Messianic Jews say they are persecute...

Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

There are 72036 comments on the Newsday story from Jun 21, 2008, titled Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel. In it, Newsday reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#67148 Feb 8, 2014
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
You made me spray my champagne with this BS.
Cancer, Aids, I can understand

But typhoid? Who brags about curing typhoid?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#67149 Feb 8, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I told you a while ago that I wasnt trying to convince you of a position (i.e. argue) but instead bring to the table another perspective
Sure, the atheists can put a label on me. But, really, is that any different in hubris than a fundamentalist Christian calling me a sinner? Or a radical Muslim calling me an infidel? Both of those are meaningful categories from within their system, but meaningless from mine/ours.
That all said, parsing aside, in reality I have no problem being labeled an agnostic. But not an atheist. COR might be correct as to the technical definition, but in common society atheism has a lot of baggage that I definitely dont share.
Is it because you associate the word "atheist" with activist ("new") atheists? Prior to atheists becoming so vocal (a fairly recent phenomenon ), what baggage do you associate with them? The reason I ask is that I've never met two atheists that can agree on much of anything other than a disbelief in a deity.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#67150 Feb 8, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Cancer, Aids, I can understand
But typhoid? Who brags about curing typhoid?
Typhoid is a big deal in India. At least, it was until Joel cured it.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#67151 Feb 8, 2014
Religion is dead and is based on falsehood. God or Gods don't exist as objective realities.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#67152 Feb 8, 2014
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it because you associate the word "atheist" with activist ("new") atheists? Prior to atheists becoming so vocal (a fairly recent phenomenon ), what baggage do you associate with them? The reason I ask is that I've never met two atheists that can agree on much of anything other than a disbelief in a deity.
Nah.

To be an atheist implies to ACTIVELY disbelieve. What proportion of time does one have to spend disbelieving to be worthy of the label? You have to spend a lot of time focused on this issue, disbelieving. To me, that takes a certain type of person, a "militant" thinker. The flip of a "militant" believer I guess. To me its different side of the same coin. Both the believers and the atheists seem to be possessed with the issue of God, while I, as a behaviorist, tend to skirt the issue of belief - seeing it as irrelevant at best, and an obstruction to my religious practice at worst.

I have atheist thoughts from time to time,(anyone, religious or otherwise who doesnt, probably isnt being honest with themselves) but I would hate to be captured as a position within a label.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#67153 Feb 8, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I told you a while ago that I wasnt trying to convince you of a position (i.e. argue) but instead bring to the table another perspective
Sure, the atheists can put a label on me. But, really, is that any different in hubris than a fundamentalist Christian calling me a sinner? Or a radical Muslim calling me an infidel? Both of those are meaningful categories from within their system, but meaningless from mine/ours.
That all said, parsing aside, in reality I have no problem being labeled an agnostic. But not an atheist. COR might be correct as to the technical definition, but in common society atheism has a lot of baggage that I definitely dont share.
So you're saying one has no right to quibble with a label that one has put on himself? That it is only the self who can properly label what he is? That to do so would be hubris?

Does that hold for Messianic Jews as well? Is it ok for them to call themselves Jews? Jews for Jesus etc.

How about Huggy? What's he? Who knows?

What baggage do atheists have - they just don't believe in god - so what?

I would think Jews/Christians/Muslims have a hell of lot more baggage.

I was an agnostic too for many years, until I got off the fence.

Baby steps.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#67154 Feb 8, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol.,,,,that pretty much defines it, doesnt it?
I still reserve the right to reject that typology though.
To be more succinct, I dont BELIEVE in God, I ACT as if there is God. Whether I perceive it or not at the moment is moot.
That, in essence, is the difference between the Hebrew (Jewish) concept of "emunah" (faithfulness - a practice) and the English concept of faith (a static intellectual belief).
In any case it sounds as though you have the bases covered.

Just in case it's all true.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#67155 Feb 8, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah.
To be an atheist implies to ACTIVELY disbelieve. What proportion of time does one have to spend disbelieving to be worthy of the label? You have to spend a lot of time focused on this issue, disbelieving. To me, that takes a certain type of person, a "militant" thinker. The flip of a "militant" believer I guess. To me its different side of the same coin. Both the believers and the atheists seem to be possessed with the issue of God, while I, as a behaviorist, tend to skirt the issue of belief - seeing it as irrelevant at best, and an obstruction to my religious practice at worst.
I have atheist thoughts from time to time,(anyone, religious or otherwise who doesnt, probably isnt being honest with themselves) but I would hate to be captured as a position within a label.
I see what you're saying. Like the slut and the prude both being preoccupied with sex. Two sides of the same coin.

But I don't see it that way at all.

The theist believes while the atheist does not.

I see it very simply as the absence of belief. It takes ZERO time to not believe something.

I spend NO TIME being an atheist. I promise you.

What would make you think it takes time to not believe something? This idea boggles my mind.

On the contrary, all that fence sitting and pondering your existence would seem to take quite a bit of time and energy. How much time do you spend with all that?

Call me a pragmatist, an atheist, an agnostic. All ok with me.

And I do practice being a good and decent person. The Golden Rule and so on. That's the best any of us can do.

Though I don't claim to have cured typhoid, AIDS or pneumonia.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#67156 Feb 8, 2014
WHY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO EXIST AS OBJECTIVE REALITY

God, say believers, exists as objective reality at some deeper level of existence and is, in fact, they aver, the source of reality.

On being asked about the basis or about the nature of this God, believers would say he is spirit or is the universe from a pantheistic perspective or with eastern mystical types God is pure consciousness.

None of these claims stand the test of reason as seen below.

1) What is spirit? No one can precisely define spirit in terms of stuff (substance) and there's no evidence to support the existence of a substance called spirit who creates energy, matter and consciousness to form the universe, unless by spirit is meant a specific degree of consciousness which then brings the term spirit into the realm of energy/matter since consciousness is an epiphenomenon of energy/matter in different states of organized activity..

2) God cannot be pure consciousness since consciousness itself does not have an objective existence it being devoid of substance and energy. Consciousness, as stated above, is an activity of energy/matter. The more organized a material system is the more is the consciousness expressed in it with the human brain manifesting the highest degree of consciousness on account of its complex neuronal connectivity. So, pure consciousness as objective reality does not exist and so a God whose nature is pure consciousness is falsehood.

3) To equate God with the universe, as the pantheist does, is sheer stupidity since the universe is simply a concentrate of energy/matter in different modes of vibration. Besides, if God is the universe then this God is transient and imperfect like the universe.

CONCLUSION: God as objective reality does not exist. God is simply a human psychological construct that has taken deep root in the subconscious of the collectivity who subscribe to this idea of a God. Believers are a deluded lot who live in a world of make-belief and unknown to them their own subconscious beliefs and images of God keep subtly manipulating their behavior and worldview.

“Act Interdimensional ly”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#67157 Feb 8, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>...I see it very simply as the absence of belief. It takes ZERO time to not believe something...
I'd like to think you spent more than 'zero time' considering the issue before dedicating yourself to a conviction. I certainly hope you're not one of those 'Dawkins said it, I believe it, end of story' kind of folks.

I observe that even if you spent very little time to arrive at your position; you do seem to dedicate a lot of your time to selling that position to others.

Personally, I find proselytism, even proselytism of the lack of belief rather boorish and ultimately offensive when it won't let up even when there is no receptive audience.

Just sayin'.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#67158 Feb 8, 2014
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>

You made me spray my champagne with this BS.
Do you like Moet and Chandon?

Which wine glasses should champagne be served in?

“Act Interdimensional ly”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#67160 Feb 8, 2014
JOEL COOL DUDE wrote:
<quoted text>Do you like Moet and Chandon?

Which wine glasses should champagne be served in?
'Star Wars' commemorative Big Gulp cups

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#67163 Feb 8, 2014
Rick Moss wrote:
<quoted text>

'Star Wars' commemorative Big Gulp cups
Go away, ignorant fool.
JOEL

Mumbai, India

#67166 Feb 8, 2014
MUSINGS ON KARMA - 1:

Karma is based on the logic of "as you sow, so shall you reap".

In nature, in keeping with Newton's 3rd law of motion, we see action-reaction pairs of forces at work.

Human bodies are subject to wear and tear, diseases and death.

Heredity, decision-making, work-execution, brain states and environmental impulses keep impacting us at all times.

These are not all action-reaction forces but are in most cases natural processes at work.

In the human being, mind is a product of complex neuronal activity.

Mind cognizes and decides and influences the muscles to execute work.

This is karma or action.

Impressions of mental activity and influx of environmental impulses keep molding an individual's mental and bodily processes.
JOEL

Mumbai, India

#67167 Feb 8, 2014
MUSINGS ON KARMA - 2:

Good thoughts and soothing surroundings enhance gene expression in positive ways and neuronal networking becomes more harmonious or more effective with the result being greater peace, better relationships, good health and greater efficiency.

On the contrary, harmful thoughts and a disturbing environment create unnecessary stresses in our brain wiring and body cells leading to diseases, unpleasant relationships, lack of peace, impaired judgements, accidents and lowered efficiency.

If we change our pattern of thinking and if we switch to a more harmonious environment, we're benefited at all levels of human existence.
JOEL

Mumbai, India

#67168 Feb 8, 2014
MUSINGS ON KARMA -

However, when we say that a man suffers cancer, financial setback, career failure, accident or premature death due to his past bad karma, we're simply being irrational and superstitious.

If at all action and reaction forces are at work in such instances, then, the pair of action-reaction forces work in tandem and are not effected over years. For issuance, if I kick a concrete wall, my foot gets impacted immediately on account of a reaction force acting on it due to the wall being kicked by my foot. If someone insults me in public, my mind may immediately feel hurt if it is sensitive with the brain secreting all kinds of chemicals related to stress and the hurt feeling may carry on for days or even years with thoughts of revenge creeping into my mind. I can act against the person who insulted me by insulting him in future or beating him up or hiring a contract killer to bump him off. This is common enough. But, if the man who humiliated me suffers a financial setback or loses his eyesight or loses his wife in the near future, it's foolish on my part to conclude that his bad karma of insulting me resulted in any or all of these losses. A financial setback, an accident or death of spouse have valid cause-effect explanations independent of the man's karma of insulting me.
JOEL

Mumbai, India

#67169 Feb 8, 2014
MUSINGS ON KARMA - 4:

If a person habitually keeps getting angry or is always jealous of others it could only mean that his brain networking is faulty since brain states creates various ordered or disordered states of conscious activity some of which are inherited as specific energy patterns embedded in genes from ancestors and besides environmental impulses may add to or aggravate these personality flaws.
JOEL

Mumbai, India

#67170 Feb 8, 2014
MUSINGS ON KARMA - 5:

It is sillier to believe that behavioral causes attributed to past birth manifest as pernicious effects in the present round of existence since upon death the brain-produced consciousness dies out with the death of the neurons and the EMR diffuses out from the open system which is the body into the environment while the body goes back into the earth elements after a time. The diffused EM radiation may merge with a living organism and influence it as part of the process of exchange of energy in open/closed systems or it may scatter in the universal EM field. In rare cases, if the brain-produced consciousness has been powerful enough to persist even after death of the body as a well-formed pattern of EMR then it could get recycled in whole by entering a human being with whose EM field it has affinity and get assimilated or modified as a result.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#67174 Feb 9, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
I see what you're saying. Like the slut and the prude both being preoccupied with sex. Two sides of the same coin.
But I don't see it that way at all.
The theist believes while the atheist does not.
I see it very simply as the absence of belief. It takes ZERO time to not believe something.
I spend NO TIME being an atheist. I promise you.
But I dont see you as an atheist, I see you as an agnostic.

(open for argument I know)
former res wrote:
<quoted text>What would make you think it takes time to not believe something? This idea boggles my mind.
On the contrary, all that fence sitting and pondering your existence would seem to take quite a bit of time and energy. How much time do you spend with all that?
Call me a pragmatist, an atheist, an agnostic. All ok with me.
And I do practice being a good and decent person. The Golden Rule and so on. That's the best any of us can do.
Though I don't claim to have cured typhoid, AIDS or pneumonia.
I spend little time on the fence worrying. Remember, I was the one a while ago who told you to stop thinking and more time experiencing.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#67175 Feb 9, 2014
Rick Moss wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd like to think you spent more than 'zero time' considering the issue before dedicating yourself to a conviction. I certainly hope you're not one of those 'Dawkins said it, I believe it, end of story' kind of folks.
I observe that even if you spent very little time to arrive at your position; you do seem to dedicate a lot of your time to selling that position to others.
Personally, I find proselytism, even proselytism of the lack of belief rather boorish and ultimately offensive when it won't let up even when there is no receptive audience.
Just sayin'.
Its not that he is selling a position as much as he may be (indirectly) selling that fact that every one HAS a position.

But ultimately FR doesnt really advocate a position, he questions in order to understand your position.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Gila Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News DA Walks Away from what should have been a DUI ... Jul 9 Vera lane 1
Silver City, , but choice of NOT accepting ever... Jul 5 mrtnz1955 2
News WNMU to continue recruiting DACA students despi... Jun 29 Susanna 7
News Their view: No clear gain in dispute over Falkl... (Mar '10) Jun 26 Tony 625
News Yes, Denny's is coming Jun '16 Tiger37 1
Grant Co.---rotten corner of NM (Sep '11) May '16 CrookedHillary 57
News Silver City doctor faces ethics violation (Aug '09) Dec '15 Juanita S 481

Gila Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Gila Mortgages