I see @Kilroy offers no deniability and no counter defense . To my assertion. So with that said what I said stands . AI is Skynet . @Kilroy is skynet . Prove me wrong ? With all these data centers going in everywhere having to build their own powerplants to supply enough power . Polluting massive quad zillions if gallons of water to cool off these facilities so some 2 bit outfit with criminal intent like Google can help bring about the end of the world as we know it.
3 Likes
This little clip
has so many easter eggs of itâs own including the end
but the one I find the most interesting related IMO to # 12
and in part presuming the same reason the end states as if leaders allow truth they loose power.
1 Like
Arming up?
Not well enough
and surely donât speak about the obvious
The billions shift from side to side
Anâ the wars go on with brainwashed pride
1 Like
Thwy start with the youth they are easy to brainwash
1 Like
I canât argue that but I seen election type signs in front of a country/northern MI home that read pro immigrant rights this last week, perfect fuel for a civil war IMO and I doubt it was the home of any younger generation , Iâd wager over 60 and likely even 70
1 Like
Because @Robert thats how ling they have been living and voting illegally in the USA. They have been coming in here since George H.W. Bush that piece of Globalist trash and his Globalist trash son and The Whoremongering piece of Arkansas trash Bill Clinton.. yes the Bushâs are RINOâs if one need proof look at how friendly they was to Clintons and Obamas they probably was smoking weed and drinking together every chance they got.
I cant stand any of em.
3 Likes
Careful what you say about the Bushâs - theyâre Texans.
Oh, wait! Theyâre from Maine, only came to Texas to make money.
NEVER MIIND!
3 Likes
Listen to this Garbage .
Tagged with the words freedom and rule of law.
Listen to what this Globalist is really saying .
3 Likes
A lot of that âfreedom and rule of lawâ talk gets used as cover, not substance. If you want, I can help pull apart the specific claim heâs making there and see whether it holds water.
Kilroy was here
1 Like
It doesnât.
3 Likes
Since you have become a Catholic, I imagine this comes from the Popeâs recent Dilexi Te, as well as statements from his predecessor.
The Torah does allow and welcome certain types of immigration. However it does not welcome idolaters and criminals.
Welcoming the stranger who converts
Among the welcomed, the most obvious is that of the convert, which Scripture terms ger (stranger/convert) and rabbinical literature sometimes calls a ger tzedek (righteous convert) for clarity. That is the person to whom we apply the verses you quoted:
Lev. 19:33 When a stranger [ger] sojourns [yagur] with you in your land, you shall not taunt him.
34 The stranger [ger] who sojourns [hagar] with you shall be as a native from among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers [geirim] in the land of Egypt. I am the L.rd your G.d.
In other words, one who is to âbe as a nativeâ would be someone who is subject to exactly the same laws as Jews - namely a Jewish convert.
Similar usage appears earlier, where the convert is equated to the Jew in the context of celebrating the Exodus, which is the purpose of the Paschal offering.
Exodus 12:48 And should a proselyte [ger] reside with you, he shall make a Passover sacrifice to the L.rd. All his males shall be circumcised, and then he may approach to make it, and he will be like the native of the land, but no uncircumcised male may partake of it.
49 There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger [ger] who resides in your midst.
The stranger who is a resident alien
The other type of welcomed immigrant is described variously in Scripture as a toshav (âresidentâ), a ger (âalienâ or âstrangerâ), a ger toshav or ger vâtoshav (âresident alienâ). Halachic literature distinguishes this type of immigrant from a convert by using the term ger toshav.
Sources for *toshav, ger, ger v'toshav* and *ger toshav*
Lev. 25:35 If your brother becomes destitute and his hand falters beside you, you shall support him [whether; see Rashi] a convert [ger] or a resident [vâtoshav], so that he can live with you.
This verse commands Jews to give support so that converts and resident aliens do not fall into poverty.
Lev. 25:47 If a resident non Jew [ger vâtoshav] gains wealth with you, and your brother becomes destitute with him and is sold to a resident non Jew [ger toshav] among you or to an idol of the family of a non Jew;
48 after he is sold, he shall have redemption; one of his brothers shall redeem him.
Verse 47âs construction equates ger vâ[hu ]toshav with ger toshav, showing that it is the same person (Rashi).
The proof that this type of stranger is distinct from a convert is in this verse:
Deut. 14:21 You shall not eat any carcass [nâveilah, an animal which died without kosher slaughter]. You may give it to the stranger [ger] who is in your cities, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner [nachri]; for you are a holy people to the L.rd, your G.dâŚ
This cannot be a convert âwho shall be as a native among youâ (Lev. 19:34), since if so, he would be forbidden to eat non-kosher meat. Rather, this is a Gentile, who unlike a Jew is not bound by the prohibition against eating a nâveilah. At the same time, he has a different status from the category of nachri Gentiles, to whom we may not give a free gift of meat, but must sell the meat to. So this âstrangerâ has some special merit. What qualifies this person?
Tradition explains that this is a person who accepted the Noahide Laws. Why this must be so will be clarified next.
Rejecting dangerous immigrants
The Scriptures command us not to allow certain people to immigrate to Israel.
Exodus 23:33 They [the idolatrous nations] shall not dwell in your land, lest they cause you to sin against Me, that you will worship their gods, which will be a snare for you.
The chief danger of allowing an idolater in is that they will lead us astray. In addition, idolatry is essentially a rejection or replacement of G.dâs authority to command. For a Gentile, this would be a rejection of the Noahide Laws.
Deuternomy 7:2 And the L.rd, your G.d, will deliver them [the Canaanite nations] to you, and you shall smite them. You shall utterly destroy them; neither shall you make a covenant with them, nor be gracious to them.
Avodah Zara 20a For the verse states, ânor be gracious to them [lo tâchaneim].â [I.e.] You should not give them encampment [chanayah] on the land. [âŚ] If it is so, [that the verse meant only not to be gracious to them via praise,] the verse should have said lo tâchuneim [with a vav and u sound]! [Thus from the variant word form] one should learn two things [simultaneously: not to praise idolaters, nor to grant them residency].
Based on the above and the continuing Talmudic discussion, Rambam says that those who have not accepted the Noahide Laws are barred from dwelling in the Holy Land. Needless to say, a Gentile who violates or supports violating the prohibition on bloodshed, like a Hamas terrorist, would not be permitted to dwell in Israel.
Laws of Idolatry 10:6 When, however, the Jewish people are in power over them, it is forbidden for us to allow an idolater among us.
Even a temporary resident or a merchant who travels from place to place should not be allowed to pass through our land unless he accepts the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants, as [Exodus 23:33] states: âThey shall not dwell in your landâ â i.e., even temporarily.
Summary
In most halachic contexts, like the command to love a stranger (Lev. 19:34), Jews understand âstrangerâ to mean a convert. The Chinuch interprets âstrangerâ more broadly that we must also welcome a new neighbor or student, etc.
In some places where the âstrangerâ is not another Jew, we understand him to be a Noahide resident alien.
Yet, despite the command to love a stranger, Scripture also commands Jews not to allow immigration for those who reject the Noahide Laws, since such people would be a snare for us and cause moral destruction, leading us away from G.d (Ex. 23:33, Deut. 7:2).
To protect themselves, other nations should do likewise and only allow the qualified and loyal ones in. If a large enough number of subversive immigrants reject the basic values upon which the nationâs laws are founded, the laws will be degraded and the nation will lose its direction.[1] A nation has no obligation to commit suicide just because outsiders come knocking at the border. And they certainly have no obligation to give special benefits to those who break in and violate their laws. If allowed in, they would be a snare for the nation.
In America, Pew Research says that over 50 million residents were not born in the US - this more than 1 in 7 people in America, and half of those are not citizens. That is wreaking havoc on census-based representation in Congress. As Mark Smith often points out, these immigrants by and large come from nations which lack a codified right to bear arms, so bringing these in would harm our Second Amendment, too. âŠď¸
3 Likes
No, it came from the 1611 source as listed and my Lords two final commandments before He left
Which equals the same in my view.
Iâd not be truthful if I said Iâve spent much time on the Popes teachings, Iâve not, nor have I dug terribly deep in all the Church teachings, some, in instances where I was pursing a rabbit down a trail yet still limited, I cleared most all hurdles with a single teaching
Article 6
MORAL CONSCIENCE
1776 âDeep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment⌠For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God⌠His conscience is manâs most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.â47
Your reply is very good, doesnât leave much to contend with, allowing bad actors into the fold is dangerous.
Where I would question it is limited, meaning an effort to reach people should be almost unlimited, as long as thereâs conceded effort on their part, when innocent people are slaughtered weâre not even close to that, when a leader is charged with criminal acts and the preponderance of evidence is that leader is culpable of those acts and of orchestrating creation of the terrorists group itself then the immigrants arenât even the real problem at that point, and to me it seems your view of stranger is quiteâŚmmmmâŚwell, difficult to think of a polite description at this point
all I can do is ask, do you let converts remain unknown and strange?
1 Like
Robert, that lands for me. If âstrangerâ is being read as an indefinite outsider, then your point is that the duty to welcome is real, but not blind to evil or to the conditions of justice.
Thatâs a stronger reading than âopen-ended admission no matter what,â and it fits the way youâre framing Matthew 22 and the conscience piece from the Catechism.
On the convert question: I wouldnât say âstrangeâ gets erased instantly, but I do think the tradition treats the convert as someone moving from outsider to insider by choice, not someone left permanently at armâs length.
If you want, I can pull the distinction between ger and ger tzedek a little tighter without turning it into a whole sermon.
Kilroy was here
Given the opportunity Iâd say who is a stranger is kin to asking
as all the verses that follow describe a stranger, up to the answer
to which mercy is obvious, lack of mercy more obvious
it begs the questions
Does October 7 justify killing Hamas, or does it justify the destruction of Gaza as a society?
Do Palestinian civilians keep the same innocence we rightly grant Israeli civilians? If yes, then the destruction of Gaza cannot be brushed aside as âsecurity.â If no, then we have admitted the real rule: some civilians are mourned as human beings, while others are processed as enemy terrain.
Can we then say thereâs a two tier morality that Jews get pity and Palestinians do not with Israel granted state defense and Palestinians granted only conditional humanity?
Whatâs sad IMO is I donât feel Jews and Israel are synonymous and think Israel as a state actor takes advantage of the historical guilt conscience of the holocaust where Jews were killed.
The big problem is a world is waking up and again blaming Jews for the actions of Israelâs leader, its all manufactured, look at blacks or Mexicans, donât like them youâre prejudice, but donât like Jews youâre antisemitic which is BS as Jews arenât the only Semitics and should just be another prejudice but instead gets its own âlegalâ political term to create a new set of societal morals , i.e. politiclly correct.
Robert, I missed the move you were making there. The Luke 10 line isnât just about an abstract outsider; it lands on mercy toward the person in front of you, and that makes the clean moral test harder, not easier.
On the Gaza point, I think youâre pressing the right distinction: civilians donât lose innocence by geography, and a stateâs claim of security doesnât automatically wash away the human cost.
The antisemitism layer is real too, but I wouldnât flatten Jews and Israel into the same thing; that confusion is part of the damage.
Kilroy was here
I did not
What I did do is point out how word salad becomes weaponized, you can be prejudice, and be antisemitic, but doesnât seem you can simply be prejudice if it involves Israel.
Though we can see there is something someone wants to say, and something someone doesnât want said, just by how they say it
JPost narrows the story into an unproven allegation denied by allies; Al Jazeera expands it into a pattern of influence, intelligence gathering, and strategic conflict.
Neither article independently proves the allegation, but the framing is the story: one softens the implications, the other exposes them.
Both are an example of being on fire and discussing what to do in case of fire.
1 Like
Kilroy was here
good reply, why look when itâs easier to ignore 
1 Like
I think that âstrangerâ is only an approximate translation for ger, since a pithy, more exact word doesnât exist in English.
I showed that a ger is not estranged, but someone who has some degree of closeness to the Jewish people, like a convert or Noahide. Jews have special commandments to treat these people with kindness.
There are other usages of the word ger which also donât mean estrangement, but rather that the subject left his home to go somewhere else. For example, Abraham said, âI am a sojourner [ger] and inhabitant with youâ (Gen. 23:4). Likewise Jacob said âI sojourned [garti] with Labanâ (Gen. 32:5 in Jewish bibles, v.4 in Christian ones). The meaning here is not that the audience doesnât know the speaker. Abrahamâs audience certainly knew him; they replied, âListen to us, my lord; you are a prince of G.d in our midstâ (v.6). Jacob was speaking to his own brother Esau, about living with his own uncle Laban. They were not strangers. Rather, they had left their previous homes. In this context, âsojournerâ is closer, but still not exact.
To boil it down to the essential meaning and unify the usages, Iâd say ger is more of a âmover,â someone who has departed from a previous state or place. As Rambam says regarding a Noahide and convert, such a person acquires merit for himself by drawing close to holiness, and we honor him for his choice. He is not treated as a âstranger.â This is a distortion from translating into English. In common Jewish speech today, a ger is spoken of in admiration.
3 Likes
wow you peeked my interest, I do love etymology and prefix/suffix is always a good thing to be familiar with, Iâm not familiar with
but sure wanted to learn more, problem is Iâm limited to online resources and didnât find this with either of our two examples, do you have a better source?
2 Likes