The unfortunate part is where Christians try to pass themselves off as Jews by adding "Jewish" to the name of their denomination. I wish my great aunts and uncles could have added "Christian" to their denomination to escape being murdered in the Holocaust, that would have been nice.
There are essentially two completely different movements claiming the name of "Messianic Judaism." The first are people who are Jewish- culturally, ethnically, and even religiously, who have converted to Christianity and believe that all other Jews should do the same. There is a small pocket of Messianic Jews of this definition in my hometown, so this is the version I was most familiar with.
It wasn't until later that I learned that there is a second, much more popular movement under the name of Messianic Judaism which are people who are not ethnically or culturally Jewish who have determined that Christianity should return to its Jewish roots. These people have no historical connections to Judaism and usually grew up within a Christian cultural context. There is a lot of overlap with the "Hebrew Roots" movement that you mentioned, and in my opinion there isn't a real distinction between the two.
Myself I feel kind of biased but I view the first kind as more "legitimate" since Judaism, isn't merely a religion, it's a living, breathing culture and it is super weird for someone to just roll up and claim it without having any connection to anyone who was doing it before. It's like if I decided I was going to be Indian and started wearing stereotypical Indian traditional dress and eating only curry because I think that's what Indians eat, without having any actual Indians in my movement.
I agree that ethnic Jews with Christian religious beliefs is a legitimate concept. But I would rather call them Messianic Jews (or just Christian Jews) rather than adherents of "Messianic Judaism." To say that "Judaism" can include Jesus erases the Jewish religion by leaving it without a name, conveniently benefiting the dominant Christian religion. (And Messianic Jews who are not Jews should be called something else entirely.)
Presumably that's a reference to the GP describing "Messianic Jewish". (or rather, Messianic Judaism)
> It considers itself to be a form of Judaism but is generally considered to be a sect of Christianity,[2][3] including by all major groups within mainstream Judaism, since Jews consider belief in Jesus as the Messiah and divine in the form of God the Son (and the doctrine of the Trinity in general) to be among the most defining distinctions between Judaism and Christianity. It is also generally considered a Christian sect by scholars and other Christian groups.
So are they claiming that Messianic Jews are not actually Jews? Because they implied that people were falsely taking the title Jew if I understood them correctly. That would be the first time I've ever heard that particular assertion.
Yes and that was what I was saying (sorry it wasn't clear).
What it means to be a Jew is complicated. Jews form an ethnicity of interconnected people with a range of beliefs and practices (it is, definitionally, not whether one is religiously adherent to Judaism). To me, one could in principle be religiously Christian and also ethnically Jewish (that's an unusual view among Jews), but to do that requires having an actual connection to the Jewish ethnicity (e.g. if one was raised ethnically Jewish and maintains a Jewish identity). My impression is that "Messianic Jews" are religiously and ethnically Christian who are importing Jewish practices into their otherwise non-Jewish identity. If OP's wife was born Jewish or converted prior becoming a "Messianic Jew," I would stand corrected.
If I, a very white person, start singing songs from Back churches, that doesn't make me Black. I wouldn't face the real-world struggles against racism of Black people, for example, and I think that's a useful hint when thinking about who is and isn't a member of a minority group like Jews. Likewise, acting out Jewish practices doesn't necessarily make one a Jew, and as one example it doesn't subject one to the sorts of anti-Semitism faced by Jews. I'm not saying facing anti-Semitism a necessary or sufficient condition for being a Jew, but if not that, then there must be something else that connects one to the Jewish ethnicity --- the interconnected people who believe they are Jews --- other than just by saying so.
So I'm confused--are you saying that Israel thinks Messianic Jews are not Jews because they abandoned their faith or something like that, OR are you saying that Israel doesn't let Messianic Jews to be citizens because sometimes non-Jews convert to become Messianic Jews?
It sounds like a variation of a - not so much that they abandoned their faith, per-se, but that the faith they espouse as being Jewish is not acceptably ‘in the same room’ as other Jewish faith.
It would be somewhat like saying you were a Messianic Christian because you believed that Mohammed was a later prophet. There is a word for that kind of religion, and it isn’t Christianity.
Israel basically sees them as evangelizing Christians in disguise. They don’t consider them Jewish because they both proselytize and worship Christ as the Messiah. Both of those things are offensive to the traditional tenets of Judaism.
Text is unexpectedly complicated. Use Unicode.run to debug text. Paste text or click an example to see: See when characters like emojis are composed of multiple code points. Click code points in the debugger output to highlight them in the text. Switch between text / UTF-32 / UTF-16BE. See where text changes direction in bidirectional text. Get warnings about hidden code points that can alter the display of the text and normalization. See each code point's escape codes in a variety of programming languages and the “length” of the text.
> Agencies will just need to work with Congress to help them write laws
This is already exactly how it works.
One reason why legislating takes so long is because there is an enormous amount of collaboration between legislators and agencies to get it as right as they can.
I found shapes that do not work well with the simulation: a very wide and narrow shape (like a needle) oscillates wildly and does not seem to stop or to even slow down.
U.S. law requires that agencies perform this public disclosure of their analysis so that interested parties in the general public have an opportunity to meaningfully weigh in before the proposed regulation becomes an actual regulation. It's an incredibly valuable aspect of accountability if you are someone affected by the regulation.
A more recent law also required that CISA create a regulation on this particular subject. (It's explained in the regulation itself.)
If you want simpler regulations, the issue isn't that we're missing a law to ensure regulations are simpler. The law requires that exactly this happen all the time: Your(?) legislators in Congress are constantly writing laws that direct agencies to do exactly this.
Of course, if they didn't and regulations were simpler, all of the ambiguity would be decided by courts instead. The world is complicated with or without complicated regulations. So we can either have less-ambiguous but more wordy laws, or we can have more ambiguity, more court cases, and judges unpredictably deciding how to resolve the ambiguity.
Just to clarify the headline, it's Congress and President Biden who are requiring critical infrastructure to report ransom and other cyber incidents, per a law enacted inside must-pass legislation in 2022: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr2471/text/enr#l.... The law requires CISA to issue a regulation for how that would work in practice, which is what this is.
This is a similar idea to how I understand the Elephant Carpaccio exercise by Henrik Kniberg & Alistair Cockburn (2013), from what I've been able to Google. The key idea is that work should be broken down into "vertical slices" where vertical means that the entire user story is captured, or as it's described at https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/5e3bed81529ab12a517031ab/5ec..., "very thin slices, each one still elephant-shaped." The first vertical slice might be a mockup or very-low-fidelity prototype of the complete project and subsequent slices are enhancements following user stories. Horizontal slices might be, say, system components or other subtasks that leave you without something prototype-looking until all of the slices are complete. At least, this is how I've interpreted what I've read about it.
Mind giving a concrete example? I read through the entire thing but couldn't make heads or tails of it. Is the point that your user stories should touch upon every aspect of your app, while still being incremental?
I think the idea is that for a slice of an elephant to be "elephant shaped," it has a bit of all of the key parts of an elephant - a bit of the trunk, a bit of a heart, stubs for four legs, whatever else makes an elephant an elephant. But what do the elephant's organs map to? I agree that the information on Elephant Carpaccio that I've been able to find doesn't really answer this.
My best guess is the idea is that it maps to aspects of a user story like "get input from the user," "do some business logic," "show output to user." So even the first slice is a working prototype in some superficial sense. The elephant organs might be app components (UI, database, etc.), but in the first slice you don't have a complete UI (maybe you have text input) and you don't have a production database (maybe you just have an in-memory dictionary) and you don't have robust business logic. You have the whole stack, but each part of the stack is incomplete. That's what I think makes it a vertical slice.
A horizontal slice (what not to do) would be one complete elephant organ. Maybe that's a production transactional database. So in the first slice you have a complete database or you've written the final business logic, but none of the other things that you would need in a mockup/prototype/MVP or an integration test.
This article seems to be extremely confused about the difference between increasing the supply of dollars (printing money or other tactics of the Federal Reserve) and deficit spending (moving already-created dollars from the public, including foreign holders, to the government and then right out to the U.S. public again).
I'm confused as to how that's different. Essentially the US can deficit spend an extraordinary amount, even if that deficit is financed, bc the US can simply print money to pay back the debt - without most of the drawbacks that normally come when you money is created out of nothing, BC the US dollar is the Global reserve currency.
Is there an example of this happening? I'm supposed to believe that we ask for money back from foreign countries that have stockpiled dollars as their reserve to finance domestic spending - instead of just printing money.
We don't ask for dollars back. The government asks for a loan that pays interest and lots of people gladly want to make that loan - like probably your retirement investments. This is where the national debt comes from. If we printed money there would be no national debt.
Precisely. In fact a lot of reserves aren’t even dollars but are actually us treasury debt denominated in dollars. Treasury debt is treated as cash in most of the world because the treasury market is so liquid and it’s guaranteed by the 14th amendment of the constitution. no one wants to see the 14th invoked because a) it means our political system is so broken we are willing to default, b) it’s possible some conservative court would deny the clear language and take the backstop that insures the debt away. The 14th amendment though is basically supported by printing money rather than borrowing, which is the (c), as it’s diluting.
