It's difficult to explain to those who think the whole thing is just a religion.

The modern form of Judaism wasn't developed my man, it's simply the form of Judaism practiced when there isn't a Temple.

Lots of religions deny Christianity.

That's not my experience. There are some differences regarding authorship of the Torah (written by Moses and is directly G-d's words or written by Moses and maybe others and inspired by G-d) but most of the differences are about traditions (women sitting next to men in synagogues etc.).

I didn't want to say it out loudly.

I do think that ANYONE who reads homosexuality into a story that doesn't say the word has a mind that makes him or her read these things into the story.

I do it myself when I hear a joke about gay people. In a movie somebody says "fabulous" or "fierce", in themselves not dirty or gay words; but the joke is intended to refer to homosexuals and I notice it and laugh. But it's certainly not the cleanest way to handle these situations.

But when I read holy scripture, I try to keep it down with the smut.

well there is smut in the scripture....so to speak.....scripture is about sinful, fallen men and it's all in there including those who rise above and take the hand of God and welcome not only the cleansing he offers but also the covering of his grace.  Good stuff! 

now see Leauki....I didn't know this......maybe you just have a dirty mind? 

I absolutely do.

But the point is when to apply the dirty mind.

If I read religious law and judge other people, I have no right to apply a dirty mind.

But if I watch or read comedy, I can do what I want.

Deleted for having second thoughts!

Good one!

That reminds me of the Clinton song: "I'm unzipping my Doo-Dah, Zip-A-Dee-Ay..."

el-duderino posts #151

leauki posts:

lula posts:

Leauki posts:

True. However, the terms Judaism and Jews have different meanings. Judaism, Hebrew, Isrealites and Jews cannot rightly be used interchangeably.

I think you'll find the first mention of the term Jews in the OT in 4Kings 25:25 where it's applied to the people of Judah about whom it no doubt originated.  And it was related to a worshipper of the one true God for the first time in the Book of Esther 2:5. That was about 1000 years after Moses became the Father of the religion called Judaism, through God's revelation to him of the ceremonial law on Mt. Sinai, about 250 years after Jacob's name was changed to Isreal.

Historically, until the advent of modernism in Jewry, the terms Jews was universally applied to believers and worshippers of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob according to the Mosaic Law. the term Isrealites applied to the descendants of Jacob and to their nationality. The term Hebrew was applied to the language of the Jews. 

EL-DUDERINO POSTS:

Civil unions and same-sex "marriage" is a con game with the public. 

The laws of the land are about protecting and benefitting the common good of society. Since when is it beneficial to the common good of society for the law to treat cohabitation (of any arrangement) equal to marriage?

Even taking away the fact that Marriage is an ancient institution of Almighty God, Marriage is part of the Natural or Moral Law....it's essential is a physical and benevolent unity possible only for members of the opposite sex. Since the body parts don't fit, nature denies conception to those of the same sex.

So, even while same-sex friendship, a genre of love, is possible, it precludes sexual expression.  Civil unions/same sex "marriage" is beyond reason and possibility. Marriage is genuine, the real thing....same -sex "marriage" is a mirage; a farce.

Oh c'mon? Can you say the judicial system?

Name one state where the people have voted to approve changing the defintion of marriage from that of a union between a man a woman?

I don't care about Christians forcing their definitions on a people, no matter how much they believe that they pray to the same god.

Here's the simple definitions:

"Judaism": The culture and religion of the Jewish people. Judaism consists of Qaraite ("reader") Judaism and Rabbinical ("teacher") Judaism. 99% of the Judaism practices today is Rabbinical Judaism. Qaraite communities exist in California, New York, and Israel.

"Hebrew":

1. The Canaanite Semitic language spoken by the Israelites (and hence the Jews)

2. An ethnic group named after the assumption that they once "crossed" (which is what "Hebrew" literally means) from one region into another and/or named after a founder of that ethnic group

"Israelites": A Hebrew (see "Hebrew" definition 2) people allegedly descended from the Biblical character Jacob ("Israel")

"Jews": A people consisting of three (or four if you count Levi) tribes of Israelites who lived in the region Judaea named after one of those tribes (Juda). Other Israelites include Samaritans (who are descendants of another two tribes of Israelites and are also named after the region where they still live) and Ethiopian "Jews" (who are descendants of yet another Israelite tribe).

Now that I come to think of it, if anybody has further questions about any of these, I'll gladly write a blog entry with definitions for the lot ("What's a Samaritan?") including non-Israelite peoples if there is any interest ("What's a Chaldaean?").

Marriage is a legal framework for cohabitation, hence society must have concluded that encouraging cohabitation is a good thing.

It seems obvious to me that society benefits both from heterosexual and homosexual cohabitations or anything that keeps people of either persuasion from sleeping around and spreading disease.

If you are worried about certain cohabitations not producing offspring we can talk about criminalising marriage without kids or allowing gay couples to adopt.

My own demands for homosexual "marriage" are only these:

1. It must be decided democratically, not by an activist judge.

2. Don't redefine the word "marriage".

3. Don't demand that _I_ regard it as the same as a (traditional) marriage if I don't want to.

4. Don't do it in my synagogue (although that really isn't for me to decide but for the community).

5. Yes, I may make jokes about every aspect of it.

What I definitely will support is these points:

1. Grant the same legal rights, duties, and privileges to unions between any two people.

2. Allow any couple (same-sex or otherwise) to adopt children (I don't believe that same-sex partners are by definition worse parents than different-sex partners).

I have no problems with people trying to change the world to a place that they like better provided that they don't challenge what is important to me (democracy) and don't change my world. It's simple.

Who's forcing their definition upon anyone....what is, is...Sacred Scripture and history give the origin and use of the term, not this Christian.

Hebrew (Eber) meant originally a stranger, a foreigner. The first person so designated in Scripture Gen. 14:13, was Abraham, forefather of the Isrealites, who was not a Jew becasue he was a foreigner in Canaan, who had come from the other side of "the great river" Euphrates. The name was later given to the language of Canaan, Is. 19:18, and was applied to "Jews" who spoke the "holy language" in contrast to the Hellenistic "Jews" who spoke in Greek only.

Poor Zubaz has been patient with us and our divergence from the main topic and I'll not test him any further.

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/343040/Religious_Support_Thread_for_Should_the_feds_open_up_benefits_to_married_ga

Equal in the eyes of the law and that's all.  If you want to think of them as unequal in the eyes of god that's your perogative.  Imagine for a second that you are deathly ill and you are in your hospital room about ready to flat line and there is no one around to comfort you in your final moments.  Or imagine that your significant other is deathly ill in a hospital room but the hospital will not let you into their room to hold their hand and say goodbye to them one last time.  Do you think that would be right for either of you to be denied having loved ones around in the final moments of life on this earth?  I don't which is why I'm for civil unions so that loved ones can be allowed into the hospital rooms in situations like that.

Or take a situation where you have made it explicitly clear that if you are on a ventilator and the doctors give you next to no chance of recovery that the plug be pulled.  Do you really want someone else to decide to keep you on the ventilator indefinitely, or vice versa depending on your wishes.  Again a civil union will allow the person you are in the union with to have automatic medical power of attorney so that your wishes can be carried out even if you haven't put together a living will.

What I said is that no one is forcing the definition be changed to marriage is between two men or two women.  They are asking that it be changed to 2 consenting adults.

I support everything stated above.

I also completely agree

I don't and my reasons why are found in this link from Massachusetts Resistance.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html