Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Minority rights
I'm calling in regard to an article in today's paper about the city applying for a CDC grant to combat smoking. I don't understand a lot of these cities, including St. Joseph. I mean, they're so worried about people smoking. It seems to me that they are trying to take away the rights of people who smoke.
Like it's 1999
This is in response to "Turned off." It's that kind of small-minded, ignorant thinking of the right wing that will keep our country firmly planted in the 20th century while the rest of the industrial world moves on and leaves us behind.
I like Ike
Heck, I'm all for bringing back the '50s. And while we're at it, why don't we bring back the things that went along with the '50s, like polio, racial segregation and the arms race that threatened to annihilate the human race? Boy, some people.
By comparison
I don't see how we can quiver and quake with fear in the comfort of our homes because some former Guantanamo prisoners might be kept under lock and key near us. But yet we can ask 40,000 young men and women to go over there and walk openly among the Afghan people in neighborhoods that hate us.
Landowner
lament
I'm very sorry to hear that your reporter had his deer stand stolen. But on the flip side, maybe he's a deer hunter who will understand some of the landowners' plight. We've had a cow killed from a stray bullet and an old house destroyed by theft and shooting out all the windows and the pole light. They bring their personal trash along and dump it in the woods. They leave the gates open for cattle to get out and so forth. They mud through your fields leaving ruts for ditches. But still we're expected to welcome them with open arms.
Grim diagnosis
My wife found her breast cancer through her mammogram at the age of 41. And 12 years later she eventually passed away. I think this is probably going to be the standard with the new Obama plan. So a lot of you ladies better be prepared to die.
Differences
I'm calling in regard to "No difference." I hate to tell you, but there's a big difference between the Muslim religion and all the other religions out there. The Muslim religion is the only one that says, "Oh I can commit suicide, go to heaven and have all these virgins." I do believe that it is a bad religion and should not be allowed in this country.
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. We do not review every post or respond to every removal suggestion. Comments that threaten someone or degrade them on the basis of gender, race, class, national origin, religion or disability will be removed. Comments containing abusive, vulgar or sexually-oriented language will be removed. Comments that spread rumors or lies will be removed. Please discuss only what has been factually proven. Comments posted in all caps will be removed. Stay on topic! Brief quotes are okay as long as the source is given. Blatant cutting and pasting is not acceptable. Comments must be kept under 250 words or less. Stjoenews.net moderators also reserve the right to remove comments for any reason they deem worthy. Click here for our full user agreement.
tydej says...
Diffrences..,,,So we need to get rid of the 2nd Admendment? Wow it's alarming the lenghts that some people are willing to go. I am amazed each time I hear someone make such comments.
November 18, 2009 at 2:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tydej says...
Diffrences..,,,So we need to get rid of the **1st Admendment? Wow it's alarming the lenghts that some people are willing to go. I am amazed each time I hear someone make such comments.
November 18, 2009 at 2:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
grandpacory says...
Differences:
One the other side of that coin, Christianity made Scott Roeder think he could commit "necessity" murder for "preborn babies".
Does every Christian murder? In your logic, yes.
Have you ever educated yourself on Islam? no.
November 18, 2009 at 5:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Agent_Provocateur says...
My post from yesterday, still seems appropriate:
It seems to me that most every attack on America has came at the hands of Muslims. When Christianity gets misinterpreted you have a few wackos (Fred Phelps, David Koresh) and that's bad enough. When Islam gets "misinterpreted" thousands of innocent Americans are murdered. I find it difficult to think that this is anything other than Islam vs Christianity.
November 18, 2009 at 5:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Roger_Maris says...
Minority Rights - I don't believe anyone is trying to take away your right to smoke. What most of these laws are attempting to do is to protect the non-smokers from your dangerous second-hand smoke.
Please feel free to get in your own car or home and smoke as much as you want. Kill yourself but please do not kill me or other non-smokers. If you choose to stink (and trust me, you do - you simply can't smell it anymore) that is your business, but please keep the air I breathe clean. Smoking sections in restaurants are a joke. Having a smoking section in a restaurant is sort of like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
November 18, 2009 at 6:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Roger_Maris,
I can't believe you had some loser give you a "thumbs down" on your remarks. It boggles my mind that some smokers cannot grasp the idea that we ALL have rights....not just them. I have a right to eat my meal at a restaurant just like them, and I have a right to do that without eating in a cloud of smoke. I have a right to go to a theater and watch a movie....with clarity....and not in a fog.
Smokers, you have every right to smoke in the open air, in your car or your own home. Anywhere else....the non-smoking public has a right to clean air.
November 18, 2009 at 7:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StJoeMike says...
Minority Rights, It's not taking the rights away from the smokers.. It is taking the rights away from the Business Owners. That is what I don't like about it. Just like Roger said above.. You as a smoker can, "get in your own car or home and smoke as much as you want. Kill yourself," just as much as the non smokers can CHOOSE NOT to do business where smoking is allowed. It is that simple.
November 18, 2009 at 7:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JOKETOWN says...
Landowner..you dont wnat ppl on your land, paint posts purple, put up no tresspassing signs, if that dont work when you see them call the law. IT IS YOUR PROPERTY.
Grim..thanks! Im not understanding your point except to let us women know we are going to die..you better have your balls checked!
November 18, 2009 at 7:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jambajuice says...
I find it interesting that Islam is an evolution of Judaism, Christianity is an evolution of Judaism, Christianity over the past millenia has proven to be the most militant of the faiths of Abraham, yet people think Islam is the most dangerous form of the Abrahamic faiths. Don't forget, Christianity allows for you to kill yourself as a martyr and go to heaven as you died for a greater cause. How is that any different than a Muslim who kills him/herself in the name of God (Allah = God in Arabic, don't forget they worship the same God as Christians and Jews), which is effectively the definition of a martyr.
Though, as God is infallible and perfect, then as the first faith of Abraham, Judaism is the correct and only way that one should worship and understand God. Therefore, the changes from Judaism to Islam and Judaism to Christianity were mans will and not God's as God's word is perfect and infallible. Showing that the Christians and Muslims are both incorrect and those followers of Judaism are correct in regards to which religion is the correct way to worship God. If God had changed the rules of the game, ie changed from God's original set of rules dictated unto the Hebrews through Moses, then that means God's plan is fallible as God thought that it needed to be changed. However, this contradicts the pretense of God being perfect as the original rules would have also been perfect. Perfection is a state of having no error and if the word of God is perfect, then the assertions that Christianity or Islam are the true path to God are false as they were created after the original path was laid out through Judaism.
Any argument against Islam for its "radical" ways or Christianity for its ways makes sense as both are false through the perfection of God and therefore inventions of man as God is not making himself perfect, God is perfect.
November 18, 2009 at 8:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
jambajuice,
Your assertions regarding Christianity are flawed at best, totally wrong at worst. Your post is just one example of people making assumptions about something of which they have little knowledge.
November 18, 2009 at 8:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jambajuice says...
How?
November 18, 2009 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
chara says...
joketown you don't understand,you can paint every post,tree,put signs every foot still does no good. the sheriffs dept. trys to answer your calls ,but they only have so much manpower. we solved the problem by just letting the air out of the tires. if we catch them driving on the farm we do confront them,not with a smile i might add.
word gets out after awhile,don't mess with so and sos land or that crazy ole man will make your life hell.
November 18, 2009 at 9 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
jambajuice,
I'm not trying to be overly critical....please don't misunderstand me. I'll address the various difficulties I have with your post in awhile. I can't do it right now....too busy. I hope you'll accept my input as constructive...
November 18, 2009 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
striped_tigerfan says...
pops....I agree with you. jambajuice has given the most "muddled" interpretation of Christianity and Islam I've ever heard.
November 18, 2009 at 9:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
grannytuff says...
I'm all for smokers rights, and I am ALSO for the right to breathe smoke-free air myself. As far as I am concerned you can smoke all you want in your venue, but when you are in a public place, please respect my rights to 'not' smoke, too.
I smoked for over 20 years and quit because I wanted to, and I got quite an eye opener when I did. We, as smokers, do not realize how offensive it is to non-smokers. The smell of my house, car, etc., reeked but I didn't even realize it when I was smoking. Smokers say they "can't quit", or "it's too hard to quit". Well, suck it up. Life is hard sometimes. If you really WANT to quit, it's not that difficult. It's all in your mindset, and you have to have the willpower. Smoking is enjoyable to those who do it and I completely understand you not wanting to give up the habit, but stop with the "Poor me, I'm so mistreated" mentality.
I am actually grateful that we have a smoking population. We tax cigarettes more than any other commodity in the US, and we would all have to absorb that cost if everybody quit. You know what kind of taxes we would have to pay if everybody quit? WOW! I figure I pay enough already. Smoke on (in private)!
November 18, 2009 at 9:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dges says...
By Comparison
I agree with you, Our troop's dont have any idea of what their walking into,those people will kill 100 of their own just to kill one of us,, WE all know they cant fight a real war, so they are fighting the kind of war they intended to fight in the first place, The so called peaceful one's put on a front , so we keep rebuilding the citie's into more modern place's for them, but deep inside they all hate the U.S As FAR AS BEING SCARED OF THE PRISONER'S I pity the one's that are unfortunate enough to escape !! There would be more people out there looking for them than there are deer hunter's hunting deer right now ...they would'nt stand a chance!!!!
November 18, 2009 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bigbob says...
Would the non smokers please provide their feelings regarding the new "e-cigarettes" and unlit cigars, unlit cigarettes, snuff and chewing tobacco. Perhaps your quest for clean air is just "smoke and mirrors" to achieve your real goal of exerting your will on someone else. At first you wanted no smoking in public buildings, but lately your demands have spread to outdoor places like parks parking lots and anywhere on the property. Your words don't match your actions. Should a shopkeeper be allowed to post a "smoking only" sign on the door ad ban non smokes?
November 18, 2009 at 10:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StJoeMike says...
Why is it so hard to let the businesses decided if they want to be smoke free. Why does the government have to mandate how someone should run their business? If I don't like how Company X runs their business, I do not have to purchase products from them. To me it has NOTHING to do with Smoker's Rights or Non-Smoker's rights. It should be up to the business owner, period. You have to remember, like it or not, smoking is still legal. Imagine if the government were to mandate some other activity like this.
November 18, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
bigbob,
There aren't very many people who complain about your smoking in the open air or the park. If they do, you should just chalk it up to some people will complain, no matter what. I feel anyplace INDOORS should be non-smoking, to accomodate EVERYONE. I also feel bars could and should be exempt, since even if you dislike smoke, one can get drunk enough to not care anymore!!
November 18, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Wright_Winger says...
Want mandates? Here is an excerpt from Obama/Pelosi House Bill 3200, otherwise know as health insurance scam, MANDATING retail food establishments conspicuously post the caloric content of every item on the menu:
page 1511
''(H) RESTAURANTS, RETAIL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS, AND VENDING MACHINES
''(i) GENERALREQUIREMENTSFORRESTAURANTSANDSIMILARRETAILFOODESTABLISHMENTS.-Except for food described in subclause (vii), in the case of food that is a standard menu item that is offered for sale in a restaurant or similar retail food establishment that is part of a chain with 20 or more locations doing business under the same name (regardless of the type of ownership of the locations) and offering for sale substantially the same menu items, the restaurant or similar retail food establishment shall disclose the information described in subclauses (ii) and (iii).
''(ii) INFORMATIONREQUIREDTOBEDISCLOSEDBYRESTAURANTSANDRETAILFOODESTABLISHMENTS.-Except as provided in subclause (vii), the restaurant or similar retail food establishment shall disclose in a clear and conspicuous manner ''(I)(aa) in a nutrient content disclosure statement adjacent to the name of the standard menu item, so as to be clearly associated with the standard menu item, on the menu listing the item for sale, the number of calories contained in the standard menu item, as usually prepared and offered for sale; and ''(bb) a succinct statement concerning suggested daily caloric intake, as specified by the Secretary by regulation and posted prominently on the menu and designed to enable the public to understand, in the context of a total daily diet, the significance of the caloric information that is provided on the menu; ''(II)(aa) in a nutrient content disclosure statement adjacent to the name of the standard menu item, so as to be clearly associated with the standard menu item, on the menu board, including a drive-through menu board, the number of calories contained in the standard menu item, as usually prepared and offered for sale; and ''(bb) a succinct statement concerning suggested daily caloric intake, as specified by the Secretary by regulation and posted prominently on the menu board, designed to enable the public to understand, in the context of a total daily diet.......
November 18, 2009 at 11:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justsayin says...
I'm beginning to think Wright Winger has a bone to pick.
November 18, 2009 at 12:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
"I find it interesting that Islam is an evolution of Judaism, Christianity is an evolution of Judaism"
Really? Do you have any evidence of this?
"Christianity over the past millenia has proven to be the most militant of the faiths of Abraham, yet people think Islam is the most dangerous form of the Abrahamic faiths."
Again...no evidence. I've heard this argument before, but much of the Crusades had little to do with religion, and much to do with politics/economics/conquest.
"Don't forget, Christianity allows for you to kill yourself as a martyr and go to heaven as you died for a greater cause."
Unaware of ANY scripture in the Bible that bears this out. Please elaborate.
"Though, as God is infallible and perfect, then as the first faith of Abraham, Judaism is the correct and only way that one should worship and understand God."
That's exactly why Jesus came....because mankind had screwed up the perfection God had originally initiated.
"Therefore, the changes from Judaism to Islam and Judaism to Christianity were mans will and not God's as God's word is perfect and infallible."
Christianity, as a religion, perhaps, but Jesus' teachings are NOT man's will.
I maintain that if Muslims were to REALLY follow the directions in the Koran, there WOULD be no Islamic terrorism and no radical Muslims. The same goes for people like Fred Phelp's whackos who misinterpret the Bible to their twisted interpretation of God's will for us. I am a follower of Jesus....not a Christian. Does that help? The term "christian" was first applied to the Believers at Antioch, as a term of derision...
Personally, I like the term "follower of Jesus" or simply the word "Believer". "Disciple" is another good word.
November 18, 2009 at 2:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StJoeMike says...
"..you don't have the right to force other people to breathe your pollution." Wedge, they are not forcing you to breathe their pollution.. You have every right to leave. It should be up to the business if they allow the legal act of smoking in their business.. And no, I don't smoke.. Never have..
November 18, 2009 at 2:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lbc says...
For the Obama followers:
I am looking at a picture of President Obama at the Fort Hood memorial service, this week. He is on the podium with 3 military officers and one civilian.....
the officers are saluting the flag. The civilian has his right hand over his heart.
Obama is standing with his hands folded over his crouch.
This President again refuses to honor our country, our flag or our Country. This is who occupies OUR whitehouse and is leading OUR Country
Obama is an outrage to this Country.
November 18, 2009 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
GrannyKK says...
I will have to disagree with pops. If you study the Koran, you will find that Muslims are to kill infidiles. The infidiles are anyone that do not believe the way they do.
November 18, 2009 at 3:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Fantome says...
I quoted this yesterday and I will say it again. BTW Granny stop spreading the ignorance.
Qu'ran Sura - 9 Ultimatum [9:29] You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly. What is meant by the tax is found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya
November 18, 2009 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
newman says...
Regarding Islam, the reality is that Islam did not come from Judaism but from Christianity, and is nothing more ultimately than a heresy of it. Take a little time to study Islam and it's striking how much of it is "borrowed" in a convuluted manner from Christianity.
I always find especially absurd those who cite the Crusades as an example of Christian aggression. Are we really so ignorant of history that we're not aware that the Holy Land was taken from the Christians by force by Muslims and that the Crusaders were only attempting to take it back?
November 18, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Fantome says...
Islam from Christianity LOLOLOLOL you are sadly mistaken. The first time the word Muslim was used it was used by prophet Abraham that's why most people say we believe in the religion of Abraham some aspects of the religion were founded by prophet Abraham.
November 18, 2009 at 4:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Agent_Provocateur says...
A few examples of muslim extremists terrorism:
* 26 February 1993 - World Trade Center bombing, New York City. 6 killed.
* 13 March 1993 - 1993 Bombay bombings. Mumbai, India. The single-day attacks resulted in over 250 civilian fatalities and 700 injuries.
* 24 December 1994 - Air France Flight 8969 hijacking in Algiers by 3 members of Armed Islamic Group of Algeria and another terrorist. 7 killed including 4 hijackers.
* 25 June 1996 - Khobar Towers bombing, 20 killed, 372 wounded.
* 14 February 1998. The 1998 Coimbatore bombings occurred in the city of Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. 46 people were killed and over 200 were injured in 13 bomb attacks within a 12 km radius.
* 7 August 1998 - 1998 United States embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. 224 dead. 4000+ injured.
* 12 October 2000 - Attack on the USS cole in the Yemeni port of Aden.
* 11 September 2001 - 4 planes hijacked and crashed into World Trade Center and The Pentagon by 19 hijackers. Nearly 3000 dead.
* 13 December 2001 - Suicide attack on India's parliament in New Delhi. Aimed at eliminating the top leadership of India and causing anarchy in the country. Allegedly done by Pakistan-based Islamist terrorist organizations, Jaish-E-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba.
* 3 March 2002 - Suicide bomb attack on a Passover Seder in a Hotel in Netanya, Israel. 29 dead, 133 injured
* 7 May 2002 - Bombing in al-Arbaa, Algeria. 49 dead, 117 injured.
* 24 September 2002 - Machine Gun attack on Hindu temple in Ahmedabad, India. 31 dead, 86 injured.
It is estimated that less than 1% of muslims are violent, doesn't sound like much until you figure there are 1.3 Billion with a "B" worldwide! Half of a percent would be a lot of wackos out there willing to blow themselves and as many of us up if given the chance.
November 18, 2009 at 5:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
muguy says...
Wright Winger-
Why is that a bad thing? Maybe, just maybe, the fatties of America will realize that eating fast food shouldn't be done on a regular bases when they see in big bold print the lack of nutrition they are getting. Obesity is our nations #1 health issue. Not drinking, smoking, or illicit drug use. We are fat, and we should do something about it. This is a great idea.
Minority rights-
Every major city and college town has already banned smoking in bars and restaurants. It's not the end of the world. When Columbia passed the smoking ban 4 years ago a few establishments were bent out of shape claiming it will kill their business. To this day, none of them are closed. I am a smoker, it's not that bad. Walking 20 feet to step outside and light up is not that hard.
Pops-
I agree 100% with your paragraph about true muslims and christians. I'm an athiest, but have friends that are muslim and christian. And I'm completely offended by ignorant statements about followers of Islam. I lived with a guy whose family was originaly from Pakistan, and he was the most peaceful, respectful person in our dorm. He was a devote muslim, a great student, and good American. To quote a famous American author, "Fear is just another word for ignorance." And boy is there a lot of fear filled comments in this thread, comments about things they know nothing of.
November 18, 2009 at 5:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
I may draw a lot of fire from folks in this thread, but what we eat has less to do with how fat we are as how inactive we are. I can say that because I still eat pizza, cheeseburgers, ice cream, cookies, cake, and anything else I please. However, I'm VERY active. I work out every day...and not just a leisurely stroll down the block and back. I ride a bike anytime the weather is over freezing and there's no rain, snow or ice coming down. I walk, at a brisk pace, for at least two miles a day. I run several times a week, and I do push-ups, sit-ups and lift weights. Exercise is the key...not diets. I don't care how much the government makes fast food joints print in their menus....if people eat nothing but veggies and fruit, and don't exercise, they'll STILL be overweight. You can eat whatever you want, in responsible amounts, and as long as you exercise moderately, you'll lose weight and become more physically fit.
President Kennedy had it right when he encouraged the nation to exercise. I know I'm right....I'm living proof.
November 18, 2009 at 7:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Fantome says...
Agent using history as the indicator, there is little doubt that Christianity has been an extremely violent religion. The expansion by the sword through pagan Europe, the Crusades, the Christian on Christian violence of the Dark Ages and Reformation periods, the genocide of the American Natives, and the forced imperialist rule of most of the world during the "Colonial" Age all testify to this.
Christians often forced compliance to their religion on others. Augustine, one of the must influential people in the development of Christianity, fully supported this practice quoting the Bible passage, "Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full." This violent fundamentalism has been far too common in Christian history.
Even today, Western armies lead by fundamentalist Christians occupy Muslim countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan and support unpopular regimes on the citizens of other Muslim countries such as Pakistan.
November 18, 2009 at 7:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Fantome,
Your entire post is fabrication. Perhaps you need a course in reading comprehension, or perhaps you should begin to read something other than Al Jazeera's web site!! What a load of disjointed tripe!!
November 18, 2009 at 7:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
muguy says...
Pops,
Again, I agree with you. Wow. That's twice in one day.
Exercise is equally important in keeping a healthy weight. I know you can eat whatever you want if you burn enough calories during the day to keep a steady weight. I just prefer to minimize the junk food and have a minimal exercise routine to keep myself fit. You have your style, I have mine. There is nothing wrong with either. Cheers to not being a sloth.
November 18, 2009 at 7:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Fantome says...
So pops you deny any Christian violence? History says otherwise.
November 18, 2009 at 7:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
striped_tigerfan says...
Fantome....Your quote regarding jizya as a fee tax for nonbelievers of muslim so they would be protected by muslim law doesn't set well with me. It's evident that the tax represented a discrimination and was intended, according to the Koran's own words, to emphasize the inferior status of the non-believers. If that's not racist, what is?
Your religion is islam. Mine is Christianity. Your roots are from Ishmael and mine are from Isaac. Both are sons of Abraham but Isaac is the one that God established His EVERLASTING covenant with. And that's where your inheritance stops and mine starts.
muguy....I've also heard the quote, "Ignorance is bliss".
November 18, 2009 at 8:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Wright_Winger says...
The purpose of my posting was misinterpreted by some. There were objections to the possible city MANDATE to curb or eliminate smoking in public places. I meant to point out that if you object to a non-smoking mandate as an affront to your personal freedom(s) you ain't seen nothin' yet such as will be MANDATED by the health insurance reform scam. The posting of caloric content and nutritional value of menu items by food service companies is just one of many new cumbersome and costly requirements to be imposed by the legislation.
The big MANDATE of course will be the requirement that YOU buy government-approved health insurance or face a penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. It seems to me that as an attack on your personal liberties this makes a non-smoking mandate pale in comparison.
November 19, 2009 at 5:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Fantome,
I'd challenge you to bring up anything other than isolated incidents involving Christians, and any that were committed for the purpose (albeit twisted and perverted) of "furthering" the Christian faith within the last century.
I can cite incident after incident involving OVERT Muslim extremism and heavy-handed proselytizing . Thousands....perhaps millions, world-wide, have died as a result of Islam's radicals in just my lifetime. Let's stop talking about the Crusades. Those are ancient history. It's over and gone. I also refuse to discuss America's history of slavery as a "christian" debacle. That's just ignorant.
What I get from you, and others like you, is that Christians have had their violent days. Now it's Islam's turn. Is that an attempt to excuse Muslims? Even IF I agree that Christianity has a violent past, that has no bearing on the current deadly violence perpetrated by Muslims. Just because one group MAY have had violent tendencies (OK...I'll grant you the Crusades and the Inquisition.....still ancient history and has no bearing on today), does not and SHOULD not give ANYONE...Muslim, Hindu, Bhuddist, Satanist, Wiccan, etc. ANY latitude for violence.
What are you telling me? That since I'm a Christian and since you feel my religious ancestors may have been violent I need to shut up and stop complaining about terrorist attacks? Are you trying to tell me the ancient past justifies the current blind violence by Muslim extremists?
Almost every day, there is some publication around the world that pokes fun at Christians or the Christian faith. If someone says or draws something that makes light of Islam, they take their life in their hands. Have you seen Christian threats to similar publications?
Give me a break!! STOP THE INSANITY!!
November 19, 2009 at 6:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tydej says...
Now going by what the caller against the Muslim faith has suggested; we either need to do away with or change the 2nd Admendment to ban this faith from the US. How can people support that idea, knowing that doing so goes against every reason why this Nation was first started. It's disturbing to see how far some are willing to go. Islam is not the enemy, it's the hard-core, extrimists hell bent on distruction that are the enemy. Muslims overall are good people and should not reguarded as a terrorist or a threat. There are many religions with extremists that will take a life in the name of their God; past and present. I will never hold the entire religion accountable for the actions of a few. When I hear about a life being taken in the name of religion it's tragic; someone died. Someone didn't understand their religion and inreturn they felt justified in taking anothers life. However we can't start banning religions based on a few or because we don't agree with it's teachings. Where dose it stop, on what grounds is it decided to ban, who decides and what is the punishment for breaking this law? Leave the 2nd Admendment alone!!!!!
November 19, 2009 at 6:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
I agree completely, muguy....
I limit my junk food intake, too, and exercise a lot, but once in awhile, a cheeseburger or burrito just HITS THE SPOT!! The difference between you and I, and many other people I see in town, is that you and I won't allow that junk food to sit in that spot very long!!
November 19, 2009 at 7:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jambajuice says...
If what Jesus did was reinvigorate the true faith, as muslims they did (its in the kor'an and why muslims have a strange relationship with jews), then why deviate so far from what his own religion was, Judaism. Afterall, Jesus was a jewish and as he failed to fulfill a vast majority of the requirements to be the mesiah, listed here:
In the Jewish account, the Messiah's task is to bring in the Messianic age, a one-time event, and a presumed messiah who dies before completing the task (i.e., compelling all of Israel to walk in the way of Torah, repairing the breaches in observance, fighting the wars of God, building the Temple in its place, gathering in the dispersed exiles of Israel) is not the Messiah. Maimonides states, "But if he did not succeed in all this or was killed, he is definitely not the Messiah promised in the Torah... and God only appointed him in order to test the masses."
Jews believe that the Messiah will fulfill the messianic prophecies of the Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel. According to Isaiah, the Messiah will be a paternal descendant of King David via King Solomon. JEsus was bore from Mary, who was not a decendent of David. Joseph was, but unless Joseph has a 30BC sex change complete with a womb, then Jesus couldn't fulfill this part. But if you say Jesus was of the line of David, then you must also say that Mary was not a Virgin as Joseph would need to impregnate her.
He is expected to return the Jews to their homeland and rebuild the Temple, reign as King, and usher in an era of peace and understanding where "the knowledge of God" fills the earth, leading the nations to "end up recognizing the wrongs they did Israel". Obviously, this did not happen either. Look at World War II, or is that too far in the past? Ezekiel states the Messiah will redeem the Jews. The Jews killed him on an cross in the shape of an X, not a T (the romans did it on a T, jews did it on a X).
Therefore, any Judaic view of Jesus per se is influenced by the fact that Jesus lived while the Second Temple was standing, and not while the Jews were exiled. He never reigned as King, and there was no subsequent era of peace or great knowledge. Jesus died without completing or even accomplishing part of any of the messianic tasks, instead promising a second coming. Rather than being redeemed, the Jews were subsequently exiled from Israel. These discrepancies were noted by Jewish scholars who were contemporaries of Jesus, as later pointed out by Nahmanides, who in 1263 observed that Jesus was rejected as the Messiah by the rabbis of his time.
Further, according to common beliefs of Judaism, Christian claims that Jesus is the textual messiah of the Hebrew Bible are based on mistranslations and Jesus did not fulfill the qualifications for Jewish Messiah.
November 19, 2009 at 9:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jambajuice says...
However, not all traditional rabbinical authorities viewed Jesus in negative terms. Maimonides wrote that Jesus helped to "pave the way" for the future true Messiah, by introducing the basic concepts of Judaism to Gentiles. Rabbi Jacob Emden considered Jesus a righteous man, who brought to light of faith and morality to the world, but not a Messiah.
God cannot be made up of 3 entities (the father, son, and holy spirit) due to Deuteronomy (6:4): "Hear Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one." Not many, but one, singular, uno. As the book is left in the bible, it must be true. This conflicts with the teachings of Jesus. God's word is perfect and therefore cannot be contradicted.
According to the Torah (yes the Torah is the old testament of the Christian Bible) (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:18-22), the criteria for a person to be considered a prophet or speak for God in Judaism are that they must follow the God of Israel (and no other god), they must not describe God differently than He is known to be from Scripture (God's word is perfect), they must not advocate change to God's word or state that God has changed His mind and wishes things that contradict His already-stated eternal word (God's word is perfect), and the things they do speak of must come to pass.
Additionally, there are two types of "false prophet" recognized in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh): the one who claims to be a prophet in the name of idolatry, and the one who claims to be a prophet in the name of the God of Israel, but declares that any word or commandment (mitzvah) which God has said no longer applies (Jesus did this), or makes false statements in the name of God. As Judaism believes that God's word is true eternally, one who claims to speak in God's name but diverges in any way from what God Himself has said, logically cannot be inspired by Divine authority. Deuteronomy 13:1 states simply, "Be careful to observe only that which I enjoin upon you; neither add to it nor take away from it." Obviously Jesus and his apostles did this heavily.
Even if someone who appears to be a prophet can perform supernatural acts or signs, no prophet or dreamer can contradict the laws already stated in the Bible.
Thus, any divergence from the tenets of Biblical Judaism espoused by Jesus would disqualify him from being considered a prophet in Judaism. This was the view adopted by Jesus' contemporaries, as according to rabbinical tradition as stated in the Talmud (Sotah 48b) "when Malachi died the Prophecy departed from Israel." As Malachi lived centuries before Jesus it is clear that the rabbis of Talmudic times did not view Jesus as a divinely-inspired prophet.
November 19, 2009 at 9:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Again, jambajuice, your posts are incorrect.
Jesus NEVER said He came to replace the rabbinical law, but to fulfill it.
He fulfilled every prophecy of the Old Testament. Show me one He did not.
Much of what you said is not scriptural, but your personal opinions.
November 19, 2009 at 10:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jambajuice says...
These are the scripture (happen to pull out the Bible and copy the verses word for word) and opinion of various religious scholars. So unless your bible isn't like the NIV or king james version, then I will need to say your bible is incorrect. But what do I know, I only provided logical arguments grounded in scripture from the Torah (old testament) and the Bible (old and new testament) and all I get is that its all opinion? So If following what you say and what I said was opinion, then that means the bible is opinion?
Here are the prophecies:
Isaiah 7:14 - Matthew 1:22-23 states "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" - which means, "God with us". However the Jewish translation of that passage reads "Behold, the young woman is with child and will bear a son and she will call his name Immanuel." Isaiah chapter 7 speaks of a prophecy made to the Jewish King Ahaz to allay his fears of two invading kings (those of Damascus and of Samaria) who were preparing to invade Jerusalem, about 600 years before Jesus' birth. Isaiah 7:16: "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken."
Isaiah 53 - According to the Bible commentator Rashi, the suffering servant described in Isaiah chapter 53 is actually the Jewish people; sometimes Isaiah mentions groups of people as if they were one person.
Isaiah 9:1-2 - In Isaiah, the passage describes how Assyrian invaders are increasingly aggressive as they progress toward the sea, while Matthew 4:13-15 has re-interpreted the description as a prophecy stating that Jesus would progress (without any hint of becoming more aggressive) toward Galilee. While Matthew uses the Septuagint rendering of Isaiah, in the Masoretic text it refers to the region of the gentiles rather than Galilee of the nations, and it is likely that the presence of the word Galilee in the Septuagint is a translation error - the Hebrew word for region is galil which can easily be corrupted to galilee.
Daniel 9:24-27 - King James Version puts a definite article before "Messiah the Prince". The original Hebrew text does not read "the Messiah the Prince," but, having no article, it is to be rendered "a mashiach, a prince". The word mashiach["anointed one," "messiah"] is nowhere used in the Jewish Scriptures as a proper name, but as a title of authority of a king or a high priest. Therefore, a correct rendering of the original Hebrew should be: "an anointed one, a prince."
Hosea 11:1 - Matthew 2:14 states, "So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'Out of Egypt I called my son.'" However, that passage reads, "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."
November 19, 2009 at 11:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jambajuice says...
Psalm 22:16 - The NIV renders this verse as "they have pierced my hands and feet". The Septuagint and Syriac manuscripts along with some Hebrew manuscripts would render it as "like the lion, my hands and feet".
Isaiah 9:6 - The verse reads: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." The word translated "wonderful" is actually a noun, meaning a "wonder". Another translation of that phrase would be "A wonder, a counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting father, prince of peace." Like the name "Immanuel," this name would describe God, not the person who carries the name. The two letter word "is", is usually not stated in Hebrew. Rather,"is" is understood. For example, the words "hakelev" (the dog) and "gadol" (big), when joined into a sentence "hakelev gadol" means "the dog is big," even though no Hebrew word in that sentence represents the word "is." On the other hand, the Hebrew word "hu" (meaning he) is often used similarly to the word "is", so to say "A wonder, a counselor, is the mighty God..." one would probably say "Pele yo`ets hu el gibor...", inserting the word "hu". In any case, if this "name" is actually a sentence, it is a rather unnatural sentence by the standards of Biblical Hebrew.
Psalm 110:1 - Matthew 22:44 states "The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." Although Hebrew has no capital letters, the Hebrew translation of that passage reads "The Lord said to my lord" indicating that it is not speaking of God.
November 19, 2009 at 11:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jambajuice says...
Micah 5:2 - Matthew 2:6 quotes this prophesy as fulfillment of the prophesy: "But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel." The verse in the Old Testament reads "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." It describes the clan of Bethlehem , who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah.
Zechariah 9:9 - The Gospel of Matthew describes Jesus' triumphant entry on Palm Sunday as a fulfillment of this verse in Zechariah. Matthew describes the prophecy in terms of a colt and a separate donkey, whereas the original only mentions the colt. Matthew 21:1-5 reads:
Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
The Hebrew translation of the prophecy reads:
Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion!/Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem/See, your king comes to you/righteous and having salvation/gentle and riding on a donkey/on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
The gospels of Mark, Luke, and John state Jesus sent his disciples after only one animal. Critics claim this is a contradiction with some mocking the idea of Jesus riding two animals at the same time. A response is that the text allows for Jesus to have ridden on a colt that was accompanied by a donkey, perhaps its mother.
Jeremiah 31:15 - Matthew 2:17-18 gives the killing of innocents by Herod as the fulfillment of a prophecy spoken of in Jeremiah:
Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.
In Jeremiah 31:15, the phrase "because her children are no more" refers to the captivity of Rachel's children in Assyria. The subsequent verses describe their return to Israel, which never happened.
II Samuel 7:14 - Hebrews 1:5 quotes this verse as, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son.". However, the verse doesn't end with the phrase quoted in the New Testament, but continues: "When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men." This cannot possibly fit the Christian Bible's view of a sinless Jesus. The Old Testament verse is referring to Solomon.
November 19, 2009 at 11:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jambajuice says...
Taken from my earlier post:
In the Jewish account, the Messiah's task is to bring in the Messianic age, a one-time event, and a presumed messiah who dies before completing the task (i.e., compelling all of Israel to walk in the way of Torah, repairing the breaches in observance, fighting the wars of God, building the Temple in its place, gathering in the dispersed exiles of Israel) is not the Messiah. Maimonides states, "But if he did not succeed in all this or was killed, he is definitely not the Messiah promised in the Torah... and God only appointed him in order to test the masses."
Jews believe that the Messiah will fulfill the messianic prophecies of the Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel. According to Isaiah, the Messiah will be a paternal descendant of King David via King Solomon. JEsus was bore from Mary, who was not a decendent of David. Joseph was, but unless Joseph has a 30BC sex change complete with a womb, then Jesus couldn't fulfill this part. But if you say Jesus was of the line of David, then you must also say that Mary was not a Virgin as Joseph would need to impregnate her.
He is expected to return the Jews to their homeland and rebuild the Temple, reign as King, and usher in an era of peace and understanding where "the knowledge of God" fills the earth, leading the nations to "end up recognizing the wrongs they did Israel". Obviously, this did not happen either. Look at World War II, or is that too far in the past? Ezekiel states the Messiah will redeem the Jews. The Jews killed him on an cross in the shape of an X, not a T (the romans did it on a T, jews did it on a X).
Therefore, any Judaic view of Jesus per se is influenced by the fact that Jesus lived while the Second Temple was standing, and not while the Jews were exiled. He never reigned as King, and there was no subsequent era of peace or great knowledge. Jesus died without completing or even accomplishing part of any of the messianic tasks, instead promising a second coming. Rather than being redeemed, the Jews were subsequently exiled from Israel.
Those paragraphs say what the prophecies that needed to be fulfilled, and they weren't fulfilled. I can take you to Jerusalem and show you solomons temple is very much not rebuilt, he didn't rule as a king obviously as the romans were in control of the area even after the jews were exiled, there was not an extended period of peace as the romans pulled out, muslims took over Jerusalem, crusades, etc etc etc. Then Jesus died with none of that complete. Problem here is, I can point to the things that didn't happen like they were suppose to today. Muslims are killing people, wars are being fought even today (so no peace), the temple is still only a wall (wailing wall), and he wasn't a king or else there would be records of it. How were the messianic requirements fulfilled?
November 19, 2009 at 12:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ufc08 says...
I am not saying every Muslim is a terrorist. I am saying every terrorist is a Muslim.
November 19, 2009 at 12:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tydej says...
ufc....would you say that the men responsable for the government building in Oklahoma were terrorists? Would you say the KKK is a terrorist group? Would you say the unabomber was a terrorist?
November 19, 2009 at 12:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
newman says...
jambajuice, your posts are a classic example of the violation of Scripture itself where St. Peter warns us in 2 Peter 1:20 that "... no prophecy of scripture is a matter of private interpertation". You are clearly distorting various prophecies and taking Scripture out of context to support your agenda in a manner that is unhistorical and illogical.
If you are really serious about heeding God's written Word than I would urge you to ponder Matthew 18:15-18 where Our Lord commands you to "..hear the Church..". This of course historically can only be the Catholic Church as only She existed prior to the writing of the New Testament and it is only by Her authority that anyone can ultimately know what writings of the New Testament era are Holy Scripture verses merely historic Christian documents or even heresy.
The issue of authority is ultimately the downfall of any other belief system, whether it be Protestantism, Islam, Judiaism, etc..... Without an authoritive body to resolve differences between believers, as Our Lord clearly recognizes is needed and thus establishes (cf. Matt. 16:18) all your doing is spouting your personal opinion, and I think we all know what the similarity is between opinions and a**holes. ;-)
November 19, 2009 at 4:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
matty73 says...
Establishing a church so that "hades will not overcome it"?Perhaps you need to read the rest of that chapter.Does it tell the tail of not accepting the "bread of the pharisees and sadducees"?And I thought the establishment of the catholic church can be read in corinthians.
November 19, 2009 at 5:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
matty73 says...
as the first "church",so you concede that the dogma you espouse was written not while , but well after all was said and done.Rumors are like tumors,this he said she said BS,doesnt fly with me.Organized religion is the crux of civilization period.How much death and despair can be attributed to the catholic church and its "blessings"
November 19, 2009 at 5:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
ufc08,
I totally disagree with you. Every terrorist is NOT Muslim. While Muslim extremists make up MOST of the terrorism in the world today, it's very illogical and incorrect to say what you did.
jambajuice,
I've decided that I'm not going to get into a discussion over religion or philosophy in this forum. It won't help....you won't change my opinions, and I doubt I'll change yours. Let me just say that I believe Jesus IS (not was) the Messiah, and that He is God in human form. I also believe the Bible and what it teaches me about myself, about my place in the world, and what God wants for me in my life. I believe Jesus taught us to love one another...not hate. While there ARE things He expects us to do differently, I believe He wants me to be with Him for eternity even MORE than I want to!!
All that said, I believe that it's faith that saves us...not knowledge. One can either accept or reject Jesus Christ. It's your decision. If you don't believe, that's YOUR decision. I'm not going to attempt to "save" you over the internet. If you're willing to look at the Scripture wiht an open mind, and are truly searching for God in your life, He'll meet you. It's obvious you have plenty of head knowledge. What you need now is to decide if you're willing to accept Jesus Christ. If you decide not, that's your decision.
November 19, 2009 at 5:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
newman says...
The establishment of the Catholic Church is documented throughout the New Testament, including Corinthians. Furthermore, there is a much better "paper trail" for the Bible back to the originals than any other historical text from that era that people accept without a second thought. Keep in mind that Western Civilization itself, including our inheritance of Universities, women's rights, hospitals, etc... only exist due to the Catholic Church and Her influence. But what else would you expect from a body established by Christ Himself and to which the Holy Spirit was promised to guide and protect always (cf Jn. 14:26, 16:12)?
November 20, 2009 at 5:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jambajuice says...
Well most of the new testament are letters of Jesus's apostles, so that alone throws out them as usable for an argument as its like having a public officials staff write letter of recommendation on how amazing you are and how much everyone else who doesn't say the same is obviously not awesome.
All I'm saying is that according to Judaism, Jesus did not pass the tests set forth by recognized prophets in the texts that both Christians and Jews both agree are 100% true, and therefore could not have been the Messiah. Am I saying a lot of good and bad came out of Jesus attempting to change the original perfect word? No, good and bad is relative to those parties involved. Much like the publication of On the Evolution of Populations of Species, which is necessary for modern medical sciences, but have both good and bad come from it.
November 20, 2009 at 9:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
jambajuice,
That's where we disagree. I DO believe He passed every single test. However, I think the best ones to ask might possibly be Jews who have accepted Jesus. They know the Torah MUCH better than you or I, and they know HOW he passed the test!!
November 20, 2009 at 10:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jambajuice says...
We still assert he didn't pass the the tests set forth by the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel where the messiah was rebuild the temple of solomon (which is still not done), and there has been no time where he ruled as king ushering in a period of peace and understanding of God and thus ending persecution of jews.
November 20, 2009 at 1:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
jambajuice,
I'm not sure the prophets specifically indicate the Messiah would rebuild Solomon's temple. However, many believers feel that any reference to that effect wasn't directed toward a physical temple, but the Temple of God that exists in our hearts....where we're supposed to worship God first and foremost ANYWAY.
November 20, 2009 at 2:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )