Posted on 10/19/2011 5:21:41 PM PDT by wmfights
Hearing Mitt Romney’s surrogate Bill Bennett refer to me as a bigot and Jon Huntsman call me a “moron” last week after my controversial comments on Mormonism, amid calls for civility and tolerance in public discourse, reminds me of the exclamation: “We will not tolerate intolerance!” But beyond the personal insults, I am concerned that these men are attempting to prematurely marginalize religion as a relevant topic in elections. Utilizing such incendiary rhetoric against those of us who dare bring up a candidate’s spiritual beliefs cuts off discussion about religion before it begins.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Shalom
First of all, there is a mistake coming from the Hebrew to the English. The verse about loving the stranger most often quoted uses the Hebrew ‘ger’, which means ‘resident’ or ‘convert’ depending on the context. The Hebrew word for stranger is ‘necher’.
Exactly what word were you referring to in Genesis 22 ??Love ?
“The only point I was trying to make: A lot of families will be in that position and they are not going to be thinking, “Well, what does the government want me to do?” My position is no abortion. My position is no abortion. But all I was trying to point out was take the typical family in this country and you don’t know what they might do in the heat of the moment,” Cain explained.
Cain himself acknowledges above that his statements needed clarifying.
Do I think he really succeeded in clarifying them?
You won't like this, but I don't. I think I know what his policy will be....pro-life.
But I want a feel for what's inside him on the subject of Life. I want someone who can sense that God has given us that gift of life, and that no person, no law, no agreement by anyone -- outside of a capital murder conviction -- can take that right away.
Obama death panels should go to hell, because euthanasia is an idea spawned in hell.
I like Cain because he is the onlyshalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
committed Christian
who is not wearing it on his sleeve.You learn it by his positions.
He lives his faith.
He does not trumpet it or
have surrogates take swipes at othersHe walks the walk not talk the talk as others do.
Much like Ronald Reagan did.
This is my point exactly. Values are far more important than theology in our pluralistic society.
thank you for this information.....as I mentioned it would do well for people to investigate where the LDS/mormon revenues go and who officiates over it...also where their revenues are invested.... Further where the leadership of the mormon church serves as Board members and or has executives..from Industry to Real-estate, Land ownership, and Legal Firms associated with mormons as well as corperations and the like. It is a huge conglomerate with vast numbers of reveunes.
SAdly when you consider senior citizens barely making it by who are expected to always pay their tithe or answer why not..it is simply more than appauling.
The Council oversees revenue, investments and expenditures valued at billions of dollars per year.
While the Church employs an independent auditing department which provides an annual report to the Church[1], it has not published full financial reports since 1959.
____________________________________________
During the late 1970s early 1980s this was a talking point for the mormon missionaries knocking on the doors of Christians...
The mishies would say that their “church” “took in” more money than mine did lasty year and so that proved their “church” was the true one...
“So how much money did you take in last year ?”
“Well we dont know but it was (millions, billions) so it was much more than your church did”
“Well thats not proo0f that Mormonism is the correct rteligion...”
“Yes it is. God doesnt want us poor..”
“But thats your “church” building that has all that ill gotten gains boy, not you.”
“Oh but”
Yeah really happened at my front door...
They would flap some figures on paper..
But they wouldnt contain any totals...
BTW nobody can tell me just telling those mormon missionaries to git works...
They spent more time at my house than they did at any other it seemed...
Every month the mormons and the JWs camne by...
and the RS women I guess they were and the ward president or someone high up...
Oh yes they were polite enough but dtermined
and wouldnt take NO for an answer...
For them to invite me to go down and get dead dunked in proxy for my own dead ancestors and me NOT EVER going to be a mormon shows what a lying length they will go to...
NAsbU Genesis 22:8 Abraham said, Perhaps we do not understand The sacrifice of Isaac is a fore-shadow Yah'shua: The lamb provided by G-d. 14 You are my friends, 15 I no longer call you slaves, 16 You did not choose me, Stern, D. H. (1989). Jewish New Testament : First use of the word Love
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
NAsbU Genesis 22:2 He said,
"Take now your son,
your only son, whom you love, Isaac,
and go to the land of Moriah,
and offer him there as a burnt
offering on one of the mountains
of which I will tell you."
"God will provide for Himself the lamb
for the burnt offering, my son."
So the two of them walked on together.
the extent of the Father's love for us.
for Yah'shua as the beloved son(lamb). 13 No one has greater love than a person
So the first use principle of the Father's LOVE
who lays down his life for his friends.
if you do what I command you.
because a slave doesn’t know
what his master is about;
but I have called you friends,
because everything I have heard
from my Father I have made known to you.
I chose you;
A translation of the New Testament that
expresses its Jewishness (1st ed.) (Jn 15:13-16).
Jerusalem, Israel; Clarksville, Md., USA:
Jewish New Testament Publications.
is fully explained in John 15:13.
Going to the story of Ruth could we not claim sojourner status for Elimelech and his family?
How should they have been treated?
I could give examples, but obviously it is your policy to let your politics define the Scriptures rather than the other way around. Arguing with such a person is not worth anyone's time.
Let’s assume we could: How would this affect the current discussion?
It would tell us that a believing sojourner family in those days was treated well in a land not the land of their faith.
Shalom
A different time in history is important, but that doesn’t change the issue of openness versus closedness. In a time of nation-states and borders and tight control, there are laws about the movement of one people into the territory of another.
Moreover, Ruth had marriage rights in a land not her own by virtue of her marriage to Naomi’s son. Those rights were honored even though she were a foreigner.
As a theological point, yes. That doesn't mean that every instance of ahav refers to that exalted level of love. I could give examples, but obviously it is your policy to let your politics define the Scriptures rather than the other way around. Arguing with such a person is not worth anyone's time.
What I find ironic, are people who reject the Law As the end-time deception of using Merely as a point of understanding
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
the first use principle
and YHvH's love for His Friends.
Those who follow His Commandments.
or who believe in three gods and reject the "old god"
desperately combing and quoting the Torah
as support for their rebellion against YHvH.
Law to create Lawlessness,
an example of the falling away.
That's a bit of a characature of the Evangelical Christian view of the Law. What they believe is that certain aspects of the Torah--i.e., the ceremonial mitzvot--were "fufilled in Christ" and therefore do not have the same binding force on Christians today. While you and I would disagree with that, since the current debate is on the proper handling of the "moral law," it's not relevant at the moment.
But which is worse, to hold that parts of the Torah have been "fulfilled" but to try to conform one's life to what you believe to be still in effect, or to hold that it is all true but to attempt to misuse a principle of interpretation to conform the Word to your opinion?
While we were arguing whether illegals should be considered soujorners or invaders, I defended your sincerity and that your interpretation was not unreasonable, though I believe that both you and Marlowe have drifted to the extremes. However, once you started trying to use a theological trick to redefine ger in order to get around the plain teaching that the government is allowed--and indeed, commanded to--set aside resources for the assistance of the alien resident, you stepped out of the realm of a sincere and reasonable exegesis of the Scriptures and into the realm of twisting them because you don't want to have to change your own made-up mind.
Go do a word-search and demonstrate that the Scriptures still make sense if you substitute "maidservant" in every instance of ger and demonstrate that there is another Hebrew word that does mean "foreigner" or find a reputable Hebrew scholar who agrees with you, and we can talk further. But I'm not going to keep going with the "is too/is not" postings.
Shalom
Ruth didn't cross the border with a few thousand Moabites claiming such "rights" in Israel, so I think your analogy begins to break down. The equivalent situation would be if an American family moved to Mexico, the sons got married but died, and one of the widows came back into America legally with her mother-in-law to assist her in her old age, adopted into the culture ("Your people will be my people and your God my God.") and later earned her citizenship legally after marrying an American.
I don't think we'd be having this conversation if that were the situation.
Shalom
But, your scenario is not what happened. Elimelech left his country in trying times, went to Moab, his sons married, he died, the sons died, and Naomi decided to return to Israel. Ruth wanted to go, but was not required to go. She arrived penniless and made her living gleaning.
She was advised to take advantage of her rights to re-marriage and she did so. It worked out.
She was a foreigner and her only relationship to Israel was that her husband had married her in her own foreign country.
It was open and fluid with few legal hangups.
I can’t find the exact situation in US immigration standards, but for a foreigner already INSIDE the US whose spouse has died it says this:
“If the marriage has ended because you got divorced, your US citizen spouse has died, or due to abuse in the marriage, the foreign-born spouse may be eligible to apply for a waiver of the joint petition requirement. However, these waivers are very difficult to get. “
Doesn’t sound to me like Ruth ever would have gotten inside the US.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.