bennychico11

Many would argue that this is because there has been an agenda to make people feel more comfortable with the thought of homosexuality. And most people have too many other things to do in life then bicker with others constantly. I don't believe same sex unions are here because people support it...I think it's more people are tolerating it. People keep pushing their agendas long enough and people get tired of fighting them.

 

I think more people are simply realizing that there isn't any rational reason to be against it. They are becoming more exposed to the issue and conclude that they should at least tolerate it even if they have reservations about it.

Or maybe they realize everyone should have the same inalienable rights as everyone else. Doesn't it just kinda makes sense that if we're going to cooperate and live together as a society everyone should get the same basic rights?

And I'm getting tired of the word "agenda" being used in a negative connotation.

Did a whole chicken a couple weeks ago. You can buy a whole chicken cheaper than you can a pack of breast meat at the store!

IMO, the best way to achieve a great, moist bird is to brine it. I used this turkey brine recipe for chicken and it's great! Halve the recipe for the much smaller chicken. Brine 24-48 hours

http://allrecipes.co...ine/detail.aspx

Wash the chicken, rub it down with lemon juice first then in olive oil. Season with your favorite chicken rub.

I take a aluminum foil pan and put a rack in it to raise the chicken up a bit. Pour a layer of chicken stock/broth in the bottom of the pan. Breast side down (flip and turn halfway through if you'd like)

Cook indirect at 325* (heat on one side, meat on the other). Feel free to add smoke to the fire. Take off when breast registers as done (155*+...probably will take a couple hours). I sometimes throw it on the direct flame to crips it up a bit mroe. Wrap in foil and let sit 30min-1hour.

I love this:

Customers found to be illegally downloading copyrighted material will first receive one or two notifications from their ISPs, essentially stating that they have been caught. If the illegal downloads continue, subscribers will receive a new notice requesting acknowledgement that the notice has been received. Subsequent offenses can then result in bandwidth throttling and even service suspension.

 

Offense 1 & 2: We caught you!

Offense 3: Did you receive our notice?

Offense 4: We're super-serious this time!

One of my favorite parts of the country...it's sad

I've also got close family members living in south Denver that I hope stay safe

I've never had issues getting them. Either online (Ebay or the visitor's website in the case of an A&M game) or at the stadium on game day. I always make it an issue to find tickets before I start any tailgating so that I have them in hand before I start having fun. I don't think I've ever gotten a free ticket though. But usually can haggle with the person selling them...although scalpers can be a nuisance.

I also got lucky once and had a friend who let me buy their entire season tickets for one year.

Congrats on where you've gotten to now. It ain't easy but really is just a mind over matter type of thing.

The belly fat you want to get rid of really is going to have to come from tightening up your diet a bit more and adding some more exercise to your daily routine. Particularly some cardio.

Food wise, more fresh vegetables and lean proteins (chicken/fish)...and less starches and sugars. This includes bread. That's the hardest for me, because it seems as if every meal takes a bread or high carb product of some sort. I lost a lot of weight when I just started watching the carbs I was putting in my body. This INCLUDES beer and whisky, which I know is proabably even harder than just bread products.

For breakfast, skip the cereal and go with egg whites, turkey sausage, protein shakes (with low sugar content), fresh fruits, etc.

Lunch, chicken salad with low cal dressing (greek vinaigrette is a good option). Tuna sandwiches on whole grain bread or pita/tortilla...leftover grilled chicken from the night before with some steamed veggies

Dinner, another lean meat, fresh veggies, baked potato minus all the unhealthy fixings, salad, healthy beans.

Snacks you're doing well on already. Add a protein bar, turkey jerky (although this stuff is pricey), almonds, etc.

And of course, portion control over all else. Just get your body used to less food. And by less food, I mean less calories than probably you were used to consuming. Still consume the recommended daily calories. Probably around 1900-2000 calories for you if you want to lose about a 1lb a week.

If you increase your exercise just a few days a week, that will help even more. And drink more water!!

Okay, my $.02. Of course, do as I say...not as I do. I'm not the perfect specimen GL

or actually it might not be off the soundtrack...just the trailer music I guess.

Yeah, it's off the Inception soundtrack

Zack Hemsey - Mind Heist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOJqicM6x84

I'll have to read the whole link later but, the only thing I found troubling in the excerpt is that they apparently spend way too much time trying to classify enemy KIA's. I don't care how they count military age males. I think they should count everyone as enemy combatants. If what we're doing isn't worth possibly killing some "innocent" bystanders, then maybe we shouldn't be doing it at all.

 

2,753 innocent bystanders died on 9/11/01. They agree with you...as do I..

so innocent bystanders who had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11 are worthless? Their lives don't matter?

"The idea that good behavior only depends upon your fear of what will happen to you after you die; that you will be punished. Well, that excludes all of philosophy. It excludes Plato, it excludes the mystery cults of Greece, it excludes the Roman idea of what is a good man. There goes Marcus Aurelius, there goes Epictetus, there go the Stoics. These are all better thinkers than anything that the Christian church has come up with in 2,000 years."

-Gore Vidal

 

Of the times a negative rep button would be useful...

Sorry, some of us prefer to be good people purely because it's the right thing to do. Not because we're told to under threat of eternal punishment.

"The idea that good behavior only depends upon your fear of what will happen to you after you die; that you will be punished. Well, that excludes all of philosophy. It excludes Plato, it excludes the mystery cults of Greece, it excludes the Roman idea of what is a good man. There goes Marcus Aurelius, there goes Epictetus, there go the Stoics. These are all better thinkers than anything that the Christian church has come up with in 2,000 years."

-Gore Vidal

Well stated.

 

I (not being a scientist) must take a lot of what we are told on "faith". For example, I have never seen an atom split but believe it.

Again, you don't take it on faith that it's possible to split an atom. You have a rational reason to accept what scientists tell you. Beacuse the majority of the scientific community has mountains of publically available evidence that you CAN go and see for yourself. And beacuse you trust those same scientists to cure diseases, come up with technology, etc. Time and time again, they're knowledge and the use of the scientific method has proven as the best possible method for them to use.

If you said you had a pet dog...I don't take it on faith that you have one. I know that you are most likely a trustworthy person because you haven't lied to make me think otherwise. I know that humans usually have pets and some of them are of the dog variety. I can also come visit your house and see evidence of dog poop in your yard and come to the conclusion that you do have a dog. So I have a rational reason to believe you.

I guess I have never viewed faith in that light. I question things and I rarely rely on faith alone when there is other evidence available but I do believe there are things that escape human understanding and that we are incapable of explaining. I think faith can be useful to help make sense of life when science and human observation is unable to. This doesn't mean I take anything on "blind" faith, it just means I have another tool to help explain some things when I have reached the limits of human understanding or ability.

But do you realize this doesn't make it a pathway to truth? Using faith to explain what science cannot. Science says "we don't know and may never know"...but that doesn't mean you can just subsitute god (and further more, a specific god like that of the Bible) and have that be the answer. A rational mind doesn't just give up reason by trying to explain natural occurances with supernatural claims.

In my mind, that doesn't detract from questioning or science but I'm sure it probably does for many. Heck, even much of science takes a certain level of faith; faith that the findings were actually arrived at honestly and without bias, faith that the proper procedures were followed, etc. I don't see a problem with having faith. However, I do see a problem with it if it causes you to ignore compelling evidence.

No, this I have to disagree with (as I have many times before). Science is NOT just taken on faith. At least not by my definition of faith...meaning accepting something without evidence. We have a rational justification to believe what scientists say are true. The entire definition of the scientific method is the reason why we do accept science as the best method to explaining the world around us. Biasness, proper procedures, etc. can all be restested and verified through peer review to ensure that the correct conclusions were made about a hypothesis. If something is found to be askew and questions are brought up, they are addressed before the scientific community even considers to accept it as fact.

I'm not going to argue that extremism or fanaticism in religion isn't responsible for a whole bunch of pain in this world. I just don't see the problem as being religion itself. If people actually followed the real teachings of their religion rather than some off-shoot, radical version, we would be a lot better off. And sure there are some religions/sects/cults that are just plain crazy to begin with. But, for the most part, I think most mainstream religions have pretty good teachings but there will always be "those" people who get our attention by ignoring some of the tenets to allow for aggressive advancement of other ideology. In my mind, that isn't usually the religions fault but rather the result of extremism within particular people.

 

The reason I posted originally was that I did not particularly care for the wall-o-pain posting as a multitude of reasons why religion is bad. #1- I would bet most of those articles are the result of people gone astray from their religious teachings and #2 we are dealing with virtually the whole worlds population. Of course there are going to be an extraordinarily high number of these types of incidents. That is why I thought it appropriate to use Phillips and Peter and NU football as an analogy. There are bad apples everywhere, in every walk of life. Those types of people are going to make headlines. How big does that pool of people get when you're dealing with virtually every person on earth? Of course there are going to be a lot of bad examples. The headline you rarely see is the one about the local church feeding the hungry, housing the poor, etc. It has been my experience that there is a whole lot more of this good stuff going on that never gets recognized. That is why I feel it is misguided to list all the negatives and simply conclude that religion is bad. I understand that people who are predisposed against religion are going to gravitate towards the negative aspects. I'm just trying to offer the other side of the coin because the OP ignored it.

I don't ignore it. And it's not as if it's rarely ever publicized...as I just received a letter this afternoon from a friend of my wife's asking us for money for her mission trip to Guatemala. I think the good of religion IS advertised just as much as the bad is. Unfortunately, the bad is typically done in the name of religion. When stuff like hatred of gays is preached from the pulpit...I have a hard time calling it only the doings of a "fringe" sect. When a televangelist who preaches to millions on TV (and subsequently rakes in millions from those same people)...says the Haiti earthquake was the result of a pact the Hatians had with the devil, I find it disturbing that you would say those Christians are only in the minority. When an elected official speaks out against planned parenthood because he believes "children born with disabilities are a punishment from god for abortions", I find it sickening that such mythology has found its way into our political system. When the Catholic League with over 350,000 reported members (who also belong to the largest Christian denomination and is the single, largest, Catholic rights group) states that the victims of pedophile priests are "pitiful malcontents"...I choose not to downplay this as just a select few believers that the rest of the Christian world is trying to disassociate with.

You say this is just some crazy, radical branch of religions. A small few who aren't interpreting the TRUE message that you seem to be correctly doing. I'm betting the small few is actually larger that you think they are...and they think YOU are misinterpreting the message. They would most likely say you are only preaching the parts of the Bible that you like and not the rest that you disagree with. So how are we going to determine who is right and who isn't? My solution is to not accept any of it...and use reason and your experiences in this natural existence as reality and truth as we know it. Which oddly enough (even though I don't believe it myself), doesn't have ANYTHING to do with a potential existence of a god that you may choose to believe in when trying to find answers to questions you may have. It ONLY has to do with rejecting interpretations from ancient holy books and sects created from these interpretations. I think only then, we'd be able to separate the fringe, crazy few from the ones who actually want to live and cooperate in society.

(as a side note, I didn't create the above graphic...I just found it and thought to share it)

Religion. And they believe it's an inclusive, loving, institution?

http://i.imgur.com/mpQA0.jpg/////

(edit...sorry, I didn't mean to put the whole image up, just a link)

You're missing the point. I am not telling people what is right and wrong. I am saying that if marriage is no longer solely between a man and a woman, what else is left? What else would people like to change? I don't know about your upbringing and your religious affiliation or whatnot, but for a lot (if not most) of Christians, your parents teach you that getting married and having children is the purpose of life. At least, that's what I was taught. My parents forgot about the part of being happy, but that's another story.

 

I am not passing judgement. I am saying that if marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, what else is open to interpretation?

What else is left?! Yes, once gay marriage is legalized the whole world will just collapse. Societies will break down, children will be left homeless in the street, women will be raped and villages plundered. Straight people's marriages won't matter any more...your love for your wife will be pointless! You'll be stripped of your vows, your marriage certificate and all the rights you have as a married couple will be spit upon! Stupid straight people, you thought marriage was about love, commitment...a dedicated, partnership between two people for the rest of their lives? HA! Gay people are here to give you a wake up call!

Seriously, man. You really think as a straight person your marriage will be anything less than it already is? That someone else getting married actually affects your marriage somehow? This is just ridiculous. I get so tired of people spouting off about the sanctity and tradtions of marriage...and somehow, gay people are going to ruin this for the everyone else.

Marriage is an institution that is different in every culture, every country, every religion, every society...and has changed many many times over thousands and thousands of years. From underage or child marriages, arranged marriages, interracial marriages, common-law marraiges, polygamous marriages, civil marriages, interfaith marriages, etc.

Marriage wasn't even originally a religious institution. I think it was somewhere around the tenth century when the Christian church actually decided to play a part in it. The church was actually against marriage for sometime. They believed that marriage and family actually got in the way of your path to salvation. Reamining unmarried and celibate was more holy.

Marriage was originally a property arrangement. Women were chattle. It was contract between the man and the woman's father. Many times they were arranged between neighboring tribes as a show of good faith or so that the two tribes would gain something from intermarrying the two. Whether it be goods, military support, etc. Your Old Testament is filled with this stuff. Abraham, for one, used his wife to sleep with both the Egyptian Pharaoh and the King Abimelech to gain political power and gain riches. His wife also then encouraged Abraham to have sex with his second wife (his Egyptian slave) because she was unable to provide him with an heir herself.

In ancient Greece, marriage was not expected to fulfill one’s longing for a soul mate. The ideal marriage was actually between an adult man and a young boy. For women, a woman whose father dies without male heirs can be forced to marry her nearest male relative even if she has to divorce her husband first.

In Rome you were penalized if you weren't married before a certain age. Roman men also could marry off their wife to someone else if it would be a good career move for them.

Same sex marriages were actually common and not outlawed until around 300CE

12-16th Century Europe...marriages were usually arranged by someone else. If you were upperclass, you certainly did not marry for love. You were told by your family who you were to marry.

Is this part of the traditional marriage values you want to keep sacred? Or, like most people, are you just picking and choosing which values you want to agree with? Because, if you are, then don't use that "sacred, traditional" marriage crap anymore. Your marriage isn't any more traditional or sacred than anyone elses. Everyone should have the right to love and marry who they want to. And two people of the same sex aren't hurting anyone by wanting to have those same rights.

Grammatically it doesn't make sense, a Polish death camp would mean it was a death camp owned or ran by the Polish, the proper term would be a Nazi death camp in Poland, or occupied Poland. The statement in many peoples eyes makes it sound if the Poles wanted to kill millions of people in their country (also I think even Germans would prefer it not called a German Death Camp). It would be almost as insensitive to say Jewish Death Camps, while Jewish people were killed there, it doesn't make sense to say it that way. An apology from the President's spokesman is in my personal opinion a slap in the face to another head of state, it can't be that hard to pick up the phone and make a call to the Polish Prime Minister and apoligize for his mistake.

 

No, grammatically it DOES make sense. People of Poland were put to death in a camp. Polish death camp. If it were called a Puppy Death Camp, you wouldn't think puppies were the ones killing people.

 

Hell, people called them Japanese Internment Camps...you don't think the Japanese were relocating themselves, do you?

 

You hear what you want to hear. The name of the camp isn't what matters. Acknowledging what happend there is.

Those were American Internment Camps.

Probably more technically Japanese-American Internment Camps (referring to Japanse-Americans)

http://en.wikipedia....ican_internment

http://www.historyon...nment_camps.htm

But still, what they were called doesn't matter. You could have called them fluffy, bunny, love camps. It wouldn't have changed what went on there. And if we're going to argue that more than just Polish people died there so therefore we can't use the word Polish...well, not only the Nazi's were responsible for the death camps (as stated in your Wikipedia quote, Ziggy). So let's call them Nazi Germany and Ally Death Camp. Blaming just the Nazi's makes the other allies feel sad!

Grammatically it doesn't make sense, a Polish death camp would mean it was a death camp owned or ran by the Polish, the proper term would be a Nazi death camp in Poland, or occupied Poland. The statement in many peoples eyes makes it sound if the Poles wanted to kill millions of people in their country (also I think even Germans would prefer it not called a German Death Camp). It would be almost as insensitive to say Jewish Death Camps, while Jewish people were killed there, it doesn't make sense to say it that way. An apology from the President's spokesman is in my personal opinion a slap in the face to another head of state, it can't be that hard to pick up the phone and make a call to the Polish Prime Minister and apoligize for his mistake.

No, grammatically it DOES make sense. People of Poland were put to death in a camp. Polish death camp. If it were called a Puppy Death Camp, you wouldn't think puppies were the ones killing people.

Hell, people called them Japanese Internment Camps...you don't think the Japanese were relocating themselves, do you?

You hear what you want to hear. The name of the camp isn't what matters. Acknowledging what happend there is.

Were Polish people killed at this death camp? Don't know why a place where Polish people were killed couldn't be called a Polish Death Camp. Grammatically it makes sense to me.

Still, I know what Obama meant. The world knows what Obama meant. It was an slip up. I'm sure he was saying the word "Polish" all day long and messed up on his speech that was probably typed up minutes before he was to give it. Relax people. I've called my wife by my sister's name when she was being obnoxious.

And when a spokeman for the President apologizes for something publically that the President said...it's the same thing as the President saying it. That's why he's called the spokesman for the President. How much time do you think the President would waste if he was to constantly be having to answer press questions regarding his statements?

meh. Why do people with no belief in God go to such great lengths produce stuff like this? I think they must crave attention. And they know they’ll get it by trolling Christians. I feel sorry for these people.

83% of the US population identifies with a religious denomination. 92% believe in a god or "universal spirit."

I don't think it's craving attention but rather trying to understand the beliefs of the majority and the reasons behind them. Because that's a sh#t load of people who don't agree with you on a major issue. And many of those people control the world we live in.

I'm so glad someone like Obama has balls enough to stand up to the President!

First, I'd disagree that atheists don't agree that a god doesn't exist....it's just that there is no evidence (a lack of EVIDENCE...not proof) to accept that a god exists. It's the same as saying there is a lack of evidence to accept the Lochness Monster exists.

 

Goodness gracious, how can you say there is no evidence to prove the existence of nessie. This should be all the proof you need!

hahah, Po...I love ya man!

 

Sure.

 

What lost my faith for me was translation...or should I say, mistranslation of the original Greek and Hebrew language. I immediately knew, based on the Greek, that the Trinity was false. There is no other way to translate it. It was added in, period.

 

Obviously, as a Protestant Trinitarian, this made me question EVERYTHING I was taught. I've kept in constant study of religion since then...not just my own but all others as well...looking for something that felt truthful or could answer any questions I might have...and in doing so, this has made me quite knowledgeable on a variety of religious subjects. It's also made me tolerant to a wide variety of opinions and beliefs.

 

I came to the conclusion that I still believed in God, but that I didn't believe in what the churches taught about God. Plus, when I look in the Bible and REALLY study it...without the bias of translation, I came to some amazing conclusions that answered questions that myself and other atheists had:

Except...you never really were an atheist were you? You still believed in god, etc...just never accepted organized religion. Although, technically still accepted the Judeo-Christian sect for some reason.

Well, it might not make sense to you...but a sociologist would say that all groups of people assembled together under a common cause either in person or online share a standard set belief system no matter who or where they are.

 

I think sociologist would recognize groups of people who agree to a group of common causes. Not a single agreement (a disbelief in a god). That's like saying Republicans and Democrats are all the same because they agree that serial killers are in the wrong. A single agreement doesn't make a belief system. A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs (plural).

As an example, I'd say that all atheists believe that there is a lack of proof of the existence of God and that therefore he doesn't exist.

First, I'd disagree that atheists don't assert that a god doesn't exist....it's just that there is no evidence (a lack of EVIDENCE...not proof) to accept that a god exists. It's the same as saying there is a lack of evidence to accept the Lochness Monster exists.

That's a common belief. THIS is the type of thing I'm referring to. I used the word faith for that...mainly because of how I believe faith is defined...you could just as easily swap the word for belief system if it makes you feel more comfortable.

I don't feel comfortable doing that because I don't agree with your definition of faith.

I don't go with what the dictionary goes with as far as faith is defined, I go with what the Bible says which is: "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." - Hebrews 11:1.

 

That's great, but the rest (77%-80% of the world's population) doesn't define faith based on that Biblical verse.

As a logical example...let's say you buy something from Amazon. You're waiting for it to be delivered to your. You have a confidence in what you hope for (that Amazon will deliver it) and assurance about what you do not see (that they are shipping it to you and that the package actually exists).

 

Again, this expectation that Amazon will deliver something (for me) is NOT based on faith (belief without evidential support). I have a great assumption that Amazon will deliver it to me because I have paid them money. They are a corporation that relies on purchases from customers. And in order for them to keep getting money from us...they need to deliver their product.

What if a customer doesn't get their delivery. Let's say Amazon screws up the order somehow. Is the Hebrews verse still talking about this instance? If so, god has failed me because I haven't received my package.

"I'm just saying here that a person or group of people who have a set of beliefs either for or against something can be defined by that belief system. Atheists are defined by their common belief that God doesn't exist and they rally around this belief over at http://reddit.com/r/Atheism and I've been thoroughly dismissed there more than once JUST for being a Christian...even when trying to logically engage anyone there. There is a real mob mentality and a united front of the belief that God doesn't exist (and that all Christians are dumb because of their belief in God lol)."

(for some reason Huskerboard would not quote the rest for me)

First off, don't rely on an internet website (particularly reddit.com) to encompass the beliefs of a certain peoples. It's obvious that people act differently online from how they act in real life. Otherwise, people on YouTube would actually think everything they ever see is "gay" or "the most f'ing retarded thing they have ever seen".

Seriously, people on the internet are not a great barometer to judge the rest of the human race by.

Well, perception/opinion is not fact.

agreed. Then do you think anyone should believe in your god without sufficient evidence? Many people of the Christian faith say they should.

We won't know who was right until the end of time right?

or not ever know...since most atheists say you'll just cease to exist. But if you're basing your beliefs on what might happen after you die...why believe them at all? You don't know what happens any more than I do.

All kidding aside, there is always a right and wrong answer even if it isn't apparent.

agreed. So why assert that yours is right?

This is discussed with a belief of absolute truths or universal truths. Just because the knowledge doesn't exist to define whether or not something fits as an absolute/universal truth does not make it any less of one. We discussed this at length in Philosophy of Religion and then again in Logic class in college.

Again, see the counter arugments to TAG

Even though it may be possible to have knowledge of a defined entity who is considered a god...it doesn't make it any less true. But, why make the assumption that it IS true until there is absolute knowledge? THAT is the only belief atheists agree on. And one that turned on the light for me when I was fighting with my own current belief system. Why would I just accept something (including a specific denomiation, sect, belief system) when it didn't have a rational justification for it? I've been presented god claims my entire life...so why I should I believe a single one of them? Purely because it "could be possible??!!!" That's irrational!

Neither atheism nor theism rest purely on science.

um, agreed. But has nothing to do with my original context. I never said atheism had anything to do with science. There are atheists who might actually reject scientific principles. Being an atheist has nothing to do with accepting the scientific method.

Both involve faith—atheism in purposeless blind chance; theism in an intelligent First Cause. Of course, I'm referring to the Big Bang or whatever you consider the start of existence of the universe.

again, atheism has NOTHING to do with beginning of the universe. NO single atheistic "principal" states that atheists are required to believe in a certain set of scientific theories regarding the beginning of the universe.

Secondly, I disagree with your assumption that atheism involves faith in purposeless blind chance. I choose to accept that there is no such thing as chance. Random chance is actually determined by the natural laws of the universe. We, as humans, may perceive it as random...but it is not.

Still not convinced? Just break down the word atheist. Greek 'Theos' meaning God and 'a' meaning without. Atheists believe that a life without deities is better than one with it.

See, you jumped from defining the word into making an assumption about the beliefs of a people. I agree about the original Greek. But it's to make an assumption about a single person. A single person is a-theos. Godless or without god. The Latin is the same; one that does not believe in God.

But this has NOTHING to do with the assumption that an atheist believes that a life without a god is better than one with. Many atheists, including myself, would actually accept a god if one was actually presented with sufficient evidence. I actually think the odds would be staggering if you compared it to the number of theists when presented with sufficient evidence that a god did NOT exist.

In this instance, I actually think atheists are the ones who are more open minded. Yes, skeptical at first glance when asked to accept something based off of a book or folklore...but more accepting than theists when actual nautralist (irrefutable) evidence is brought to them.

I realize atheists don't want to be defined and that this is the main driver behind the 'we don't have a belief system' but I just look at the evidence as you would...logically and without bias.

again, I think you do look at it with bias when you assume all atheists think that life is actually "better" without a deity.

It's the same conclusion many door to door Bible salesman come to when they ask "so, why do you hate god? What happened in your life to make you ignore him?"

sorry I replied to this here. I never heard if it was okay to respond to you in PM. Feel free to PM me in response though

Just a real quick note. Orthodox Jews, do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, there fore they still keep the Mosaic law. Christ was the new covenant or new law if you will.

Christ would disagree with you.