It's a lie, that's not even what Matthew 7:21 says. I'll break it down in Koine Greek ( the original language ) for anyone truly interested. It's no surprise that the uneducated sewer rat is posting lies and trash, and trashing his own people's holy book. He's a phony Jew and a traitor to his people, and a vile lying scumtard.
[h=3]Writing the Name of God[/h] Jews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood").
Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better.
The commandment not to erase or deface the name of God comes from Deut. 12:3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our God. From this, the rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of God.
It is worth noting that this prohibition against erasing or defacing Names of God applies only to Names that are written in some kind of permanent form. Orthodox rabbis have held that writing on a computer is not a permanent form, thus it is not a violation to type God's Name into a computer and then backspace over it or cut and paste it, or copy and delete files with God's Name in them. However, once you print the document out, it becomes a permanent form. That is why observant Jews avoid writing a Name of God online: because there is a risk that someone else will print it out and deface it. See a 1998 discussion of the issue at The Sanctity of God's Name, Part 1: Erasing Sacred Texts from a Computer Screen if you're interested, but be aware that the lengthy article is thick with technical religious jargon, not always explained.
Normally, we avoid writing the Name by substituting letters or syllables, for example, writing "G-d" instead of "God." In addition, the number 15, which would ordinarily be written in Hebrew as Yod-Hei (10-5), is normally written as Teit-Vav (9-6), because Yod-Hei is a Name. See Hebrew Alphabet for more information about using letters as numerals.
Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better.
The commandment not to erase or deface the name of God comes from Deut. 12:3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our God. From this, the rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of God.
It is worth noting that this prohibition against erasing or defacing Names of God applies only to Names that are written in some kind of permanent form. Orthodox rabbis have held that writing on a computer is not a permanent form, thus it is not a violation to type God's Name into a computer and then backspace over it or cut and paste it, or copy and delete files with God's Name in them. However, once you print the document out, it becomes a permanent form. That is why observant Jews avoid writing a Name of God online: because there is a risk that someone else will print it out and deface it. See a 1998 discussion of the issue at The Sanctity of God's Name, Part 1: Erasing Sacred Texts from a Computer Screen if you're interested, but be aware that the lengthy article is thick with technical religious jargon, not always explained.
Normally, we avoid writing the Name by substituting letters or syllables, for example, writing "G-d" instead of "God." In addition, the number 15, which would ordinarily be written in Hebrew as Yod-Hei (10-5), is normally written as Teit-Vav (9-6), because Yod-Hei is a Name. See Hebrew Alphabet for more information about using letters as numerals.
[h=1]Fact-checker calls out Obama for saying Keystone ‘bypasses’ US[/h] Published March 02, 2015FoxNews.com
Facebook394 Twitter274 livefyre1906 Email Print
Now Playing Keystone XL pipeline future in limbo
Never autoplay videos
President Obama earned a double-barreled rebuke Monday from The Washington Post's fact-checker, for repeating a faulty claim that the Keystone XL pipeline "bypasses" the U.S. -- and for saying it would only carry "Canadian oil."
The president made the claims in an interview last week with WDAY of Fargo, N.D. Obama continued to downplay the impact of the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline, just days after vetoing a bipartisan-backed bill that would approve the construction project. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has teed up a vote to override that veto later this week.
In the local interview, Obama said:
"I've already said I'm happy to look at how we can increase pipeline production for U.S. oil, but Keystone is for Canadian oil to send that down to the Gulf. It bypasses the United States and is estimated to create a little over 250, maybe 300 permanent jobs. We should be focusing more broadly on American infrastructure for American jobs and American producers, and that's something that we very much support."
The president has been called out before for claiming the oil would bypass the U.S.
Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler explained Monday that while the crude oil would travel to the Gulf Coast, it would then be refined into products like gasoline -- and much of it certainly would be used in the U.S.
"Current trends suggest that only about half of that refined product would be exported, and it could easily be lower," Kessler said.
He cited a February report by energy industry consultant IHS Energy, which predicted most of the refined products would likely be "consumed in the United States."
Further, even the State Department issued a report downplaying the notion that a large amount of that crude would be exported, since foreign refiners would have to shoulder additional transportation charges.
Kessler said with his recent comments, Obama "appears to be purposely ignoring the findings of the lead Cabinet agency on the issue."
Further, he challenged Obama's claim that Keystone would just be for Canadian oil, since producers in North Dakota and Montana want to move oil from the Bakken area through it.
Kessler gave Obama "four Pinocchios" for his comments -- the worst rating on his fact-check scale.
"If he disagrees with the State Department's findings, he should begin to make the case why it is wrong, rather than assert the opposite, without any factual basis," Kessler wrote. "Moreover, by telling North Dakota listeners that the pipeline has no benefit for Americans, he is again being misleading, given that producers in the region have signed contracts to transport some of their production through the pipeline."
McConnell is aiming for a final vote on the Keystone veto override on Wednesday, with a procedural vote set for Tuesday. So far, supporters of the pipeline have not demonstrated they have the necessary two-thirds majority in Congress to override.
Obama, in opposing that bill, has argued the State Department needs to be allowed to finish its official review of the pipeline.
Facebook394 Twitter274 livefyre1906 Email Print
Now Playing Keystone XL pipeline future in limbo
Never autoplay videos
President Obama earned a double-barreled rebuke Monday from The Washington Post's fact-checker, for repeating a faulty claim that the Keystone XL pipeline "bypasses" the U.S. -- and for saying it would only carry "Canadian oil."
The president made the claims in an interview last week with WDAY of Fargo, N.D. Obama continued to downplay the impact of the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline, just days after vetoing a bipartisan-backed bill that would approve the construction project. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has teed up a vote to override that veto later this week.
In the local interview, Obama said:
"I've already said I'm happy to look at how we can increase pipeline production for U.S. oil, but Keystone is for Canadian oil to send that down to the Gulf. It bypasses the United States and is estimated to create a little over 250, maybe 300 permanent jobs. We should be focusing more broadly on American infrastructure for American jobs and American producers, and that's something that we very much support."
The president has been called out before for claiming the oil would bypass the U.S.
Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler explained Monday that while the crude oil would travel to the Gulf Coast, it would then be refined into products like gasoline -- and much of it certainly would be used in the U.S.
"Current trends suggest that only about half of that refined product would be exported, and it could easily be lower," Kessler said.
He cited a February report by energy industry consultant IHS Energy, which predicted most of the refined products would likely be "consumed in the United States."
Further, even the State Department issued a report downplaying the notion that a large amount of that crude would be exported, since foreign refiners would have to shoulder additional transportation charges.
Kessler said with his recent comments, Obama "appears to be purposely ignoring the findings of the lead Cabinet agency on the issue."
Further, he challenged Obama's claim that Keystone would just be for Canadian oil, since producers in North Dakota and Montana want to move oil from the Bakken area through it.
Kessler gave Obama "four Pinocchios" for his comments -- the worst rating on his fact-check scale.
"If he disagrees with the State Department's findings, he should begin to make the case why it is wrong, rather than assert the opposite, without any factual basis," Kessler wrote. "Moreover, by telling North Dakota listeners that the pipeline has no benefit for Americans, he is again being misleading, given that producers in the region have signed contracts to transport some of their production through the pipeline."
McConnell is aiming for a final vote on the Keystone veto override on Wednesday, with a procedural vote set for Tuesday. So far, supporters of the pipeline have not demonstrated they have the necessary two-thirds majority in Congress to override.
Obama, in opposing that bill, has argued the State Department needs to be allowed to finish its official review of the pipeline.
