Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

[Frijoles]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
It is a term that some of them use themselves, are you a politically correct psychopath?
Someone else used that same word a few posts back, OK muff diver?

muff diver?

[HughBe]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text> which covenant?..there were several.
AT DIFFERENT TIMES TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE

Bloody ASS, did God make ANY covenant, regardless of what it is, with a people called Israel or Israelites? If He did NOT how can He speak of making a NEW covenant with Israel? I am tired of your foolishness.

Jackass read and understand "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a NEW covenant with the house of ISRAEL, and with the house of Judah:

32 NOT ACCORDING to the COVENANT that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt"

Knowing that you are without sense let me tell you a secret I know where to find the ORIGINAL one also.

Now, answer my question which has been already answered by me or SHUT UP.

You try to deceive others with your BS. My point which you are trying to dodge is that the NATION of Israel had their IDENTITY before ANY covenant and at the time of the covenant.

[HughBe]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
Nasty?
Thats rather strong language. Why not just say it isnt your preference, and move on. Why the added homophobia?

Yes, I regard anal sex as NASTY. This is contrary to your view which basically is that it is mouthwatering.

[HughBe]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, spamming something five times doesnt make it correct

Too much valuable time has been wasted on you deceiver.

[Liam R]

HughBe wrote:

<quoted text>
Only in your head but not in reality.
YOOU and your overlords have REPLACED God's words with man-made nonsense. All I am doing is pointing to what is in the scriptures and I SHALL continue to do so.
YOOOU and your masters want to replace the Jewish people who do not want to be enslaved by them.
Now read slooooly once more. Ask for help in understanding my words.
Frijoles--Jews are am ETHNO-RELIGIOUS group - see above
HughBe--- In the given context, explain ethno-religious.
I am waiting for you to explain ethno-religious in the context that many Jews are NOT religious period and also in the context that you and your rabbis persist with BLATANT LIES.
The 10 Northern tribes of Israel did NOT observe JUDAISM. An understanding of these things say that yOU are a LIAR and of course your rabbis.
Plus God called them Israel and Jews e.g. Jeremiah 44. Do you want me to refresh your memory? I taught YOU this truth already but here goes.
Jeremiah 44:1 "The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the JEWS which dwell in the land of Egypt"
HughBe---Do you see the word JEWS?
Verse 15-16 "Then all the men which knew that their wives had burned incense unto OTHER gods, and all the women that stood by, a great multitude, even all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying,
16 As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, WE will NOT hearken unto thee."
HughBe---Indeed classic Judaism being displayed i.e. the REJECTION of God and His TRUTH. Now the incense goes to the rabbis.
ANSWER THIS---- what religion
NOTE: You have subsequently stated that it was Judaism. So ALL the evil etc. that God spoke of was Juaism. Excellent point, Frijoles.

Well, of COURSE the ten tribes did not practice Judaism. It had not been invented yet. I am tempted to say it was invented in the reign of King Josiah, but don't quote me on that. The point is that they needed to hearken back to a mythic golden age, so they invented the idea of a united kingdom all worshiping one God and turned a bandit chief (David) into a great unifying king.

[HughBe]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, spamming something five times doesnt make it correct

spam again.

My Judaite friend, please recall that YOU said the RELIGIOUS practices of the Northern tribes were JUDAISM.

Please NOTE very well that YOUR Judaism REJECTED ALL of the commandments of God. Yes it is ALL over the Tanach. I quote "they left ALL the commandments of the Lord " see below for the context.

Judaism today, is not very different, is it?

Enjoy the reading about YOUR Judaism and while enjoying it please note, YOUR Judaism was heavy into IDOLATRY, Children SACRIFICES, and EVIL.

2 Kings 17

And they left ALL the commandments of the Lord their God, and made them molten images(JUDAISM), even two calves, and made a grove, and worshipped all the host of heaven(JUDAISM), and served Baal(JUDAISM).

17 And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire(JUDAISM), and used divination and enchantments(JUDAISM), and sold themselves to do evil(JUDAISM) in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger

[HughBe]

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, of COURSE the ten tribes did not practice Judaism. It had not been invented yet. I am tempted to say it was invented in the reign of King Josiah, but don't quote me on that. The point is that they needed to hearken back to a mythic golden age, so they invented the idea of a united kingdom all worshiping one God and turned a bandit chief (David) into a great unifying king.

Liam---Well, of COURSE the ten tribes did not practice Judaism. It had not been invented yet.

HughBe--- A BREATH OF FRESH AIR for such is the nature of TRUTH.

[Liam R]

HughBe wrote:

<quoted text>
Liam---Well, of COURSE the ten tribes did not practice Judaism. It had not been invented yet.
HughBe--- A BREATH OF FRESH AIR for such is the nature of TRUTH.

Um, you DO realize that that cuts the legs out from under Christianity too, don't you? And Islam, for that matter...

[Frijoles]

HughBe wrote:

<quoted text>
Liam---Well, of COURSE the ten tribes did not practice Judaism. It had not been invented yet.
HughBe--- A BREATH OF FRESH AIR for such is the nature of TRUTH.

I said the same thing moron

[Frijoles]

HughBe wrote:

<quoted text>
spam again.
My Judaite friend, please recall that YOU said the RELIGIOUS practices of the Northern tribes were JUDAISM.
Please NOTE very well that YOUR Judaism REJECTED ALL of the commandments of God. Yes it is ALL over the Tanach. I quote "they left ALL the commandments of the Lord " see below for the context.
Judaism today, is not very different, is it?
Enjoy the reading about YOUR Judaism and while enjoying it please note, YOUR Judaism was heavy into IDOLATRY, Children SACRIFICES, and EVIL.
2 Kings 17
And they left ALL the commandments of the Lord their God, and made them molten images(JUDAISM), even two calves, and made a grove, and worshipped all the host of heaven(JUDAISM), and served Baal(JUDAISM).
17 And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire(JUDAISM), and used divination and enchantments(JUDAISM), and sold themselves to do evil(JUDAISM) in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger

Actually, I said the word Judaism hadnt been invented yet.

pay attention

[Frijoles]

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/judaism/T...

[Frijoles]

HughBe wrote:

<quoted text>
Too much valuable time has been wasted on you deceiver.

again not helpful.

How about acknowledging that you are FOS with your private covabulary?

[Frijoles]

HughBe wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, I regard anal sex as NASTY. This is contrary to your view which basically is that it is mouthwatering.

You definitely have strong feelings on the subject.

Why not just say it isnt your thing, and move on?

Why are you so homophobic?

[Cult of Reason]

HughBe wrote:

<quoted text>
Your words tell me that you are a Juadite. No Muslim or Christian or Hindu would LIE so easily and in that way.

The No True Scotsman fallacy. Got any new material?

[former res]

HughBe wrote:

<quoted text>
Truly, I'm not in the mood to continue to TEACH dim-wits so for now I shall pick what I respond to from you.

Huggybear, please note that I am the teacher and you are the student in this relationship.

And I have always been selective in what of your idiocy I chose to respond to.

I delete some comments while responding to others.

This is quite acceptable.

HughBe wrote:

<quoted text>
Now, my dear Mr.Former, I am HughBe and there is no POWER on earth that can make me say what I don't want to IF I am determied to say it. I seek no friendship from anyone, any country, any group including Christianity or the two RACIAL groups which I came from BIOLOGICALLY. I seek friendhip from God.

Noted.

You will not be inviting me for dinner.

I get it.

HughBe wrote:

<quoted text>
I say all of this to say, I do not hate HOMOSEXUALS as a group, I ceratinly hate their NASTY sexual practises. But truly, I hate none of them I don't even hate my in-laws.:D

You would qualify as a homophobe, anyway you want to say it or look at it.

[MUQ]

Frijoles wrote:

The chemical weapons worry was voiced since day 1.

Yes, the former Iraq situation doesnt help the discussion much

Yesterday I heard on the radio an interview with a Syrian official who was in charge of a portion of the stockpiling - He is now defected and living in Turkey.

In Iraq, they couldn't find a single Iraqi who could give this type of information, obviously because there was no info to give.

I have noticed you always seem to pick these causes that are easily debunked through normal googling and awareness.

Why? Do you not have access to the free media in your country?

Ans.

US and West’s attitude always uses double standard when dealing with Muslims and Non Muslims is the one which I always complain about.

If they adhere to what they claim to be a protector of human rights and personal freedom, irrespective of the people , nation or the area involved, then we can agree to their claim.

But we see that their attitude is totally different when the nations “violating” these rights be Muslims or when they be “Non Muslims”.

We saw what happened in Burma recently, but beyond saying “Oh! How disgusting”….the issue was forgotten. And we see how West reacted to the “crisis” in Sudan and got the country divided (they may try the same solution for Egypt and Syria is not far off).

We see the problems in Kashmir, but no one in the world seem to know about it.

If that double standard was not used, may be things would be different in the world today.

I have access to Internet if that is what you mean, but most of “pornographic” sites are filtered out!!

[MUQ]

Frijoles wrote:

Blaming the victims for slaughter of civilians. Nice.

Wikipedia posts citations at the bottom. If you are interested - go forth research them

Dimmi is not the issue - the issue is the violence. I wanted to post the whole news copy so that you could see it full context.

Isn’t your argument partly, "Muslim violence was not nearly as violent as Christian violence, therefore it is ok?"

2.

You need to read more international media, or even meet a real life Jew. You would be surprised at the breadth of diversity of opinions on the subject, as well as what the consensus is. Stop reading Arab media.

The UN resolutions were recommendations, not mandates. In 1948 as well as in 2012. The UN can not mandate a state.

You seem to continue to return to the theme of the US Granddaddy. The US is a democracy. If there wasn’t internal support for their policies they wouldn’t be implemented. If you feel as an Arab or Muslim that you are being slighted, then your recourse is to vote. Of course in your case you cant since you are not a citizen. And that is EXCACTLY the way the system is SUPPOSED to operate.

(Kind of like HUGHBE having no standing to tell Jews how to be Jewish - similar idea)

Ans.

01. When discussing historical matters, people do draw erroneous conclusions. The same problem we have in India where Extreme Hindus see 1000 years of Muslim rule “as a dark night of killing Hindus and burning their temples and looting their property”….. the fact that “most of that was discovered when British came to India” seems immaterial.

Same is the case with Jews, but do you investigate why they were persecuted by every one?

If Jews were known for Honesty, Justice, Speaking Truth and Leading a Moral lives, then one could agree that “forces of falsehood” are always wary of those holding the banner of truth and justice and persecute them.

If Jewish historians themselves tell that Jews were persecuted “only because” of their moral attitude, then I can agree that their persecution by Christians and Muslims was unjustified.

But when that is not the case, we should use our intelligence and try to find out why they were persecuted?

02. About Media in western country, much has been written, but any one investigating it, will find that Jews have much more influence in Media than their population can justify.

You can blame Muslims that why they did not match Jews on media owner ship, but that will not justify their dominance on Western Media.

And the way they use that pressure is best seen during Presidential Elections.

If US is a democracy, why any US President should “Vow” to ensure Security and Safety of Isreal? I do not know any other “democracy” in the world where the Presidential candidates “compete with each other” as to who will give “More support” to a far distant country?

Do you not see this as strange? How come Safety and Security of Isreal became a “central issue” on which US Presidential Elections are fought?

It shows that “Minds of US people” have been programmed to see US and Isreal as two sides of the same coin.

03. Your advice that I study more Western News is good, I do read it and post some of them from time to time.

Only thing is that when I post it, most people do not like it.

[Frijoles]

Cult of Reason wrote:

<quoted text>
The No True Scotsman fallacy. Got any new material?

Thats always been at the core of Hughbe's tirade against Jews (Judaites/Rabbis/overlords/ Jewish Jews, etc etc...)

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/...

Explanation

The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.

Example
The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.

If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge”, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:

(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.

[Frijoles]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Ans.
US and West’s attitude always uses double standard when dealing with Muslims and Non Muslims is the one which I always complain about.
If they adhere to what they claim to be a protector of human rights and personal freedom, irrespective of the people , nation or the area involved, then we can agree to their claim.
But we see that their attitude is totally different when the nations “violating” these rights be Muslims or when they be “Non Muslims”.
We saw what happened in Burma recently, but beyond saying “Oh! How disgusting”….the issue was forgotten. And we see how West reacted to the “crisis” in Sudan and got the country divided (they may try the same solution for Egypt and Syria is not far off).
We see the problems in Kashmir, but no one in the world seem to know about it.
If that double standard was not used, may be things would be different in the world today.
I have access to Internet if that is what you mean, but most of “pornographic” sites are filtered out!!

Interesting response, but how does it support your contention that Syria has no WMDs?

The reason people in the west are focused on WMDs is because there are mean people out there (that say they are muslim) who profess a desire to use these weapons against the west. So why should it be a suprise that the west is therefore focused on crumbling nation states that possess WMDs? Syria is widely acknowledged as having the larget Soviet Era stockpile of WMDS. Of course, it has our attention.

I am glad you have access to the internet. Why dont you ever use google before you post?

Why do you need a porno filter? Cant you just be trusted not to google porn sites?

[Frijoles]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Ans.
01. When discussing historical matters, people do draw erroneous conclusions. The same problem we have in India where Extreme Hindus see 1000 years of Muslim rule “as a dark night of killing Hindus and burning their temples and looting their property”….. the fact that “most of that was discovered when British came to India” seems immaterial.
Same is the case with Jews, but do you investigate why they were persecuted by every one?
If Jews were known for Honesty, Justice, Speaking Truth and Leading a Moral lives, then one could agree that “forces of falsehood” are always wary of those holding the banner of truth and justice and persecute them.
If Jewish historians themselves tell that Jews were persecuted “only because” of their moral attitude, then I can agree that their persecution by Christians and Muslims was unjustified.
But when that is not the case, we should use our intelligence and try to find out why they were persecuted?

There is a huge amount of historical analyses available. Some of it is easily accessed by google.

Many western universities have departments or subgroups devoted to ethnic studies and/or holocaust studies which examine this very question.

Most of the views converge on the notion that Jews and other minoroties are selected out for scapegoating, and/or to focus the masses away from the more pressing problems of their society, and/or so that the dominant group can feel more superior.

If you do not accept my word, go ahead - find this out on your own.