That Soap Opera In Genesis

[rylah]

Sunni won't like this...others may not as well.

Israel is the one who eventually through clarification and unifying all these measure into its correct equilibrium have the key to solve the impossible chasm between West and the East,
Esau and Ishmael - both eventually reform.

Not conversion to Judaism, rather reform to align with the roots - Israel's Torah.

Again, once the Pagan world couldn't imagine it's going to turn Christian or Muslim.,
the same now most cannot conceive this seemingly crazy idea.

However inevitable.
All for good.

You are really missing what is far worse: secularism.

Read Sunni's posts carefully, and you will see a yearning for and, possibly, presaging a reformation in Islam, as western religion went through.

If and when that happens, religion will fight the real enemy.....militant secularism, based on this:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

Maybe I would agree a 100 years ago, maybe, not sure.
But true secularism is almost non-existent in our days.

What there is, is a rebellious generation - not for the sake of rebelling,
rather holding to impossible standards, and testing reality in search for undeniable truth.


Religiosity is much worse an illness - it's promiscuous, vulgar.

"Maybe I would agree a 100 years ago, maybe, not sure.
But true secularism is almost non-existent in our days."
You are clearly a squirrel's view of heaven.

You're truly certifiable: how could I have missed it.


1. ”Barr: The Real People Trying To ‘Impose Their Values’ On Others Are ‘Militant Secularists’

It has been long convenient for secularists to insist that it is possible for government to be neutral about religion by imposing their religion on everyone.

…religion is being driven out of the marketplace of ideas and there’s a organized militant secular effort to drive religion out of our lives” “To me the problem today is not that religious people are trying to impose their views on nonreligious people, it’s the opposite — it’s that militant secularists are trying to impose their values on religious people and they’re not accommodating the freedom of religion of people of faith.”
Barr: The People Trying To 'Impose Their Values' Are 'Militant Secularists'


2. "The abandonment of the Christian tradition that created the West's most cherished ideal- a radical secularism evident in Europe's indifference to God and church- created a vacuum of belief into which many pseudo-religions have poured: scientism, fascism, communism, environmentalism, multiculturalism, sheer hedonism [and Islam] - all have attempted and failed....to provide Europeans with an alternative to Christianity that can show them what is worth living and dying for."
From "Decline and Fall: Europe's Slow-Motion Suicide," by Bruce Thornton


3. The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.

Well, maybe I'm certifiable,
maybe it has something to do with living on the other side of the globe.

For example, only a week ago I learned Americans were OFFICIALLY registering race and skin-color in state documents, and using that as a measurement to manage budget.
Shocked me to the core...

However I'm digressing, and still You're putting too much in the bag and mixing a lot here.

Race, religion, anti-semitism, illegals and the new donuts sprinkle...
How am I supposed to address all that?

Choose one.

Do the attendants know you've chewed through the restraints again?

Sure, they line up asking for a favor.
What am I supposed to take that personally or something?

Seriously, you have a problem with 'militant secularist',
but don't see any problem with race and skin color still being an official policy
and one of, if not the main cultural theme in 2020?

Not a single other country can I imagine where You open TV,
and people talk - "black-white-asian-brown" all day long as if nothing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sunni won't like this...others may not as well.

Israel is the one who eventually through clarification and unifying all these measure into its correct equilibrium have the key to solve the impossible chasm between West and the East,
Esau and Ishmael - both eventually reform.

Not conversion to Judaism, rather reform to align with the roots - Israel's Torah.

Again, once the Pagan world couldn't imagine it's going to turn Christian or Muslim.,
the same now most cannot conceive this seemingly crazy idea.

However inevitable.
All for good.

You are really missing what is far worse: secularism.

Read Sunni's posts carefully, and you will see a yearning for and, possibly, presaging a reformation in Islam, as western religion went through.

If and when that happens, religion will fight the real enemy.....militant secularism, based on this:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

Maybe I would agree a 100 years ago, maybe, not sure.
But true secularism is almost non-existent in our days.

What there is, is a rebellious generation - not for the sake of rebelling,
rather holding to impossible standards, and testing reality in search for undeniable truth.


Religiosity is much worse an illness - it's promiscuous, vulgar.

"Maybe I would agree a 100 years ago, maybe, not sure.
But true secularism is almost non-existent in our days."
You are clearly a squirrel's view of heaven.

You're truly certifiable: how could I have missed it.


1. ”Barr: The Real People Trying To ‘Impose Their Values’ On Others Are ‘Militant Secularists’

It has been long convenient for secularists to insist that it is possible for government to be neutral about religion by imposing their religion on everyone.

…religion is being driven out of the marketplace of ideas and there’s a organized militant secular effort to drive religion out of our lives” “To me the problem today is not that religious people are trying to impose their views on nonreligious people, it’s the opposite — it’s that militant secularists are trying to impose their values on religious people and they’re not accommodating the freedom of religion of people of faith.”
Barr: The People Trying To 'Impose Their Values' Are 'Militant Secularists'


2. "The abandonment of the Christian tradition that created the West's most cherished ideal- a radical secularism evident in Europe's indifference to God and church- created a vacuum of belief into which many pseudo-religions have poured: scientism, fascism, communism, environmentalism, multiculturalism, sheer hedonism [and Islam] - all have attempted and failed....to provide Europeans with an alternative to Christianity that can show them what is worth living and dying for."
From "Decline and Fall: Europe's Slow-Motion Suicide," by Bruce Thornton


3. The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.

Well, maybe I'm certifiable,
maybe it has something to do with living on the other side of the globe.

For example, only a week ago I learned Americans were OFFICIALLY registering race and skin-color in state documents, and using that as a measurement to manage budget.
Shocked me to the core...

However I'm digressing, and still You're putting too much in the bag and mixing a lot here.

Race, religion, anti-semitism, illegals and the new donuts sprinkle...
How am I supposed to address all that?

Choose one.

Do the attendants know you've chewed through the restraints again?

Sure, they line up asking for a favor.
What am I supposed to take that personally or something?

Seriously, you have a problem with 'militant secularist',
but don't see any problem with race and skin color still being an official policy
and one of, if not the main cultural theme in 2020?

Not a single other country can I imagine where You open TV,
and people talk - "black-white-asian-brown" all day long as if nothing.

"... race and skin color still being an official policy ..."


Whose policy?

 

[OldLady]

1.First of all, I don’t mean to minimize the importance of the family dynamics that took place between the first Jews and the ancestor of several prominent Arab tribes and the forefather of Muhammad. ….certainly not in light of the importance of those dynamics in the headlines these days.

And soap operas have become important today….what with the coronavirus captivity.
“Daytime Soaps Surge: B&B, Days, GH and Y&R Experience Significant Ratings Boosts as America Quarantines” Daytime Soaps Surge: B&B, Days, GH and Y&R Experience Significant Ratings Boosts as America Quarantines




2. Now….the biblical soap opera: I refer to Genesis, chapter 21.

See, the first Jewish person is really old when God promises him kids. And Abraham really wants children… so, Sarah offers her Egyptian maid, Hagar, to Abraham to provide him with a child….and guess what line that child began…. “Hagar, Abraham’s concubine and the mother of his son Ishmael. Purchased in Egypt, she served as a maid to Abraham’s childless wife, Sarah, who gave her to Abraham to conceive an heir…. The Jews believed that Ishmael was the ancestor of a number of Bedouin peoples dwelling in southern Palestine. There are also legends stating that Ishmael was an ancestor of Muḥammad.” Hagar | biblical figure



Does that plot apply today? You betcha’!
“Can my husband see his mistress?': French police receive bizarre lockdown questions” 'Can my husband see his mistress?': Police's oddest lockdown questions




3. So, a miracle occurs….the aged Sarah becomes pregnant…gives birth to the promised inheritor of God’s blessing, Isaac.
21.2 Sarah conceived and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken.
21.3 Abraham gave his newborn son, whom Sarah had borne him, the name of Isaac.

Now the plot thickens! Isaac is about two, Ishmael about sixteen, and it dawns on Sarah that….if Abraham dies….both will be his heirs…and if you are familiar with the history of ‘royal houses,’ this problem is often solved in a lethal manner!




Sarah may be a nice Jewish girl…or old lady….but she is a tigress when it comes to protecting the interests of her baby boy!

Sooo….what would the plot line be if this were on Lifetime channel???

How about if it were on the Investigation Discovery channel??? (Toccata and fugue in D)

Yes, I get a kick out of the Abraham saga. Every headache a man can have with his wife(wives). Poor soul.
Did you catch where he gave Sarah to the leaders of two new territories they wandered into? Said she was his sister--here, have her.
Sarah had it tough too. She was jealous as all get out of Hagar after Ishmael was born. Beat her to ribbons. Hagar ran away--with the baby of course, and Abraham had to go after her, sweet talk her back home.

Great soap. They should do a movie.

But I just read some more of the thread. Serious topic. Sorry for digressing; I only read the OP.

 

[rylah]

Sunni won't like this...others may not as well.

Israel is the one who eventually through clarification and unifying all these measure into its correct equilibrium have the key to solve the impossible chasm between West and the East,
Esau and Ishmael - both eventually reform.

Not conversion to Judaism, rather reform to align with the roots - Israel's Torah.

Again, once the Pagan world couldn't imagine it's going to turn Christian or Muslim.,
the same now most cannot conceive this seemingly crazy idea.

However inevitable.
All for good.

You are really missing what is far worse: secularism.

Read Sunni's posts carefully, and you will see a yearning for and, possibly, presaging a reformation in Islam, as western religion went through.

If and when that happens, religion will fight the real enemy.....militant secularism, based on this:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

Maybe I would agree a 100 years ago, maybe, not sure.
But true secularism is almost non-existent in our days.

What there is, is a rebellious generation - not for the sake of rebelling,
rather holding to impossible standards, and testing reality in search for undeniable truth.


Religiosity is much worse an illness - it's promiscuous, vulgar.

"Maybe I would agree a 100 years ago, maybe, not sure.
But true secularism is almost non-existent in our days."
You are clearly a squirrel's view of heaven.

You're truly certifiable: how could I have missed it.


1. ”Barr: The Real People Trying To ‘Impose Their Values’ On Others Are ‘Militant Secularists’

It has been long convenient for secularists to insist that it is possible for government to be neutral about religion by imposing their religion on everyone.

…religion is being driven out of the marketplace of ideas and there’s a organized militant secular effort to drive religion out of our lives” “To me the problem today is not that religious people are trying to impose their views on nonreligious people, it’s the opposite — it’s that militant secularists are trying to impose their values on religious people and they’re not accommodating the freedom of religion of people of faith.”
Barr: The People Trying To 'Impose Their Values' Are 'Militant Secularists'


2. "The abandonment of the Christian tradition that created the West's most cherished ideal- a radical secularism evident in Europe's indifference to God and church- created a vacuum of belief into which many pseudo-religions have poured: scientism, fascism, communism, environmentalism, multiculturalism, sheer hedonism [and Islam] - all have attempted and failed....to provide Europeans with an alternative to Christianity that can show them what is worth living and dying for."
From "Decline and Fall: Europe's Slow-Motion Suicide," by Bruce Thornton


3. The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.

Well, maybe I'm certifiable,
maybe it has something to do with living on the other side of the globe.

For example, only a week ago I learned Americans were OFFICIALLY registering race and skin-color in state documents, and using that as a measurement to manage budget.
Shocked me to the core...

However I'm digressing, and still You're putting too much in the bag and mixing a lot here.

Race, religion, anti-semitism, illegals and the new donuts sprinkle...
How am I supposed to address all that?

Choose one.

Do the attendants know you've chewed through the restraints again?

Sure, they line up asking for a favor.
What am I supposed to take that personally or something?

Seriously, you have a problem with 'militant secularist',
but don't see any problem with race and skin color still being an official policy
and one of, if not the main cultural theme in 2020?

Not a single other country can I imagine where You open TV,
and people talk - "black-white-asian-brown" all day long as if nothing.

"... race and skin color still being an official policy ..."


Whose policy?

Maybe I misunderstand something,
but how can she even utter such words in a state building, congress?

I'm not even saying some TV station, or a pseudo-intellectual discourse in the university..
but as a govt representative, publicly?

What is it a hearing of some sort, commission?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sunni won't like this...others may not as well.

Israel is the one who eventually through clarification and unifying all these measure into its correct equilibrium have the key to solve the impossible chasm between West and the East,
Esau and Ishmael - both eventually reform.

Not conversion to Judaism, rather reform to align with the roots - Israel's Torah.

Again, once the Pagan world couldn't imagine it's going to turn Christian or Muslim.,
the same now most cannot conceive this seemingly crazy idea.

However inevitable.
All for good.

You are really missing what is far worse: secularism.

Read Sunni's posts carefully, and you will see a yearning for and, possibly, presaging a reformation in Islam, as western religion went through.

If and when that happens, religion will fight the real enemy.....militant secularism, based on this:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

Maybe I would agree a 100 years ago, maybe, not sure.
But true secularism is almost non-existent in our days.

What there is, is a rebellious generation - not for the sake of rebelling,
rather holding to impossible standards, and testing reality in search for undeniable truth.


Religiosity is much worse an illness - it's promiscuous, vulgar.

"Maybe I would agree a 100 years ago, maybe, not sure.
But true secularism is almost non-existent in our days."
You are clearly a squirrel's view of heaven.

You're truly certifiable: how could I have missed it.


1. ”Barr: The Real People Trying To ‘Impose Their Values’ On Others Are ‘Militant Secularists’

It has been long convenient for secularists to insist that it is possible for government to be neutral about religion by imposing their religion on everyone.

…religion is being driven out of the marketplace of ideas and there’s a organized militant secular effort to drive religion out of our lives” “To me the problem today is not that religious people are trying to impose their views on nonreligious people, it’s the opposite — it’s that militant secularists are trying to impose their values on religious people and they’re not accommodating the freedom of religion of people of faith.”
Barr: The People Trying To 'Impose Their Values' Are 'Militant Secularists'


2. "The abandonment of the Christian tradition that created the West's most cherished ideal- a radical secularism evident in Europe's indifference to God and church- created a vacuum of belief into which many pseudo-religions have poured: scientism, fascism, communism, environmentalism, multiculturalism, sheer hedonism [and Islam] - all have attempted and failed....to provide Europeans with an alternative to Christianity that can show them what is worth living and dying for."
From "Decline and Fall: Europe's Slow-Motion Suicide," by Bruce Thornton


3. The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.

Well, maybe I'm certifiable,
maybe it has something to do with living on the other side of the globe.

For example, only a week ago I learned Americans were OFFICIALLY registering race and skin-color in state documents, and using that as a measurement to manage budget.
Shocked me to the core...

However I'm digressing, and still You're putting too much in the bag and mixing a lot here.

Race, religion, anti-semitism, illegals and the new donuts sprinkle...
How am I supposed to address all that?

Choose one.

Do the attendants know you've chewed through the restraints again?

Sure, they line up asking for a favor.
What am I supposed to take that personally or something?

Seriously, you have a problem with 'militant secularist',
but don't see any problem with race and skin color still being an official policy
and one of, if not the main cultural theme in 2020?

Not a single other country can I imagine where You open TV,
and people talk - "black-white-asian-brown" all day long as if nothing.

"... race and skin color still being an official policy ..."


Whose policy?

Maybe I misunderstand something,
but how can she even utter such words in a state building, congress?

I'm not even saying some TV station, or a pseudo-intellectual discourse in the university..
but as a govt representative, publicly?

What is it a hearing of some sort, commission?

This is a militant secularist.

A Democrat.

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.

 

[rylah]

Sunni won't like this...others may not as well.

Israel is the one who eventually through clarification and unifying all these measure into its correct equilibrium have the key to solve the impossible chasm between West and the East,
Esau and Ishmael - both eventually reform.

Not conversion to Judaism, rather reform to align with the roots - Israel's Torah.

Again, once the Pagan world couldn't imagine it's going to turn Christian or Muslim.,
the same now most cannot conceive this seemingly crazy idea.

However inevitable.
All for good.

You are really missing what is far worse: secularism.

Read Sunni's posts carefully, and you will see a yearning for and, possibly, presaging a reformation in Islam, as western religion went through.

If and when that happens, religion will fight the real enemy.....militant secularism, based on this:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

Maybe I would agree a 100 years ago, maybe, not sure.
But true secularism is almost non-existent in our days.

What there is, is a rebellious generation - not for the sake of rebelling,
rather holding to impossible standards, and testing reality in search for undeniable truth.


Religiosity is much worse an illness - it's promiscuous, vulgar.

"Maybe I would agree a 100 years ago, maybe, not sure.
But true secularism is almost non-existent in our days."
You are clearly a squirrel's view of heaven.

You're truly certifiable: how could I have missed it.


1. ”Barr: The Real People Trying To ‘Impose Their Values’ On Others Are ‘Militant Secularists’

It has been long convenient for secularists to insist that it is possible for government to be neutral about religion by imposing their religion on everyone.

…religion is being driven out of the marketplace of ideas and there’s a organized militant secular effort to drive religion out of our lives” “To me the problem today is not that religious people are trying to impose their views on nonreligious people, it’s the opposite — it’s that militant secularists are trying to impose their values on religious people and they’re not accommodating the freedom of religion of people of faith.”
Barr: The People Trying To 'Impose Their Values' Are 'Militant Secularists'


2. "The abandonment of the Christian tradition that created the West's most cherished ideal- a radical secularism evident in Europe's indifference to God and church- created a vacuum of belief into which many pseudo-religions have poured: scientism, fascism, communism, environmentalism, multiculturalism, sheer hedonism [and Islam] - all have attempted and failed....to provide Europeans with an alternative to Christianity that can show them what is worth living and dying for."
From "Decline and Fall: Europe's Slow-Motion Suicide," by Bruce Thornton


3. The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.

Well, maybe I'm certifiable,
maybe it has something to do with living on the other side of the globe.

For example, only a week ago I learned Americans were OFFICIALLY registering race and skin-color in state documents, and using that as a measurement to manage budget.
Shocked me to the core...

However I'm digressing, and still You're putting too much in the bag and mixing a lot here.

Race, religion, anti-semitism, illegals and the new donuts sprinkle...
How am I supposed to address all that?

Choose one.

Do the attendants know you've chewed through the restraints again?

Sure, they line up asking for a favor.
What am I supposed to take that personally or something?

Seriously, you have a problem with 'militant secularist',
but don't see any problem with race and skin color still being an official policy
and one of, if not the main cultural theme in 2020?

Not a single other country can I imagine where You open TV,
and people talk - "black-white-asian-brown" all day long as if nothing.

"... race and skin color still being an official policy ..."


Whose policy?

Maybe I misunderstand something,
but how can she even utter such words in a state building, congress?

I'm not even saying some TV station, or a pseudo-intellectual discourse in the university..
but as a govt representative, publicly?

What is it a hearing of some sort, commission?

This is a militant secularist.

A Democrat.

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.

The squad is secularist?
Seriously??....cmon.

Is this looks-race-skin lexicon limited to Democrats, or is a widely accepted lexicon in the entire country, a central cultural theme?

How did anti-any color even get into politics? cmon... How is this not illegal?

Then they turn blaming Israel as a racist country, where we don't even write Arab/Jews in the passport, and any classification by race-skin color in state documents, is illegal... can't even imagine what a slaughter circus they would do to us around the world if an Israeli politician in the Knesset opened a speech with skin-color or even dared bring up race.

Nothing secularist about this whole culture,
and it didn't start with the squad, I might have been naive about the US,
thinking it was only acceptable in movies and TV, but this is much more fundamental.

However, excuse me, I think I've already deflected this thread way too much.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sunni won't like this...others may not as well.

Israel is the one who eventually through clarification and unifying all these measure into its correct equilibrium have the key to solve the impossible chasm between West and the East,
Esau and Ishmael - both eventually reform.

Not conversion to Judaism, rather reform to align with the roots - Israel's Torah.

Again, once the Pagan world couldn't imagine it's going to turn Christian or Muslim.,
the same now most cannot conceive this seemingly crazy idea.

However inevitable.
All for good.

You are really missing what is far worse: secularism.

Read Sunni's posts carefully, and you will see a yearning for and, possibly, presaging a reformation in Islam, as western religion went through.

If and when that happens, religion will fight the real enemy.....militant secularism, based on this:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

Maybe I would agree a 100 years ago, maybe, not sure.
But true secularism is almost non-existent in our days.

What there is, is a rebellious generation - not for the sake of rebelling,
rather holding to impossible standards, and testing reality in search for undeniable truth.


Religiosity is much worse an illness - it's promiscuous, vulgar.

"Maybe I would agree a 100 years ago, maybe, not sure.
But true secularism is almost non-existent in our days."
You are clearly a squirrel's view of heaven.

You're truly certifiable: how could I have missed it.


1. ”Barr: The Real People Trying To ‘Impose Their Values’ On Others Are ‘Militant Secularists’

It has been long convenient for secularists to insist that it is possible for government to be neutral about religion by imposing their religion on everyone.

…religion is being driven out of the marketplace of ideas and there’s a organized militant secular effort to drive religion out of our lives” “To me the problem today is not that religious people are trying to impose their views on nonreligious people, it’s the opposite — it’s that militant secularists are trying to impose their values on religious people and they’re not accommodating the freedom of religion of people of faith.”
Barr: The People Trying To 'Impose Their Values' Are 'Militant Secularists'


2. "The abandonment of the Christian tradition that created the West's most cherished ideal- a radical secularism evident in Europe's indifference to God and church- created a vacuum of belief into which many pseudo-religions have poured: scientism, fascism, communism, environmentalism, multiculturalism, sheer hedonism [and Islam] - all have attempted and failed....to provide Europeans with an alternative to Christianity that can show them what is worth living and dying for."
From "Decline and Fall: Europe's Slow-Motion Suicide," by Bruce Thornton


3. The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.

Well, maybe I'm certifiable,
maybe it has something to do with living on the other side of the globe.

For example, only a week ago I learned Americans were OFFICIALLY registering race and skin-color in state documents, and using that as a measurement to manage budget.
Shocked me to the core...

However I'm digressing, and still You're putting too much in the bag and mixing a lot here.

Race, religion, anti-semitism, illegals and the new donuts sprinkle...
How am I supposed to address all that?

Choose one.

Do the attendants know you've chewed through the restraints again?

Sure, they line up asking for a favor.
What am I supposed to take that personally or something?

Seriously, you have a problem with 'militant secularist',
but don't see any problem with race and skin color still being an official policy
and one of, if not the main cultural theme in 2020?

Not a single other country can I imagine where You open TV,
and people talk - "black-white-asian-brown" all day long as if nothing.

"... race and skin color still being an official policy ..."


Whose policy?

Maybe I misunderstand something,
but how can she even utter such words in a state building, congress?

I'm not even saying some TV station, or a pseudo-intellectual discourse in the university..
but as a govt representative, publicly?

What is it a hearing of some sort, commission?

This is a militant secularist.

A Democrat.

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.

The squad is secularist?
Seriously??....cmon.

Is this looks-race-skin lexicon limited to Democrats, or is a widely accepted lexicon in the entire country, a central cultural theme?

How did anti-any color even get into politics? cmon... How is this not illegal?

Then they turn blaming Israel as a racist country, where we don't even write Arab/Jews in the passport, and any classification by race-skin color in state documents, is illegal... can't even imagine what a slaughter circus they would do to us around the world if an Israeli politician in the Knesset opened a speech with skin-color or even dared bring up race.

Nothing secularist about this whole culture,
and it didn't start with the squad, I might have been naive about the US,
thinking it was only acceptable in movies and TV, but this is much more fundamental.

However, excuse me, I think I've already deflected this thread way too much.

I really don't have the time nor interest to fill in the vast array of lacunae you evince.


Here's your homework:

 

[rylah]

Sunni won't like this...others may not as well.

Israel is the one who eventually through clarification and unifying all these measure into its correct equilibrium have the key to solve the impossible chasm between West and the East,
Esau and Ishmael - both eventually reform.

Not conversion to Judaism, rather reform to align with the roots - Israel's Torah.

Again, once the Pagan world couldn't imagine it's going to turn Christian or Muslim.,
the same now most cannot conceive this seemingly crazy idea.

However inevitable.
All for good.

You are really missing what is far worse: secularism.

Read Sunni's posts carefully, and you will see a yearning for and, possibly, presaging a reformation in Islam, as western religion went through.

If and when that happens, religion will fight the real enemy.....militant secularism, based on this:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

Maybe I would agree a 100 years ago, maybe, not sure.
But true secularism is almost non-existent in our days.

What there is, is a rebellious generation - not for the sake of rebelling,
rather holding to impossible standards, and testing reality in search for undeniable truth.


Religiosity is much worse an illness - it's promiscuous, vulgar.

"Maybe I would agree a 100 years ago, maybe, not sure.
But true secularism is almost non-existent in our days."
You are clearly a squirrel's view of heaven.

You're truly certifiable: how could I have missed it.


1. ”Barr: The Real People Trying To ‘Impose Their Values’ On Others Are ‘Militant Secularists’

It has been long convenient for secularists to insist that it is possible for government to be neutral about religion by imposing their religion on everyone.

…religion is being driven out of the marketplace of ideas and there’s a organized militant secular effort to drive religion out of our lives” “To me the problem today is not that religious people are trying to impose their views on nonreligious people, it’s the opposite — it’s that militant secularists are trying to impose their values on religious people and they’re not accommodating the freedom of religion of people of faith.”
Barr: The People Trying To 'Impose Their Values' Are 'Militant Secularists'


2. "The abandonment of the Christian tradition that created the West's most cherished ideal- a radical secularism evident in Europe's indifference to God and church- created a vacuum of belief into which many pseudo-religions have poured: scientism, fascism, communism, environmentalism, multiculturalism, sheer hedonism [and Islam] - all have attempted and failed....to provide Europeans with an alternative to Christianity that can show them what is worth living and dying for."
From "Decline and Fall: Europe's Slow-Motion Suicide," by Bruce Thornton


3. The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.

Well, maybe I'm certifiable,
maybe it has something to do with living on the other side of the globe.

For example, only a week ago I learned Americans were OFFICIALLY registering race and skin-color in state documents, and using that as a measurement to manage budget.
Shocked me to the core...

However I'm digressing, and still You're putting too much in the bag and mixing a lot here.

Race, religion, anti-semitism, illegals and the new donuts sprinkle...
How am I supposed to address all that?

Choose one.

Do the attendants know you've chewed through the restraints again?

Sure, they line up asking for a favor.
What am I supposed to take that personally or something?

Seriously, you have a problem with 'militant secularist',
but don't see any problem with race and skin color still being an official policy
and one of, if not the main cultural theme in 2020?

Not a single other country can I imagine where You open TV,
and people talk - "black-white-asian-brown" all day long as if nothing.

"... race and skin color still being an official policy ..."


Whose policy?

Maybe I misunderstand something,
but how can she even utter such words in a state building, congress?

I'm not even saying some TV station, or a pseudo-intellectual discourse in the university..
but as a govt representative, publicly?

What is it a hearing of some sort, commission?

This is a militant secularist.

A Democrat.

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.

The squad is secularist?
Seriously??....cmon.

Is this looks-race-skin lexicon limited to Democrats, or is a widely accepted lexicon in the entire country, a central cultural theme?

How did anti-any color even get into politics? cmon... How is this not illegal?

Then they turn blaming Israel as a racist country, where we don't even write Arab/Jews in the passport, and any classification by race-skin color in state documents, is illegal... can't even imagine what a slaughter circus they would do to us around the world if an Israeli politician in the Knesset opened a speech with skin-color or even dared bring up race.

Nothing secularist about this whole culture,
and it didn't start with the squad, I might have been naive about the US,
thinking it was only acceptable in movies and TV, but this is much more fundamental.

However, excuse me, I think I've already deflected this thread way too much.

I really don't have the time nor interest to fill in the vast array of lacunae you evince.


Here's your homework:
View attachment 319610

Oh dear,
Islamists are now whom you guys call "secularists".

Yeah...and Allahu Akbar is a pledge to the communist manifesto?

Seriously...I better shut up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Now, Ishmael is his son, and Abraham is really upset over the fuss Sarah is starting over his first son….and God tries to come up with a compromise.

21.11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly, for it concerned a son of his.

21.12 But God said to Abraham, “Do not be distressed over the boy or your slave; whatever Sarah tells you, do as she says, for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be continued through you.





Bet a step-child can be a cause of problems between husbands and wives…even if that wife had the original plan to have that child. Imagine if the step-child was the wife’s offspring.



God must be a lawyer, ‘cause He came up with a lawyerly compromise; here’s the offer: Ishmael will be taken care of.

21.13 As for the son of the slave-woman, I will make a nation of him, too, for he is your seed.”
Settled out of court!

 

[rylah]

7. Now, Ishmael is his son, and Abraham is really upset over the fuss Sarah is starting over his first son….and God tries to come up with a compromise.

21.11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly, for it concerned a son of his.

21.12 But God said to Abraham, “Do not be distressed over the boy or your slave; whatever Sarah tells you, do as she says, for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be continued through you.





Bet a step-child can be a cause of problems between husbands and wives…even if that wife had the original plan to have that child. Imagine if the step-child was the wife’s offspring.



God must be a lawyer, ‘cause He came up with a lawyerly compromise; here’s the offer: Ishmael will be taken care of.

21.13 As for the son of the slave-woman, I will make a nation of him, too, for he is your seed.”
Settled out of court!

Hagar wasn't a slave,
neither does it say so in the Hebrew text.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Now, Ishmael is his son, and Abraham is really upset over the fuss Sarah is starting over his first son….and God tries to come up with a compromise.

21.11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly, for it concerned a son of his.

21.12 But God said to Abraham, “Do not be distressed over the boy or your slave; whatever Sarah tells you, do as she says, for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be continued through you.





Bet a step-child can be a cause of problems between husbands and wives…even if that wife had the original plan to have that child. Imagine if the step-child was the wife’s offspring.



God must be a lawyer, ‘cause He came up with a lawyerly compromise; here’s the offer: Ishmael will be taken care of.

21.13 As for the son of the slave-woman, I will make a nation of him, too, for he is your seed.”
Settled out of court!

Hagar wasn't a slave,
neither does it say so in the Hebrew text.

21.10 She said to Abraham, “Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”

 

[rylah]

7. Now, Ishmael is his son, and Abraham is really upset over the fuss Sarah is starting over his first son….and God tries to come up with a compromise.

21.11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly, for it concerned a son of his.

21.12 But God said to Abraham, “Do not be distressed over the boy or your slave; whatever Sarah tells you, do as she says, for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be continued through you.





Bet a step-child can be a cause of problems between husbands and wives…even if that wife had the original plan to have that child. Imagine if the step-child was the wife’s offspring.



God must be a lawyer, ‘cause He came up with a lawyerly compromise; here’s the offer: Ishmael will be taken care of.

21.13 As for the son of the slave-woman, I will make a nation of him, too, for he is your seed.”
Settled out of court!

Hagar wasn't a slave,
neither does it say so in the Hebrew text.

21.10 She said to Abraham, “Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”

Wrong translation.
Concubine, not a slave.

To begin with children of slaves don't get included in inheritance, concubines do.

 

[OldLady]

7. Now, Ishmael is his son, and Abraham is really upset over the fuss Sarah is starting over his first son….and God tries to come up with a compromise.

21.11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly, for it concerned a son of his.

21.12 But God said to Abraham, “Do not be distressed over the boy or your slave; whatever Sarah tells you, do as she says, for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be continued through you.





Bet a step-child can be a cause of problems between husbands and wives…even if that wife had the original plan to have that child. Imagine if the step-child was the wife’s offspring.



God must be a lawyer, ‘cause He came up with a lawyerly compromise; here’s the offer: Ishmael will be taken care of.

21.13 As for the son of the slave-woman, I will make a nation of him, too, for he is your seed.”
Settled out of court!

Hagar wasn't a slave,
neither does it say so in the Hebrew text.

4. OK…no murder here.
Just a recounting of, as Sue said, an 'all-too-human' human situation.


Now.....add the green-eyed-monster....jealousy!!!

21.10 She said to Abraham, “Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”




Let me note here, that this could be considered as evidence in the argument over whether the Bible is simply a ‘novel’ or divinely inspired: The first Jewish wife doesn’t come across as too nice in this interaction, does she.

If the ‘tribe’ wrote the Old Testament….wouldn’t Sarah be more….’heroic’?



“There is no reason to believe Ishmael had done anything wrong. But now that Isaac has survived past the critical age of weaning, Sarah realized he will have competition for his inheritance, and she sought to eliminate it. She succeeded: Genesis 25:5 records at the end of Abraham’s life that “he gave everything he had to Isaac.” Dennis Prager

Could this be a reason for the animus by Muslims…..a grudge from antiquity?

You're reading a different version of the Bible than I've got. Mine says Abraham gave Ishmael livestock, money, all he needed to set up his own tribe, and sent him and Hagar to somewhere over in Northern Africa.

 

[OldLady]

7. Now, Ishmael is his son, and Abraham is really upset over the fuss Sarah is starting over his first son….and God tries to come up with a compromise.

21.11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly, for it concerned a son of his.

21.12 But God said to Abraham, “Do not be distressed over the boy or your slave; whatever Sarah tells you, do as she says, for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be continued through you.





Bet a step-child can be a cause of problems between husbands and wives…even if that wife had the original plan to have that child. Imagine if the step-child was the wife’s offspring.



God must be a lawyer, ‘cause He came up with a lawyerly compromise; here’s the offer: Ishmael will be taken care of.

21.13 As for the son of the slave-woman, I will make a nation of him, too, for he is your seed.”
Settled out of court!

Hagar wasn't a slave,
neither does it say so in the Hebrew text.

21.10 She said to Abraham, “Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”

Wrong translation.
Concubine, not a slave.

To begin with children of slaves don't get included in inheritance, concubines do.

Why would Sarah have a concubine? Was she bi? My bible calls Hagar a servant.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. In his book, “Genesis,” Prager makes the point that the one God is the God of all human being, not just Jewish folks…”There is only one God of humanity (all pre-existing gods were attached to one tribe, religion, or nation—there was no god of all humanity).”

And in chapter 21, an example.

In the next chapter, God tests Abraham, and just before he is about to sacrifice Isaac, God sends an angel to stop him.




In this chapter, Hagar and Ishmael are in the desert, the boy is about to die of thirst,

21.17 God heard the cry of the boy, and an angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heeded the cry of the boy where he is.

21.19 Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. She went and filled the skin with water, and let the boy drink.



In both cases an angel was sent to save Abraham’s two sons, one Jewish, one not.

 

[rylah]

7. Now, Ishmael is his son, and Abraham is really upset over the fuss Sarah is starting over his first son….and God tries to come up with a compromise.

21.11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly, for it concerned a son of his.

21.12 But God said to Abraham, “Do not be distressed over the boy or your slave; whatever Sarah tells you, do as she says, for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be continued through you.





Bet a step-child can be a cause of problems between husbands and wives…even if that wife had the original plan to have that child. Imagine if the step-child was the wife’s offspring.



God must be a lawyer, ‘cause He came up with a lawyerly compromise; here’s the offer: Ishmael will be taken care of.

21.13 As for the son of the slave-woman, I will make a nation of him, too, for he is your seed.”
Settled out of court!

Hagar wasn't a slave,
neither does it say so in the Hebrew text.

21.10 She said to Abraham, “Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”

Wrong translation.
Concubine, not a slave.

To begin with children of slaves don't get included in inheritance, concubines do.

Why would Sarah have a concubine? Was she bi? My bible calls Hagar a servant.

You're correct, my mistake.
English is no my native language.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Now, Ishmael is his son, and Abraham is really upset over the fuss Sarah is starting over his first son….and God tries to come up with a compromise.

21.11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly, for it concerned a son of his.

21.12 But God said to Abraham, “Do not be distressed over the boy or your slave; whatever Sarah tells you, do as she says, for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be continued through you.





Bet a step-child can be a cause of problems between husbands and wives…even if that wife had the original plan to have that child. Imagine if the step-child was the wife’s offspring.



God must be a lawyer, ‘cause He came up with a lawyerly compromise; here’s the offer: Ishmael will be taken care of.

21.13 As for the son of the slave-woman, I will make a nation of him, too, for he is your seed.”
Settled out of court!

Hagar wasn't a slave,
neither does it say so in the Hebrew text.

4. OK…no murder here.
Just a recounting of, as Sue said, an 'all-too-human' human situation.


Now.....add the green-eyed-monster....jealousy!!!

21.10 She said to Abraham, “Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”




Let me note here, that this could be considered as evidence in the argument over whether the Bible is simply a ‘novel’ or divinely inspired: The first Jewish wife doesn’t come across as too nice in this interaction, does she.

If the ‘tribe’ wrote the Old Testament….wouldn’t Sarah be more….’heroic’?



“There is no reason to believe Ishmael had done anything wrong. But now that Isaac has survived past the critical age of weaning, Sarah realized he will have competition for his inheritance, and she sought to eliminate it. She succeeded: Genesis 25:5 records at the end of Abraham’s life that “he gave everything he had to Isaac.” Dennis Prager

Could this be a reason for the animus by Muslims…..a grudge from antiquity?

You're reading a different version of the Bible than I've got. Mine says Abraham gave Ishmael livestock, money, all he needed to set up his own tribe, and sent him and Hagar to somewhere over in Northern Africa.

Of course not.

Let's check:


21.14 Early next morning Abraham took some bread and a skin of water, and gave them to Hagar. He placed them over her shoulder, and sent her away. And she wandered about in the wilderness of Beesheba.

 

[OldLady]

7. Now, Ishmael is his son, and Abraham is really upset over the fuss Sarah is starting over his first son….and God tries to come up with a compromise.

21.11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly, for it concerned a son of his.

21.12 But God said to Abraham, “Do not be distressed over the boy or your slave; whatever Sarah tells you, do as she says, for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be continued through you.





Bet a step-child can be a cause of problems between husbands and wives…even if that wife had the original plan to have that child. Imagine if the step-child was the wife’s offspring.



God must be a lawyer, ‘cause He came up with a lawyerly compromise; here’s the offer: Ishmael will be taken care of.

21.13 As for the son of the slave-woman, I will make a nation of him, too, for he is your seed.”
Settled out of court!

Hagar wasn't a slave,
neither does it say so in the Hebrew text.

4. OK…no murder here.
Just a recounting of, as Sue said, an 'all-too-human' human situation.


Now.....add the green-eyed-monster....jealousy!!!

21.10 She said to Abraham, “Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”




Let me note here, that this could be considered as evidence in the argument over whether the Bible is simply a ‘novel’ or divinely inspired: The first Jewish wife doesn’t come across as too nice in this interaction, does she.

If the ‘tribe’ wrote the Old Testament….wouldn’t Sarah be more….’heroic’?



“There is no reason to believe Ishmael had done anything wrong. But now that Isaac has survived past the critical age of weaning, Sarah realized he will have competition for his inheritance, and she sought to eliminate it. She succeeded: Genesis 25:5 records at the end of Abraham’s life that “he gave everything he had to Isaac.” ! Dennis Prager

Could this be a reason for the animus by Muslims…..a grudge from antiquity?

You're reading a different version of the Bible than I've got. Mine says Abraham gave Ishmael livestock, money, all he needed to set up his own tribe, and sent him and Hagar to somewhere over in Northern Africa.

Let's check:


21.14 Early next morning Abraham took some bread and a skin of water, and gave them to Hagar. He placed them over her shoulder, and sent her away. And she wandered about in the wilderness of Beesheba.

You're right! But I swear I remember reading that Ishmael was kinda wild-like, it lists the number of tribes he began. But I am not ready to read all of Genesis this afternoon. I'm pretty sure it's in there somewhere.

 

[OldLady]

7. Now, Ishmael is his son, and Abraham is really upset over the fuss Sarah is starting over his first son….and God tries to come up with a compromise.

21.11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly, for it concerned a son of his.

21.12 But God said to Abraham, “Do not be distressed over the boy or your slave; whatever Sarah tells you, do as she says, for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be continued through you.





Bet a step-child can be a cause of problems between husbands and wives…even if that wife had the original plan to have that child. Imagine if the step-child was the wife’s offspring.



God must be a lawyer, ‘cause He came up with a lawyerly compromise; here’s the offer: Ishmael will be taken care of.

21.13 As for the son of the slave-woman, I will make a nation of him, too, for he is your seed.”
Settled out of court!

Hagar wasn't a slave,
neither does it say so in the Hebrew text.

21.10 She said to Abraham, “Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”

Wrong translation.
Concubine, not a slave.

To begin with children of slaves don't get included in inheritance, concubines do.

Why would Sarah have a concubine? Was she bi? My bible calls Hagar a servant.

You're correct, my mistake.
English is no my native language.

Later, it does call her a slave woman.

 

[foggedinn]

3 And say, Thus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite. Ezekiel 16 KJV

The patriarchal genealogies from Adam through Jesus are given. Not an Amorite to be found in any of them. This is the story of Israel's mother. An innocent, bloody, throwaway baby girl. She is Sarah's mother and the only Lawful heir to the throne of Salem.
Abraham was from Ur and Hagar was Egyptian. Neither had a Lawful claim to the land of Canaan.
By grace through faith Abraham received a promise that came to him as a matter of Law through his wife Sarah.
I can only imagine the flak Ezekiel took when he told every living Israelite "Hey, your mother was a Canaanite".