Apr 28, 2014
oneworld wrote:
<quoted text>
What ended up in the[(mythical bc translation) or equally mythical 3rd c. CE rendition ] final version is multiple interpretations, corrections, chapters ending at the wrong place and hundred-thousands of mistakes.
So a pre-chewed interpretation. Books were only written for nobility.
The whole only appeared at a very late date. Before that time we only find part translations.
And it is reasonable and ever more likely that early versions are actually bound versions of various centuries.
The most Obvious is of course the ' one-god ' introduction and the interpretations allready provided.(getting it immensely wrong, which is strange*)
The essense of the hebrew version is that many interpretations are possible, the more found the more kudos.
*So let's say they find 26 reasonable interpretations, nevertheless the christians will come up with the odd-bal and can't find the options for the others in their variant version.
Apropos tax: those that not paid it were called atheists.
So jews were not atheists.
Christians were.
What was the source of the material/the text in the original Hebrew version of the bible? That is, the one without the mistakes?
oneworld

Den Helder, Netherlands

#72507 Apr 28, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
What was the source of the material/the text in the original Hebrew version of the bible? That is, the one without the mistakes?
That's way above your pay-grade.

I usually state it's the recollection of material throughout IsraŽls and Judahs history.
So reflecting relations and believes of others in the territory as well.
Together forming a guide through the history.

Experience and do's and don't s for the territory.
If we read that all (including the coastal towns, egypt ,aram and arabs') but not Edom(later nabbatea) fought against assyria, We can understand antagonism in a later era.
That we see plenty of treaties, so you could also call the H.B. a log-book of Canaanite people.

And i'm a bit wary of the socalled sources-theory priestly, Elohist etc.
Western eyes and philosophy in action.
Just as greeks and romans were the new-comers in general and strangers looking on and interpreting events through their xeno-phobia and fear.
Mind these two groups were also new in Greece and Italy.(DNA allover the place)

So instead of being the cradle of civilisation, they are rather the myth producing barbarians.
Myth as instrument of correction (keep your women in the home lest they become like the amazons) and explanations of this strange new territory.
I would put christianity in the same category.
oneworld

Den Helder, Netherlands

#72508 Apr 28, 2014
xeno-phobia fear of any and everything foreign.

And fear in general evoked by being aware of being invaders and not having any history whatsoever that could match f.i. Egypt, mesopotamia and Canaan.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72509 Apr 28, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the flip side of what I already addressed. Recall the associative and commutative principles from math class?
It seems you're the one making a lot of assumptions about what my assumptions are.(We could go on all day like this...)
The only god I'm aware of that you reject (and I wouldn't call this an assumption as you've stated this), is the anthropomorphic old man up in the sky.
Not sure what else you could be referring to.
I admit you are not the core audience for the "disbelieve" saying. But since we got on the topic...

I profess ignorance on the math principles. My geometry teacher was a stoner, and the only math I ever excelled in was AP Calculus.
former res wrote:
<quoted text><quoted text>
Ok, we'll just leave it as you don't accept the label theist.
The rest is a little too much in the weeds for me.
Although I defer to your recusal, those weeds ARE important, and each point I previously spent quite a bit of time getting into. They are at the heart of why I do not believe theistic belief is at the center of the beliefs that are relevant.

(managed to work belief into that sentence 3 times! pretty good...)

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72510 Apr 28, 2014
former res wrote:
If the above is not a match made in heaven....I don't know what is....
;)
I only get a certain part of that either. Not having topic sentences or conclusions makes it difficult to follow.
oneworld

Den Helder, Netherlands

#72511 Apr 28, 2014
I noticed Sea is back as well, writing as 'amused' in one of the threads.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72512 Apr 28, 2014
oneworld wrote:
<quoted text>
That's way above your pay-grade.
Something is certainly getting deep in here!

:))
oneworld wrote:
<quoted text>
I usually state it's the recollection of material throughout IsraŽls and Judahs history.
So reflecting relations and believes of others in the territory as well.
Together forming a guide through the history.
Experience and do's and don't s for the territory.
If we read that all (including the coastal towns, egypt ,aram and arabs') but not Edom(later nabbatea) fought against assyria, We can understand antagonism in a later era.
That we see plenty of treaties, so you could also call the H.B. a log-book of Canaanite people.
And i'm a bit wary of the socalled sources-theory priestly, Elohist etc.
Western eyes and philosophy in action.
Just as greeks and romans were the new-comers in general and strangers looking on and interpreting events through their xeno-phobia and fear.
Mind these two groups were also new in Greece and Italy.(DNA allover the place)
So instead of being the cradle of civilisation, they are rather the myth producing barbarians.
Myth as instrument of correction (keep your women in the home lest they become like the amazons) and explanations of this strange new territory.
I would put christianity in the same category.
So you believe the text is more of historic significance and not
the words of god as taken down by scribes?
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72513 Apr 28, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
I admit you are not the core audience for the "disbelieve" saying. But since we got on the topic...
I profess ignorance on the math principles. My geometry teacher was a stoner, and the only math I ever excelled in was AP Calculus.
<quoted text>
Although I defer to your recusal, those weeds ARE important, and each point I previously spent quite a bit of time getting into. They are at the heart of why I do not believe theistic belief is at the center of the beliefs that are relevant.
(managed to work belief into that sentence 3 times! pretty good...)
Here's a good run-down of the math principles.

Not too many words, I promise!

http://www.mathsisfun.com/associative-commuta...
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72514 Apr 28, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
I only get a certain part of that either. Not having topic sentences or conclusions makes it difficult to follow.
Good. I thought it was just me.

I have Dutch cousin who is much easier to follow.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr NMx 1,100,983
Word (Dec '08) 1 hr andet1987 4,662
Ping G20 Irons Compared With Cheap G15 Irons (May '12) 1 hr lucy 2
chief keef 1 hr sd 1
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr voice of peace 68,393
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr Louis Slungpoo 46,358
ISIS Plans to Blow Up an Entire American City a... 3 hr bing 9662 51
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 hr LRS 177,461
•••
•••
Chicago Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••