Yeshua was Jewish. The Greeks had no right. None. Zero. To rename him as Jesus.
In what world does Yeshua become Yeezoos even with accents factored in?
Its like calling a Daniel 'David'.
Yeshua was Jewish. The Greeks had no right. None. Zero. To rename him as Jesus.
In what world does Yeshua become Yeezoos even with accents factored in?
Its like calling a Daniel 'David'.
No they are said totally differently.
Also if you are English speaking you say Jesus itself wrong too but since you say a wrong name wrong that is moot.
Yeshua is not said the same as you say Jesus.
Nope. You are the one who doesn't understand Jesus, that guy is closer to correct.
Turn the other cheek was a phrase. Jews in general (and this isn't stereotyping it's accurate typology of a culture) speak in hyperbole and love metaphors. If you read a lot of Deutoronomy literally you'd become as severe a Jewish danger as a Jihadist is a danger for taking the Qur'an hyperliteral (but really the Qur'an claims you should take it at face value as God's word, adding massive problems).
Yeshua, who we somehow wrongly name Jesus in droves, did not preach absolute pacifism. This is a lie and a misunderstanding of his way of talking.
For instance, I will quote him verbatim on something:
27 Adultery.[a]“You have heard that it was said of old: ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that anyone who looks with lust at a woman has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is preferable for you to lose one part of your body than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is preferable for you to lose one of your limbs than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna.
If you actually think what he means there is to actually do what he said, you do not grasp the Jewish metaphorical way of talking he used. This is again, not a stereotype, it's something I think has led to many misunderstandings among more literal cultures when reading the Bible (and that includes white cultures such as those in South of US or some Brits, Germans and more). Cultures known to talk things far more literally will struggle more with decoding when Yeshua meant things absolutely literally and when he was exaggerating in hyperbole or being metaphorical. This is why I strongly oppose Sola Scriptura and believe it's essential to have a component like the Catechism of the Catholic Church at your disposal when understanding Christianity. It is not anyone's fault that their brain structure and culture are different to that of the Apostles and non-Apostle disciples Yeshua was preaching to back then. It is simply a natural way things evolved. We need the Church to dogmatically tell us how to interpret the Bible. This is so very important.
Yeshua did not teach absolutist pacifism. Instead, he taught the value in most of Europe but not in quite a bit of US; proportional retaliation when given little option but to act in proactive self defense. This means you don't just need to hit 1 for 1 you can strike twice for 1 perhaps but 3 times or too harsh with the 2 and that's disproportionate. This concept is how Europeans, especially Western and North (scandy) Europeans see self defense. In contrast, Americans see it as an absolutist right to the point that killing someone for even stepping on your premises is acceptable in some States.
I accept that it's actually unfair how the European one is set up and I actually want it to move slightly towards the American one. For instance, to expect someone to let an invader in their home get the first strike or a headsup to their approach by making sneak attacks fundamentally illegal is absurd and horribly unfair because you don't know how strong they are, what they're wielding or if you do and they're stronger, a better fighter etc and/or you are ill or muscles ache at that moment you will be at a disadvantage.
I am simply stating that the way Yeshua framed things, outside of justified warfare (which is what Americans tend to argue nearly all self defense scenarios become but European laws disagree, generally), you must wait to be struck properly and to ascertain the hits will keep coming before striking back.
This even applies to verbal disputes with people, in fact it even can apply to legal disputes. As Christians the command towards us from Lord Yeshua is that unlike what Tanakh was taken to mean, you shouldn't rush to do an eye for an eye, you must be more patient.
Sure.
However, some of those are my own family irl. Some are not but matter to me to try to either save or protect others against.
You do your thing. I am me.
Knockout or surrender.
Tte onky way ti reduce net bias affecting winrate is to maximally.increase judges.
In nearly ALL things like this, wherher fencing, boxing, fashion shows, singing contests, the more a few judges decide the winner the more rigged and BS the entire thing is.
The more chaos and muktitude of debates ti test over and the real grinders rise some way some how.
If you really think ultrarated debatwrs are better automatically, theow them in the normal arena with me in tooics neuther of us are comfoetavke with. Do it 6 times over in 3 weeks and we will see the real.better debater under such pressures.
That diesnt factor in hownunfair irlnis. Power cuts, wifj cut out, busy here, toilet breaking and needing plumving there, chaos.
Indians are Asians. India has many beggars.
Your arena. Your rules.
Just know the whole thing is a sham.
If you think WF is one of the best debaters ever you are having a laugh. He is good at rigid tournament style debate only. And that is not the key to debate excellence.
Who is the truly better fighter? The UFC champ for now, prettiednup for the camera cushioned by many riles and judge biases or the street brawl mosntrocity that has a high winrate on the streets?
🫡🧠
'Asian' includes south Asians in Europe in legal ethnicity documentation.
It is North Americans who decided Asian only means North-to-East Asian
Tournaments like this should have 1 winner.
Okay sign me up then I can chicken out after 1 debate.
So who won the first one?
Just gonna chicken out?
It isnt obvious which he is. I can think of several subsets that would apply.
It reminds me of any nonhuman animal. People forget humans are just the most elite animal. Obviously such a person will come back milore and more. Either you go.l full Christian and go.homeless and be hungry to give to others nonstop or you accept you are a sinner and work within your limits of generosity to maintain the life you greedily and otherwise crave.
My advise is to just turn him away next time and pray for him instead.
It is hard. You will feel anxiety doing it. Tell.him the location of the government office or charity place that can help him best.
God alone.
The Christ Messiah is in both Testaments. It is clear.
Originally you had Messianic Jews and Goyim that were conforming to Messianic Judaism. Later the First Nicaea Council finalised the religion as Christianity dedicated to worshipping Jesus Christus Rex, his Father and the Holy Spirit.
I think that people across the entire world both irl and online don't realise something;
when you have toxic scum doing evil things the solution is not to just ignore them and let them keep doing it.
I don't know what amoral people came up with this utter nonsense but that is a lie. The axiom of 'mind your own business until you don't need to' is the total opposite to what actually is best to do in life, morally and even strategically. You should mind other's business as much as is sustainable until and/or unless it clearly is a good idea to mind your own business. How we come to when it is or isn't a good idea is the real debate.
I do not mind my own business, I do not believe in this mentality. I never did but I used to think I did. I mind if someone is doing bad things on a site I participate in, even if it isn't my direct business. I always have and I never ever not once ever in my life as I foresee it intend to change that mentality and approach. It's the morally right thing to do, feel and be like.
One thing you can do is ask why the doll costed that much.
Satan satiates but does not ever long-term satisfy.
Correct. Culture comes first.
People are confused as they think humans are not animals.
I decide the necessity of my reports.
I report user satanlucy for harassment of me.
And tell us what that member said. That will ascertain if my reply was uncalled for.
I add cross thread contamination to my report on him.
Crazy how that describes him way more than me.
If you say that again I will report you.
One year, a person can defend himself from violence, the next year, he is put in jail for "overdefending" himself. No clear lines.
One year 9/11, the next year threats to destroy whole of US, the next year multiple wars make them the victim of the West, the next (some years later) 'islamophobia' defends against any sane and rational critique of Islam. The next? Sharia UK and more.
Child marriages are bad, true, but state-sanctioned grooming in an atheistic society is actually far worse!!!
Debate this with me then. We will compare secular society to Islamic and see which is worse on this.
I report SatanLucy for spamming my thread, insulting me here and elsewhere and therefore harassing me intentionally trying to derail the thread.
The British called the 2 games:
Association Football
and Rugby Football
the soc in Association got the British and Irish to dub it soccer, the rug in Rugby got them to dub it rugger. It was them who introduced both to the US. The US altered Rugby Football and named their new game American football. Meanwhile, the British ditched 'soccer' and solely called it football while calling Rugby football 'Rugby' or sometimes still using 'rugger'. The Americans kept the slang term soccer and how it's their officially term for association football.
Therefore, it is actually the British that are to blame for the terminology fiasco.
Nothing can help him because he has a mental disorder where his brain tells him that attacking and insulting people will make people like him. Its a strange mental disorder where person isnt aware of reality, but lives in some fantasy world where him arguing online gets him women and power. Its silly mental disorder. He convinces himself into a lie, and then uses that lie as a premise to make entire rant from it. I am just glad I didnt get whatever mental disorder that is.
Are we talking about me or you here?
and in other cultures it's seen as a sign of being homeless, filthy, low class etc. Proving that it's a cultural aspect that has a hybrid origin; if the ethnicity looks very unappealing without them they tend to lean towards encouraging beard growth and shaming a lack of it, in contrast if they have poor beard growth on average they tend to push a more 'clean' less bearded look and very big beards get shamed instead.