This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
It’s generally used in opposition to a Nationalist. Decreasing national laws and government institutions in favor of more global government and arbiters.
Let's just say Wall Street, bankers and corporations are the culprits, who seek profit by exploiting workers in poor countries. Cheap labor, the new slavery.
Well they attempt to exploit labor everywhere including here. They have forgotten their obligation to their community and think they are only obligated to their stock prices.
Nearly every time I read one of our Founders I become ashamed by my relative lack of literacy. When communication was less readily at hand one had to, I presume, craft with great care each individual communication.
Don't be too ashamed. They were better writers but they didn't believe black people were fully human. We have a leg up on them.
My grandfather always said God gave us two ears and one mouth so we’d have somewhere to put both index fingers while we yell out “LALALALALALALA.”
I'm sure that even though large swaths of the populace hate Jews so much that they wish them dead, at least Jewish people can take solace that others think they're really good at running businesses.
I listen to a few shows on the radio while driving to work in the morning, for me it’s a real mix. One of them is a local tea party station, and this morning the topic was of course this.
Thank you. It bothered me greatly that when Pence spoke on Saturday he continually mentioned Jews and Christians, synagouges and churches, but not once did he mention Muslims and mosques. It’s as if to a man like Pence they simply don’t exist.
Executives of corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to their stock holders that trumps obligations to community. Although there can be some overlap in that doing good for the community is in the best fiduciary interests of the stockholders.
He was happy to meet with Farrakhan less than three years earlier, along with the CBC. I doubt Farrakhan changed his stance in that time.Henry Ford said:
Of course. This administration has proven that over and over.timschochet said:
The incredible PR job the Romans managed to make Christians blame Jews for the death of Jesus is amazing.
Wasn't that hard to do that. In fact, they didn't even need to try. Most of the gentile christians were pagans to start with, and many of them already disliked Jews. A religion that suggested that the Jews screwed up and didn't recognize their own messiah would have legs in their circles just for laughs.
Yeah that's a relatively new take on business responsibility driven mostly by people who only care about their own pockets. And really it's just a fig leaf to do crappy stuff for an extra dime.
We talking about when he spoke here and referred to "places of worship" or are we talking about here where he only mentioned churches and temples one time when he was repeating something the president said?timschochet said:
I did. That's why I left christianity after 30+ years of being one. The version of history christianity teaches it's members isn't correct.
Today’s Christianity teaches many things that aren’t true. Jesus being a Jew and being killed by the Romans at the request of the Jews...that’s what clearly happened.
I 100% believe the Romans killed him.... because he had a following that believed he would rid the holy land of of its Roman occupation. The fact that the Jewish establishment also didn't like that his following believed he was the next anointed king of Israel wasn't even necessary at the time for Rome to do it. Killing Jesus didn't do much though, as the anti-roman occupation movement just continued to gain steam for the next few decades until Rome finally just kicked the Jews out of Jerusalem and Judea completely. That's when the gentile version of Christianity grew unopposed. To the original believers, Jesus was never a savior of the world who died to pay for our sins. To them he was the next anointed king of Israel who would re-unite the 12 tribes of Israel, and rid the holy land of foreign occupation. When Rome killed him, Jesus's brother James became the next leader because he was the next in line to the thrown via inheritance. That's why he became the leader of believers in Jerusalem after Jesus was killed even though he was not an apostle. Paul then meshed Jesus with existing pagan religious concepts to form the "gospel" christians believe today, that Jesus died for all men to pay for their sins so they could go to heaven if they believed in him. Paul would tell whoever he was talking to what they wanted to hear, so for many years the believers in Jerusalem didn't even know what Paul was out teaching because he would tell them what they want to hear and then turn around and tell gentiles what they want to hear to get them to believe in his gospel (he admits he didn't get his gospel from the apostles in Galatians 1:12). As soon as the Asians (who Paul admits all rejected him in 2 Timothy 1:15) called him out on it in front of the Jerusalem leaders, Paul and Jerusalem had nothing more to do with each other. But shortly after that Rome overthrew Jerusalem and eventually all of Judea too. At that point there is no Israel anymore. There's no country for Jesus (or his brother James through inheritance) to be King over anymore. That whole movement died off... and Paul's version grew unopposed... but they literally have nothing to do with each other as Paul made his gospel up, and the four gospels were written by followers of Paul after Jerusalem fell and the original belief died off. The gospels, despite what the church teaches, are NOT eyewitness accounts of what happened to Jesus at all. They were written to rewrite history to support Paul's gospel that he made up (claimed he got through visions).shader said:
That’s an interesting theory but wholly unsupported by facts. I think many of the lies of some of today’s christian churches have taken you to some odd spots in your thinking.
If you're of the belief that the gospels ARE eyewitness accounts, then I agree it's pretty silly to continue the discussion, as no one outside of believers believes they are at all.
Not a surprise that “non-believers” feel that way. Let’s not try and score points on the way out. We just don’t agree. Pretty simple.
In the Middle East? Absolutely not.
Nusairism, Manichaeism, Sabianism, Bábism, Yazidism, Mandaeism, Gnosticism, Yarsanism, Samaritanism, Shabakism, Ishikism, Ali-Illahism, Alevism, Yazdânism, Zoroastrianism... just to name a few.
Tribes of Israel? No. The Jews are the remnants of Israel after 10 of the tribes of Israel were lost after their land was conquered by the Assyrians in 8th century BC (I think). The return of the lost tribes was associated with the messiah.
It’s not. There has never been a time when Judaism wasn’t a very small minority of people.
Pretty hard to think of them as eyewitness accounts given the time they were written. Also believe the current thinking is Mark is the first written (30 to 40 years after Jesus's death) with Mathew and Luke basically all rewrites of Mark with a few additions and John was written even latter (like 60 years after Jesus's death). Hard to see how they were eyewitness accounts.
Relevant to this topic: I highly recommend Reza Aslan's Zealot, about the historical Jesus. One thing I learned is that, as you say, the development of what we think of as Christianity was largely the work of Paul years after Jesus' death, but also that his positioning of the religion was very much in response to the failed uprising against the Romans in 70 AD. After that, Jerusalem was destroyed and Judaism was banned. So, while the movement led by James immediately after Jesus' death had been a Jewish movement designed to appeal to other Jews, Paul sought to appeal to Gentiles and also shift blame for Jesus' death to the Jews, not because he hated them but because it was politically much safer than blaming the Romans.
Being against zionism really has nothing to do with antisemitism. It might drift into antisemitism from certain segments, which is wrong and horrible, but it really shouldn't. Israel does not own the Jewish identity.
First a definition- being against Zionism means being against the existence of the State of Israel. It is not the same as being a critic of the State of Israel, or of its current policies. If you are an anti-Zionist, you would prefer it if the state of Israel did not exist.
That's not true. Being against Zionism can happen in multiple ways, but most commonly it means opposition to Israel in its current form, which is really a supremacist ethnostate. Israel has the right to exist just like any other state. It does not have the right to ethnically cleanse people for being the wrong race.
You probably have, but anti-zionists who are not anti-semitic aren't going to be as vocal as a person who is both anti-semitic and anti-zionist. Jews are great people... but I think the world would be better off if Israel was not established as a country in the last century. Not that I don't think they should have a country of their own. I would be fine if they established their own country in say Arizona or something. It's where they had to establish it that is the problem.
