The Archbishop of New York who passed away 14 years ago - was actually Jewish

[irosie91]

Ironic this discussion since it was John the Baptist seen as the righteous one that even Jesus followed first.
Jesus is the one who had his friend & follower Salome hand John over to be beheaded so he could steal his flock. Can this story just be coincidental or used for the demonization of Jews through Judas which happened to be the name of Rome's threat, the tax revolter Galilean Christ of Herods time period?

Jesus' ministry and end plan really took a different life after John's beheading. He took over for John.

For many John was supposed to be the messiah. Even after his death John was the one invoked and his body parts were held in reverence, even more so than Jesus.

It seems to me----based on casual reading of the NT-----that killing John the Baptist was not all that difficult------no trial, no crucifixtion---just lopped of his
head on a whim, despite the fact that he was a very famous guy------a veritable
Elijah. I still do not understand why killing Jesus was such a COMPLICATED
PROBLEM. According to Christian dogma ------everyone wanted him dead except a few faithful followers--------but one of the reasons that the "everyone" could not kill him is that "the people would revolt" -----seems to me if they were
going to revolt because of a killing-------they would have revolted over the casual
head lopping of John the Baptist

 

[zaangalewa]

... I wonder how many died of AIDS because he was opposed to condom distribution?

No one opposed condom distribution. ( I saw by the way never in my life someone who asked for money for "condoms for Africa"). The catholic church did not give condoms to Catholics - that's all. And I guess no one died because of this. If someone is using a condome and thinks he may not be infected with HIV then this is a very great mistake - specially in case of anal sex. A condom is saver not save! The words "saver sex" caused worldwide a lot of confusion - specially if the people are not native english speakers. Everyone should know that he is able to infect someone or to become infected even if he/she is doing sex with condoms. It's not save to use condoms - it's only saver. Better to use a condom instead of nothing - that's all. But someone who has HIV should reduce sex drastically. "It's not love to infect the own partnerb with HIV" - how a bishop said decades ago. He is still right.

I didn't say that.

Sorry. A mistake. It was westwall who said so.

 

[irosie91]

... I wonder how many died of AIDS because he was opposed to condom distribution?

No one opposed condom distribution. ( I saw by the way never in my life someone who asked for money for "condoms for Africa"). The catholic church did not give condoms to Catholics - that's all. And I guess no one died because of this. If someone is using a condome and thinks he may not be infected with HIV then this is a very great mistake - specially in case of anal sex. A condom is saver not save! The words "saver sex" caused worldwide a lot of confusion - specially if the people are not native english speakers. Everyone should know that he is able to infect someone or to become infected even if he/she is doing sex with condoms. It's not save to use condoms - it's only saver. Better to use a condom instead of nothing - that's all. But someone who has HIV should reduce sex drastically. "It's not love to infect the own partnerb with HIV" - how a bishop said decades ago. He is still right.

I didn't say that.

what did you say? your comment was, clearly, accusatory. I have reservations about condom giveaway programs in public schools too.

 

[aris2chat]

... I wonder how many died of AIDS because he was opposed to condom distribution?

No one opposed condom distribution. ( I saw by the way never in my life someone who asked for money for "condoms for Africa"). The catholic church did not give condoms to Catholics - that's all. And I guess no one died because of this. If someone is using a condome and thinks he may not be infected with HIV then this is a very great mistake - specially in case of anal sex. A condom is saver not save! The words "saver sex" caused worldwide a lot of confusion - specially if the people are not native english speakers. Everyone should know that he is able to infect someone or to become infected even if he/she is doing sex with condoms. It's not save to use condoms - it's only saver. Better to use a condom instead of nothing - that's all. But someone who has HIV should reduce sex drastically. "It's not love to infect the own partnerb with HIV" - how a bishop said decades ago. He is still right.

I didn't say that.

what did you say? your comment was, clearly, accusatory. I have reservations about condom giveaway programs in public schools too.

If teens are fully intent on having sex, it is better to have a safe place to be educated and to have access to condoms (male or female) without judgement. It is not about encouragement but about safety first.

 

[HaShev]

why can't matthew be jewish?

1)not in Hebrew in conjunction with
2)borrowing from Micah 5 the writer does not know the Hebrew gender difference between towns & lineages.
&
The writer doesn't know that
"Bethlehem Ephratah" is a person the context being lineage not a town Bethlehem.
These are some of the blunders that expose the charade.

 

[zaangalewa]

... I wonder how many died of AIDS because he was opposed to condom distribution?

No one opposed condom distribution. ( I saw by the way never in my life someone who asked for money for "condoms for Africa"). The catholic church did not give condoms to Catholics - that's all. And I guess no one died because of this. If someone is using a condome and thinks he may not be infected with HIV then this is a very great mistake - specially in case of anal sex. A condom is saver not save! The words "saver sex" caused worldwide a lot of confusion - specially if the people are not native english speakers. Everyone should know that he is able to infect someone or to become infected even if he/she is doing sex with condoms. It's not save to use condoms - it's only saver. Better to use a condom instead of nothing - that's all. But someone who has HIV should reduce sex drastically. "It's not love to infect the own partnerb with HIV" - how a bishop said decades ago. He is still right.

I didn't say that.

what did you say? your comment was, clearly, accusatory. I have reservations about condom giveaway programs in public schools too.

... I wonder how many died of AIDS because he was opposed to condom distribution?

No one opposed condom distribution. ( I saw by the way never in my life someone who asked for money for "condoms for Africa"). The catholic church did not give condoms to Catholics - that's all. And I guess no one died because of this. If someone is using a condome and thinks he may not be infected with HIV then this is a very great mistake - specially in case of anal sex. A condom is saver not save! The words "saver sex" caused worldwide a lot of confusion - specially if the people are not native english speakers. Everyone should know that he is able to infect someone or to become infected even if he/she is doing sex with condoms. It's not save to use condoms - it's only saver. Better to use a condom instead of nothing - that's all. But someone who has HIV should reduce sex drastically. "It's not love to infect the own partnerb with HIV" - how a bishop said decades ago. He is still right.

I didn't say that.

what did you say? your comment was, clearly, accusatory. I have reservations about condom giveaway programs in public schools too.

Again: I made a mistake! It was westwall who said so not Penelope.

The problem with condoms is it if someone thinks condoms help and because of this the frequence of sex increases. What I don't understand is it that the discussion gives since decades not clear scientific reliabale informations. As long as it is in this way everyone who tries to think serios about the problem has to warn: Even with condom someone is able to be infected with HIV also the first time he or she has sex. That's the worst case scenario - damned bad luck - but this is possible. The pearl index for condoms in case of pregnancy is for example 2-12. This means 2%-12% of all women get pregnant every year even if their partner uses always a condom. I doubt about wether this situation is better in case of infections with HIV. The argument "Catholics are idiots" seems to be the standard argument in this question. Afterwards everyone say "That's true - Catholics are idiots, so condoms are save[r]" - and I fear nearly no one thinks about that condoms are only a little saver than to use no condoms.

 

[irosie91]

... I wonder how many died of AIDS because he was opposed to condom distribution?

No one opposed condom distribution. ( I saw by the way never in my life someone who asked for money for "condoms for Africa"). The catholic church did not give condoms to Catholics - that's all. And I guess no one died because of this. If someone is using a condome and thinks he may not be infected with HIV then this is a very great mistake - specially in case of anal sex. A condom is saver not save! The words "saver sex" caused worldwide a lot of confusion - specially if the people are not native english speakers. Everyone should know that he is able to infect someone or to become infected even if he/she is doing sex with condoms. It's not save to use condoms - it's only saver. Better to use a condom instead of nothing - that's all. But someone who has HIV should reduce sex drastically. "It's not love to infect the own partnerb with HIV" - how a bishop said decades ago. He is still right.

I didn't say that.

what did you say? your comment was, clearly, accusatory. I have reservations about condom giveaway programs in public schools too.

If teens are fully intent on having sex, it is better to have a safe place to be educated and to have access to condoms (male or female) without judgement. It is not about encouragement but about safety first.

I did not like the way that they made so much of an issue of it-----"GET YOUR CONDOMS HERE" I would have preferred something just slightly more
discreet -----keep in mind-----my father's mother was born in England-------
and could have vied with QUEEN VICTORIA----for Victorian values-----and my dad -----had it........bad. -----really bad------INTENSE (of the double standard kind)
they could have charged a nickel.

 

[irosie91]

... I wonder how many died of AIDS because he was opposed to condom distribution?

No one opposed condom distribution. ( I saw by the way never in my life someone who asked for money for "condoms for Africa"). The catholic church did not give condoms to Catholics - that's all. And I guess no one died because of this. If someone is using a condome and thinks he may not be infected with HIV then this is a very great mistake - specially in case of anal sex. A condom is saver not save! The words "saver sex" caused worldwide a lot of confusion - specially if the people are not native english speakers. Everyone should know that he is able to infect someone or to become infected even if he/she is doing sex with condoms. It's not save to use condoms - it's only saver. Better to use a condom instead of nothing - that's all. But someone who has HIV should reduce sex drastically. "It's not love to infect the own partnerb with HIV" - how a bishop said decades ago. He is still right.

I didn't say that.

what did you say? your comment was, clearly, accusatory. I have reservations about condom giveaway programs in public schools too.

... I wonder how many died of AIDS because he was opposed to condom distribution?

No one opposed condom distribution. ( I saw by the way never in my life someone who asked for money for "condoms for Africa"). The catholic church did not give condoms to Catholics - that's all. And I guess no one died because of this. If someone is using a condome and thinks he may not be infected with HIV then this is a very great mistake - specially in case of anal sex. A condom is saver not save! The words "saver sex" caused worldwide a lot of confusion - specially if the people are not native english speakers. Everyone should know that he is able to infect someone or to become infected even if he/she is doing sex with condoms. It's not save to use condoms - it's only saver. Better to use a condom instead of nothing - that's all. But someone who has HIV should reduce sex drastically. "It's not love to infect the own partnerb with HIV" - how a bishop said decades ago. He is still right.

I didn't say that.

what did you say? your comment was, clearly, accusatory. I have reservations about condom giveaway programs in public schools too.

Again: I made a mistake! It was westwall who said so not Penelope.

The problem with condoms is it if someone thinks condoms help and because of this the frequence of sex increases. What I don't understand is it that the discussion gives since decades not clear scientific reliabale informations. As long as it is in this way everyone who tries to think serios about the problem has to warn: Even with condom someone is able to be infected with HIV also the first time he or she has sex. That's the worst case scenario - damned bad luck - but this is possible. The pearl index for condoms in case of pregnancsy is for example 2-12. This means 2%-12% of all women get pregnant every year even if their partner uses always a condom. I doubt about wether this situation is better in case of infections with HIV. The Argument "Catholics are idiots" seems to be the standard argument in this question. Afterwards everyone say "That's true - Catholics are idiots, so condoms are save[r]" - and I fear nearly no one thinks about that condoms are only a little saver than to use no condoms.

yes-----all true-----and condoms in the hands (or wherever they put them) of teens are even less effective than in the hands (or wherever they put them) of
adults

 

[zaangalewa]

... I wonder how many died of AIDS because he was opposed to condom distribution?

No one opposed condom distribution. ( I saw by the way never in my life someone who asked for money for "condoms for Africa"). The catholic church did not give condoms to Catholics - that's all. And I guess no one died because of this. If someone is using a condome and thinks he may not be infected with HIV then this is a very great mistake - specially in case of anal sex. A condom is saver not save! The words "saver sex" caused worldwide a lot of confusion - specially if the people are not native english speakers. Everyone should know that he is able to infect someone or to become infected even if he/she is doing sex with condoms. It's not save to use condoms - it's only saver. Better to use a condom instead of nothing - that's all. But someone who has HIV should reduce sex drastically. "It's not love to infect the own partnerb with HIV" - how a bishop said decades ago. He is still right.

I didn't say that.

what did you say? your comment was, clearly, accusatory. I have reservations about condom giveaway programs in public schools too.

If teens are fully intent on having sex, it is better to have a safe place to be educated and to have access to condoms (male or female) without judgement. It is not about encouragement but about safety first.

I'm not sure about wether chocolate in a mousetrap is "safety first" for the mouse.

 

[irosie91]

why can't matthew be jewish?

1)not in Hebrew in conjunction with
2)borrowing from Micah 5 the writer does not know the Hebrew gender difference between towns & lineages.
&
The writer doesn't know that
"Bethlehem Ephratah" is a person the context being lineage not a town Bethlehem.
These are some of the blunders that expose the charade.

Bethleham Ephratah? --------- who is he? I is a jew and my
DIKDOOK is----abysmal. Maybe he was a STOOOPID JOOOO ----like me

 

[aris2chat]

why can't matthew be jewish?

1)not in Hebrew in conjunction with
2)borrowing from Micah 5 the writer does not know the Hebrew gender difference between towns & lineages.
&
The writer doesn't know that
"Bethlehem Ephratah" is a person the context being lineage not a town Bethlehem.
These are some of the blunders that expose the charade.

Bethleham Ephratah? --------- who is he? I is a jew and my
DIKDOOK is----abysmal. Maybe he was a STOOOPID JOOOO ----like me

Ephrath - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[irosie91]

why can't matthew be jewish?

1)not in Hebrew in conjunction with
2)borrowing from Micah 5 the writer does not know the Hebrew gender difference between towns & lineages.
&
The writer doesn't know that
"Bethlehem Ephratah" is a person the context being lineage not a town Bethlehem.
These are some of the blunders that expose the charade.

Bethleham Ephratah? --------- who is he? I is a jew and my
DIKDOOK is----abysmal. Maybe he was a STOOOPID JOOOO ----like me

Ephrath - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

thanks aris----the word confuses me-----I cannot figure out how to pronounce
it----------it does contain a semitic root for "fruit" -----see? I admitted it----
my Hebrew is abysmal.

 

[HaShev]

If you notice the verse is about a lineage which you come from and out of the "Many". But also this is obvious in context of verse says Clan=lineage.
Bethlehem was the son or grandson of Ephratah.

Micah says 'out of thee', as you come out of a lineage. Deceptive translations change this to 'born in' to refer to the town. Bethlehem Ephrathah= the tense in the Hebrew is MASCULINE GENDER and birthplaces are feminine gender therefore it’s not a birth place it’s a birth lineage one comes out of. Bethlehem the son (or grandson) of Ephrathah(1 Chronicles 4:4,2:50-51
Micah 5:2 reads: "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah (showing a lineage not a city )

 

[irosie91]

If you notice the verse is about a lineage which you come from and out of the "Many". But also this is obvious in context of verse says Clan=lineage.
Bethlehem was the son or grandson of Ephratah.

Micah says 'out of thee', as you come out of a lineage. Deceptive translations change this to 'born in' to refer to the town. Bethlehem Ephrathah= the tense in the Hebrew is MASCULINE GENDER and birthplaces are feminine gender therefore it’s not a birth place it’s a birth lineage one comes out of. Bethlehem the son (or grandson) of Ephrathah(1 Chronicles 4:4,2:50-51
Micah 5:2 reads: "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah (showing a lineage not a city )

oh gee-----do it for me in phonetic----sorta like Hebrew-----sorta------I can manage that better-------"THEE"??? as in shel chah? sorta?