A Light Unto The Nations

[Sherlock Holmes]

Zionist arrogance knows no limits, the Arabs were well aware of this when partition was being discussed.



The insidious Zionist lobby partly orchestrated by Israel and partly driven by deluded "evangelical" heretics, is deeply entrenched in the United States politics and culture. Yesterday that lobby disposed of an inconvenient Cori Bush, those they target rarely survive unscathed.

Keep watching as Walz and Harris begin to receive increasing pressure from these forces, they are powerful enough to dictate to the US public, who Israel wants as our president, it is clear that Israel would prefer Trump but just how much they want that is unclear to me.

To support Israel is to support this, lawlessness, arrogance, racial superiority, genocide.

 

[rosends]

You appear to have answered your own question there.

By pointing out how your question is meaningless? Yeah, I guess I have.

Not on the basis of race or culture.

And you have yet to show that that is the case in Israel.

Yes and it is independent of race, culture.

So show me where that isn't the case in Israel.

When rules single out certain minorities then yes, it can be persecution.

So if the minority is "anarchists" they are persecuted. Got it.

That depends on what constitutes "try to convert".

Is it different in its application between different religions?

I never said they were specific to non-Jews, I said they restrict the speech of non-Jews, by design, by intent, that's' the purpose of the proselytizing laws.

But if Jews are not allowed to proselytize in the same way, then the laws are not just about non-Jews' speech.

You must be using a historical source unfamiliar to me.

Just the gospels. I guess you haven't read them.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

By pointing out how your question is meaningless? Yeah, I guess I have.

And you have yet to show that that is the case in Israel.

Judaism has no history of proselytizing (however Israel defines that term) so a law prohibiting it only adversely impacts non-Jews.

So show me where that isn't the case in Israel.

Judaism has no history of proselytizing (however Israel defines that term) so a law prohibiting it only adversely impacts non-Jews.

So if the minority is "anarchists" they are persecuted. Got it.

Yes and if the minority happen to oppose Jew supremacist Zionism then they too are persecuted by being labelled "antisemites" by said Zionists. Here in the US there are moves afoot to suppress free if that speech is critical or condemnatory of the state of Israel, the slimy tentacles of the parasite Israel are all around us.

Is it different in its application between different religions?

What is "convert" to one man might be "enlighten" to another.

But if Jews are not allowed to proselytize in the same way, then the laws are not just about non-Jews' speech.

Prohibiting me from doing something I have no inclination to do is not a restriction on me.

Just the gospels. I guess you haven't read them.

I have indeed and the Jewish authorities achieved their goal of death by manipulation and connivance much the same tools used today by the Zionist lobby.

 

[rosends]

Judaism has no history of proselytizing (however Israel defines that term) so a law prohibiting it only adversely impacts non-Jews.

Sure it does. And if the law is not written as applying to only one group, it applies to all.

Judaism has no history of proselytizing (however Israel defines that term) so a law prohibiting it only adversely impacts non-Jews.

As far as you know. Which isn't very far.

Yes and if the minority happen to oppose Jew supremacist Zionism then they too are persecuted by being labelled "antisemites" by said Zionists. Here in the US there are moves afoot to suppress free if that speech is critical or condemnatory of the state of Israel, the slimy tentacles of the parasite Israel are all around us.

Except that that isn't the case here. So you try to shift the focus to something that you want to talk about instead of what is actually being discussed because what is actually being discussed doesn't support your agenda. You have a problem with restructions on the first amendment. That puts you at odds with the American legal system. But you want to foist everything off on Israel because that's what you feel like you need to do. You are doing it out of ignorance of law, though.

What is "convert" to one man might be "enlighten" to another.

True. So? What one man considers art, another considers pornography. Your point?

Prohibiting me from doing something I have no inclination to do is not a restriction on me.

It is still a restriction, just not one you expect to run afoul of.

I have indeed and the Jewish authorities achieved their goal of death by manipulation and conniving much the same tools used today by the Zionist lobby.

Then you don't understand the gospels. The oppressed Jewish minority had no power to kill anyone and crucifiction is not a Jewish death penalty. But you still want to blame Jews so you invent the manipulation concern because you see yourself as inferior and easily manipulated. That's your issue.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sure it does. And if the law is not written as applying to only one group, it applies to all.

As far as you know. Which isn't very far.

Except that that isn't the case here. So you try to shift the focus to something that you want to talk about instead of what is actually being discussed because what is actually being discussed doesn't support your agenda. You have a problem with restructions on the first amendment. That puts you at odds with the American legal system. But you want to foist everything off on Israel because that's what you feel like you need to do. You are doing it out of ignorance of law, though.

The Israeli obsession with restricting free speech extends far beyond the borders of Israel, that's the point I was making.

True. So? What one man considers art, another considers pornography. Your point?

In saxony, before WW2 started, laws were passed outlawing ritualistic animal slaughter, do you regard that as an anti-Jewish law? If that law were passed in Britain, would Jews there care?

It is still a restriction, just not one you expect to run afoul of.

Yes, as would have been the case for me in Saxony, I'm unlikely to run afoul of the ritual slaughter laws.

Then you don't understand the gospels. The oppressed Jewish minority had no power to kill anyone and crucifixion is not a Jewish death penalty. But you still want to blame Jews so you invent the manipulation concern because you see yourself as inferior and easily manipulated. That's your issue.

What have I "invented"? I simply said Jesus was tortured and killed, you said it was by "Romans", so who's inventing stuff?

 

[rosends]

The Israeli obsession with restricting free speech extends far beyond the borders of Israel, that's the point I was making.

Israel doesn't control anyone's speech outside of Israel.

In saxony, before WW2 started, laws were passed outlawing ritualistic animal slaughter, do you regard that as an anti-Jewish law?

Yup, at least in effect. I can't speak to motivation though.

Yes, as would have been the case for me in Saxony, I'm unlikely to run afoul of the ritual slaughter laws.

But they are still a restriction on society and its members. That's the nature of laws.

What have I "invented"? I said Jesus was tortured and killed, you said it was "Romans" who killed him, so who's inventing stuff?

Romans did kill him. You didn't know that? What you invent is this notion of behind the scenes Jewish control of everyone.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Israel doesn't control anyone's speech outside of Israel.

You really are quite naive.

Yup, at least in effect. I can't speak to motivation though.

So you must concede, any generic law applied to all citizens can be prejudicial to some minorities. That's the case with the laws against proselytizing. In Israel people must refrain from it despite it carrying deep spiritual significance for some. As in Saxony Jews had only to stop ritual slaughter, something apparently difficult for some Jews.

But they are still a restriction on society and its members. That's the nature of laws.

Romans did kill him. You didn't know that? What you invent is this notion of behind the scenes Jewish control of everyone.

Romans killed him at the express request of Jewish leaders, at least that's in my copies of the Gospels. Oh and do calm down, at no point did I say "Jews killed Jesus" you are imagining things, inventing conspiracy fantasies.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Top human rights court backs Belgian religious slaughter bans​

Yohan Benizri, president of the Belgian Federation of Jewish Organizations that opposed the slaughter ban, said he was “appalled” by the ruling. “This is the first time that the ECHR decides that protection of animal welfare is a matter of public morals that can trump the rights of minorities,” Benizri told POLITICO.

One need only substitute "Christian preaching" for "ritual slaughter" and the hypocrisy of the Zionists stands out like a bright light.

 

[rosends]

You really are quite naive.

And you are ignorant. C'est la vie

So you must concede, any generic law applied to all citizens can be prejudicial to some minorities. That's the case with the laws against proselytizing. In Israel people must refrain from it despite it carrying deep spiritual significance for some. As in Saxony Jews had only to stop ritual slaughter, something apparently difficult for some Jews.

Yes, laws are prejudicial against law breakers who are often minorities. This, it seems, bothers you.

Romans killed him at the express request of Jewish leaders, at least that's in my copies of the Gospels. Oh and do clam down, at no point did I say "Jews killed Jesus" you are imagining things, inventing conspiracy fantasies.

The Romans killed him. You think that the oppressed Jews had a lot more power than they did. But Romans killed him. So what am I inventing? You wrote, "the Jewish authorities achieved their goal of death by manipulation and conniving" inventing the conspiracy theory when the proximal cause is missing..

 

[rosends]

Top human rights court backs Belgian religious slaughter bans​

One need only substitute "Christian preaching" for "ritual slaughter" and the hypocrisy of the Zionists stands out like a bright light.

except Jewish law doesn't say "Christian preaching" so arguing imagined things isn't useful.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

And you are ignorant. C'est la vie

Yes, laws are prejudicial against law breakers who are often minorities. This, it seems, bothers you.

The Romans killed him.

Yes.

You think that the oppressed Jews had a lot more power than they did.

Please, don't tell me what I think.

But Romans killed him.

Yes.

So what am I inventing?

The insinuation that there is some injustice against "Jews" in what I said about the death of Jesus.

You wrote, "the Jewish authorities achieved their goal of death by manipulation and conniving" inventing the conspiracy theory when the proximal cause is missing..

The Jewish authorities did (according to the miraculously preserved texts) seek the death of Jesus, but not by a Jewish hand.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

except Jewish law doesn't say "Christian preaching" so arguing imagined things isn't useful.

Indeed, just as the Saxony law did not say "Jewish ritual slaughter", are you starting to see the pattern now?

 

[rosends]

Please, don't tell me what I think.

so you disagree with the gospels. OK.

The insinuation that there is some injustice against "Jews" in what I said about the death of Jesus.

no, the conspiracy theory that Jews, when they aren't a direct cause, are still to blame because they control by manipulation and conniving.

The Jewish authorities did (according to the miraculously preserved texts) seek the death of Jesus, but not by a Jewish hand.

There are a lot of problems with that claim. First, they were not actually the Jewish authorities. Second is they had no power (under Jewish law) to hear capital cases. They also didn't have control of the Roman oppressors so their wishes maent nothing to the Romans. The timing is also impossible, and the statements of Jesus are not sins under Jewish law. But, hey, you believe what you need to.

 

[rosends]

Indeed, just as the Saxony law did not say "Jewish ritual slaughter", are you starting to see the pattern now?

Sure. I see a law which applies to everyone and another law which applies to everyone. What are you getting at?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

so you disagree with the gospels. OK.

no, the conspiracy theory that Jews, when they aren't a direct cause, are still to blame because they control by manipulation and conniving'

That's an invention, I said no such thing. My point was that Israel today with it's Jew supremacist laws and contrived defenses of those laws, mirrors the behavior of the Jewish leaders who went to great lengths to have Jesus executed and contrived arguments directed at the Romans to reach that goal.

That's my opinion, Zionism betrays an intolerance of non-conformity very much like that exhibited by the Jewish leaders recorded in the Gospels. That intolerance is not unique to Zionism either, the Nazis had it and it exists all over the world in various forms. But modern Israel deserves to be called out just as the Nazis were called out.

There are a lot of problems with that claim. First, they were not actually the Jewish authorities.

What would you describe them as then?

Second is they had no power (under Jewish law) to hear capital cases. They also didn't have control of the Roman oppressors so their wishes meant nothing to the Romans.

That's not what's recorded, the Romans very clearly took an interest in the case, the governor of Judea was personally involved in the discussions. One can exert influence and even control despite not having authority.

The timing is also impossible, and the statements of Jesus are not sins under Jewish law. But, hey, you believe what you need to.

Doesn't matter, they wanted him dead not because of sins but because they did not want to hear what he was telling them, the charges, the sin etc. are all part of the conniving to rid themselves of this clearly unwelcome. individual. He was telling them things that about themselves that did not want to hear.

 

[boevans]

The Founders were nothing like the evangelical, fundamentalist, and Pentecostal heretics of today.

 

[rosends]

That's an invention, I said no such thing.

So you didn't write, "the Jewish authorities achieved their goal of death by manipulation and conniving" when discussing the death of Jesus?

My point was that Israel today with it's Jew supremacist laws and contrived defenses of those laws, mirrors the behavior of the Jewish leaders who went to great lengths to have Jesus executed and contrived arguments directed at the Romans to reach that goal.

You a law you don't like is called "supremacist", any study of those laws which puts them into a context is a contrived defense and the Jewish leaders in the gospels manipulated and connived to get Jesus dead. But no, nothing about a conspiracy.

That's my opinion, Zionism betrays an intolerance of non-conformity very much like that exhibited by the Jewish leaders recorded in the Gospels.

Members of any political party don't tolerate people having the opposite position. I'm not sure what you mean by "non-conformity" -- a murderer is simply a non-conformist, one who doesn't abide by society's "don't murder" rule because it persecutes him.

What would you describe them as then?

The sadduccee false sanhedrin. You know that the actual sanhedrin had left by then, right?

That's not what's recorded, the Romans very clearly took an interest in the case, the governor of Judea was personally involved in the discussions. One can exert influence and even control despite not having authority.

But what's recorded is that the Romans killed him using a Roman military punishment. What's also recorded is that the false sanhedrin supposedly held a meeting at night (nope) to decide a capital case (nope) about blasphemy (nope) and somehow, Rome cared about what they said.

Doesn't matter, they wanted him dead not because of sins but because they did not want to hear what he was telling them, the charges, the sin etc. are all part of the conniving to rid themselves of this clearly unwelcome. individual. He was telling them things that about themselves that did not want to hear.

And because you see them as in control of everyone around, they are guilty. Got it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So you didn't write, "the Jewish authorities achieved their goal of death by manipulation and conniving" when discussing the death of Jesus?

No, I didn't write: "Jews, when they aren't a direct cause, are still to blame" you made a small copy/past error there. I stand by what I actually wrote not what you paraphrased.

You a law you don't like is called "supremacist", any study of those laws which puts them into a context is a contrived defense and the Jewish leaders in the gospels manipulated and connived to get Jesus dead. But no, nothing about a conspiracy.

The unconditional citizenship right to Jews is Jew supremacist, it favors Jews and has been the single biggest reason that the demographics have turned a minority into a majority since 1948.

Members of any political party don't tolerate people having the opposite position.

Your true colors are showing, where most sane people would say "don't agree with" you have to say "don't tolerate".

I'm not sure what you mean by "non-conformity" -- a murderer is simply a non-conformist, one who doesn't abide by society's "don't murder" rule because it persecutes him.

Jesus was a non-conformist Jew, that's what we were talking about.

The sadduccee false sanhedrin. You know that the actual sanhedrin had left by then, right?

But what's recorded is that the Romans killed him using a Roman military punishment. What's also recorded is that the false sanhedrin supposedly held a meeting at night (nope) to decide a capital case (nope) about blasphemy (nope) and somehow, Rome cared about what they said.

And because you see them as in control of everyone around, they are guilty. Got it.

Yes I said already many time that the Romans killed him.

You are no position to say what the Sanhedrin, Sadducees or Pharisees did two thousand years ago during the presence of Jesus, the preserved written account trumps your obviously biased beliefs, that the document might not accord with your beliefs suggests you reexamine those beliefs, the assumptions and prejudices that you use to support them.

I have not said "all Jews are guilty" what I did do is compare the insidious behavior of the Jewish authorities as recorded in the Gospels with the insidious behavior of modern Zionism.

That's my opinion, and I am quite at liberty to form that opinion.

 

[rosends]

No, I didn't write: "Jews, when they aren't a direct cause, are still to blame" you made a small copy/past error there. I stand by what I actually wrote not what you paraphrased.

So when the Jews aren't a direct cause you agree that they are NOT to blame. Got it.

The unconditional citizenship right to Jews is Jew supremacist, it favors Jews and has been the single biggest reason that the demographics have turned a minority into a majority since 1948.

You are talking about the law of return I assume because anyone can apply for citizenship in Israel. The difference is that someone who is Jewish takes a different track (though still subject to 2(b) ). Maybe you should read up on the legal issues involved and compare them to other nations' laws

From 'Ethnic Cleansing' to Casualty Count, Prof. Qumsiyeh Errs

Mazin Qumsiyeh's July 27 New Haven Register op-ed contained highly distorted and unsubstantiated accusations against Israel. While many of the accusations were of a

www.camera.org

Your true colors are showing, where most sane people would say "don't agree with" you have to say "don't tolerate".

Actually, I was just mirroring your language "Zionism betrays an intolerance".

Jesus was a non-conformist Jew, that's what we were talking about.

Like a murderer is a non-conformist, yes.

You are no position to say what the Sanhedrin, Sadducees or Pharisees did two thousand years ago during the presence of Jesus, the preserved written account trumps your obviously biased beliefs, that the document might not accord with your beliefs suggests you reexamine those beliefs, the assumptions and prejudices that you use to support them.

Or, you are in no position to attest to the accuracy of the gospels written a long time ago and full of errors. I AM in a position because I know what those errors are. You can buy into the text as literal and exact if you want, but anyone who knows about the laws, culture and practices of the time will continue to laugh at you.

I have not said "all Jews are guilty" what I did do is compare the insidious behavior of the Jewish authorities as recorded in the Gospels with the insidious behavior of modern Zionism.

I didn't claim that you said that. I just showed that your words invent a conspiracy theory.

That's my opinion, and I am quite at liberty to form that opinion.

So your opinion is that there is a conspiracy afoot. That's fine.

 

[rylah]

You don't know the answer to "what's a Jew?" how do you spot a fake?

Perhaps there are others here to know how to recognize a Jew from a fake Jew, if so please do tell.

A Jew is a who no a what.

We are the royal tribe of the nation of Israel.

How do I spot an oxymoron, by an Oedipus complex,
i.e. a general replacement theology obsession going
out of their way to proselytize by denying Jews and
Torah as fake only to claim they're the "real ones".

Basically it's called Christianity and Islam,
with the later having the historic urge
to overcompensate more about -
male insecurity and illiteracy.

Why do Muslim men
feel so insecure
about women,
and Islam?