Talk About "Mak[ing]...Jews Pee In Their Pants!"

Anti-Semitic Malik Zulu Shabbaz and Khalid Mohammad, first of all, don't scare this Jew enough to make her pee herself--they're just kvetching Kushim who are part of the Kushim noted in Ezekiel 38 (In other words, they're not of the remnant of Kushim.). Besides, we Yehudim--at least sometimes--do enough to make ourselves and each other "pee...[our] pants". For example, take "Rabbi" Jason Rosenberg: Jason Rosenberg, as a Jew, wants to lose First Amendment freedoms? He wants the Amendment construed to make obedience to Tanakh a crime?! "We will, in short, look back at Amendment 1 and its ilk in precisely the same way that we now look back at Jim Crow." Scary thinking! And that's not the only scary part--though it may be one of the scariest parts, or the scariest part.

"To be a Jew is remember how terrible it feels to be weak and oppressed, and therefore to act..." He of course forgot to add to obey Tanakh. Of course, his view is to disregard and disobey Tanakh:

If you’re part of a religious tradition that believes your revelation came directly, and perfectly, from God, then you probably won’t see the world the same way I do. But, as part of religious movement that embraces the fact that our texts, practices and traditions all have human origins, I have no choice but to also admit that those human origins have influenced those texts, practices and traditions. In other words, they don’t only reflect God’s will, but human biases and prejudices as well. They reflect the society from which they came.

This "rabbi" is pretty revisionist as well--besides in stating that "the fact that our texts, practices and traditions all have human origins". For example, Galileo was trying to interpret the Bible correctly to the chagrin of the Roman Catholic Church. Another example: "Religious leaders who refused to see the world changing were the ones who tried to justify slavery...and so on." Unbelievable lies.

Many religious leaders, in fact, pushed for freedom & womens' rights precisely because of religion--mainly true Christianity & true Judaism (especially Messianic--Complete--Judaism). By the way,"Rabbi" Jason Rosenberg reflects much of what is wrong with URJ Judaism, including that it is revisionist! Also, I've blogged enough about URJ (Reform) Judaism in the past, so just read my blog entries about it--I don't need to link you to everything.

To Correct pboisei And Others About Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism

Reform Judaism does believe in Israel as the chosen people in the privilege-and-responsibility sense. Reconstructionist Judaism believes in responsibility chosenness. Mordekhai HaKohen (Moredechai Kaplan) specifically founded Reconstructionist Judaism on that principle and other principles: "Kaplan rejected several traditional Jewish categories, most notably Chosenness. He felt that the term was misunderstood and too often taken as a sign of Jewish superiority, when instead it was conceived as an expression of Jewish obligation to God and humanity. So, too, Kaplan rejected the idea of a personal messiah (that is, that God will send a messiah in the form of a human being). He wrote the "Sabbath Prayer Book" in which he expunged both notions from the prayers. Some Reconstructionist synagogues employ a different version of the Torah blessings to this day, avoiding the phrase "...asher bachar banu mi-kol ha-amim..." (...Who chose us from all the peoples...)."


Reform Judaism "views the idea of the Chosen People as a metaphor for the choices we make in our lives. All Jews are Jews-by-Choice in that every person must make a decision, at some point in their lives, whether or not they want to live Jewishly. Just as God chose to give the Torah to the Israelites, modern Jews must decide whether they want to be in a relationship with God."

My Mom Jokes That I Ought To Become Catholic...

Yeah; I've been down that road before. I was baptized Roman Catholic, raised English Catholic (Episcopalian), went to a Roman Catholic college that.... I'd better stop before I talk about a certain church to which it could be paralleled. I also still have Anusi Catholic and Non-Catholic (and openly-Jewish and Non-Jewish Catholic) family members. So, I get the gist of being Catholic, and I'm far from becoming Catholic any time soon.


That doesn't mean that I don't think that there are Evangelical Catholics, though-- my cousin Sue is an Evangelical Catholic. My maternal grandma, as far as I know, is an Evangelical Catholic. My late, seminary-educated granddad was an Evangelical Catholic and actually getting ready to leave the Roman Catholic Church before he died; and his sister Margaret studied the Bible quite a bit if not every day (Her GNT version has markings in it, bookmarks and other placeholders, etc.). There are other Evangelical Catholics; but being Catholic, even an Evangelical Catholic, is not for me. In order to be considered a good Catholic and not a "fundamentalist", one has to:

• Disbelieve the inerrancy of the Word of G-d. I keep coming back to Reform Judaism and Amy Scheinerman on this because Reform Judaism is the Catholicism of Judaism in many senses:

"Reform Jews, however, understand the texts to have been written by human beings -- our ancestors. In my personal opinion, the texts are certainly divinely inspired and reflect our ancestors' best understanding of God and their covenant with God, as well as their view of God's will, but that is not the same as being divinely-authored. Hence, Reform Jews read the texts through the spectacles not only of a religious person, but those of the scholar as well. Some institutions are considered to be a product of the cultural milieu and societal norms of the ancient Near East when the Hebrew Scriptures were written down, and do not speak to our lives today." 

Take those words and Catholicize them, and you'll have stolen them right from the mouths of "Doctor" Lyle Weiss, Marcus J. Borg, Sisters Sharon Kanis and Eileen Eppig, etc.. "Dr." Weiss once said that the Bible is (or at least he said something like) "Man's experiencing G-d... with some nuances." 

A good Catholic also has to:

• Be Anti Death Penalty.
• Be Democrat or Socialist (Look at how Speaker John Boehener was excoriated for being a Republican by Catholic universities.).
• Believe in transubstantiation.
• Allow that priests, nuns, and other clergy not marry.
• Believe in Miryam bat-Eli as the daughter of a Joachim and Anna who stayed a Virgin after Jesus was born, and that Miryam is the Queen of Heaven who can intercede for us just because she gave birth to Yeshua; regardless of what Scripture says.
• At least observe Christmas and Easter if not also the Feast Days, Days of Solemnity, Sunday mass, etc.
• Go through baptism, confirmation, etc. if he or she can.
• Go to Pre Confirmation and Confirmation Preparation classes.
• Go to Sunday school and even Catholic school if he or she can.
• Pray the rosary at least once in his or her lifetime.
• Believe that he or she can lose his or her salvation by doing a bad work and has to get it back by confession and penance.

The list goes on, but the point is that being a Non-Evangelical (Non-"Fundamentalist"), good-enough Catholic entails being a "good enough" person and doing works that are good within the context of Catholic thinking. Catholicism isn't about faith through grace alone, salvation through mercy alone, etc..

So no matter how much I joke or say that I'm going to Hell for doing something bad or seemingly bad, I won't be a Catholic.

Reform Judaism and Babylon: Why Moving the Capital to Baghdad Would Not Impossible For the URJ (UHAC)

"Here's the big problem that I see: To rebuild Babylon into the economic world center, as described in the bible, it will take much money and time. Money will not be a problem when the Arab nations consolidate, but economic empires (cities) are not physically built overnight (e.g. Hong Kong). And until this is completed along with the temple for the world's religious center (see: Zech. 5:5-11; note: "in the land of Shinar" = Babylon = Iraq), then the prophecies can not be fulfilled. This is of concern, because it appears that this "problem" area will take some time to complete, thereby possibly moving the future, yet unfulfilled prophetic events well into the next century (and millennium). The only consolation is the proposition that with the "New World Order" (NWO), all nations cooperating together as with Babel (Gen. 11:1-9), this could then speed up the progress of rebuilding Babylon. After the flood mankind built Babel with one united purpose. God confused the language (with many languages) and further inhibited this "world order" by also separating the continents in Peleg's time (Gen. 10:25; 1 Chron. 1:19). Since then the world, with it's technology, has now overcome these two major obstacles placed by God. Thus, the way is clear for the NWO and the building of the great city Babylon (Rev. 18:9-21). Nevertheless, as I've said, considering these realities, it could still take some time to built such a great city that's the world's economic and religious center according to the biblical prophecies."


This was written before Saddam Hussein was caught and executed in Tikrit. "Nevertheless, as I've said, considering these realities, it could still take some time to built such a great city that's the world's economic and religious center according to the biblical prophecies." Enter the Union of Reform Judaism (formerly the Union of Hebrew American Congregations), who had no problem moving the capital of Israel to Berlin, the "Yerushalayim Chadash":


"Berlin and Jerusalem have an interesting relationship. Ever since the 19th Century, when there was widespread sentiment that "Berlin is the New Jerusalem", the cities been, in a sense, antipodal. We all know about the prescient words of the Meshekh Chokhma, and we know about the fortunes of the two cities since then."

The Union of Reform Judaism, since they don't take Tanakh or Zionism seriously (and I already blogged about the URJ's belief in Tanakh as "not divinely-authored") would more than be willing to declare Bavel as Ha'Yerushalayim Chadasha. Even one (so to speak) flip little bird stated, "And yet I do not believe that the Torah was dictated by God to Moses on Mount Sinai." Another commented, "Shavuot is not even understood by most Reform Jews, and since most don't believe that the Torah was given at Sinai as the word of God, how is this relevant to us? The same can be said of Sukkot--who wants to live in a shack for eight days?"

If even Shav'uot is not taken seriously, why would Yerushalayim l'Yerushalayim be? Besides, Reform Judaism believes in a Yom Meshichi (Messianic Age) rather than a Mashiach. So, in order to use tikun ha'olam to bring about HaYom Meshichi, the URJ would be willing to do as they did as UHAC-- expect that they would substitute Bavel for Berlin.  

Reform Judaism, As Covered By Others, Apostately Allows Eugenics...

GeoAsher023 on YouTube and Masada2000.org (among others and myself) have rightly pointed out that Reform Judaism and even parts (if not all) of Talmud Bavli are koferim-- apostate. For example, from the URJ website:

1. "Knowing more about these serious genetic conditions, as well as the availability of screening for these disorders, will empower young adults in the Jewish community to become proactive in their family planning and may avert the anxiety surrounding prenatal carrier screening or the need to make a potentially heart-wrenching decision [e.g., abortion] during pregnancy. "
   
   (http://urj.org//about/union/governance/reso//?syspage=article&item_id=1894). 
2.   "Reform Judaism understands the original position of the Talmud wherein is described the notion that an abortion should be performed only for the sake of the life of the mother, and even as late as the moment before the head of a baby emerges from the birth canal. However, Reform goes beyond this narrowly defined period and gives sanction to its members (and all others for that matter) to elect to terminate a pregnancy when confronting other circumstances: as... when through genetic testing, it is determined that the child to be born will have a disease that will cause death or severe disability, and the parents believe that the impending birth will be an impossible situation for them; and other circumstances." (http://urj.org/ask/questions/abortion/)

"[T]o elect to terminate a pregnancy when confronting... through genetic testing, it is determined that the child to be born will have a disease that will cause death or severe disability, and the parents believe that the impending birth will be an impossible situation for them" is avoda kofer. There is nothing ever okay about aborting a child, especially when " it is determined that the child to be born will have a disease that will cause death or severe disability, and the parents believe that the impending birth will be an impossible situation for them".

To abort is a violation of tikun ha'olam for several reasons, including for the reasons that an innocent life is taken via eugenic abortion and a couples' potential option to adopt is taken from them.

David Mamet vs. The Anonymous Reform Jew: Who's Right?

David Mamet asserts:


"Any conflict may be stilled by surrender. Reform Judaism, for reasons good or bad, but which, I am sure, seemed good to its various practitioners at the time of implementation, abandoned Yiddish, Hebrew, the Talmud, kashrut, ritual, the Eastern European Jews and currently toys with condemnation of its co-religionaries in Israel. In order to defend what?


"After all the compromises have been made, and the conflict persists, and the will of the people has been broken by a lazy reversion to “the truth must lie somewhere in between,” what remains but the destruction of the Jews?"


The anonymous Reform Jew responds:


"David Mamet’s recent, meandering tirade demands a response, even if cogency permits only a partial rejoinder. So, I will limit myself to where he begins and I where I “live,” with the Reform Movement.


"He accuses Reform Judaism of categorically surrendering “Hebrew, the Talmud, kashrut, ritual, the Eastern European Jews, and currently toys with condemnation of its co-religionaries in Israel.” Thence, Mr. Mamet connects the Reform Movement to anti-Israel sentiment located on a spectrum that spans naïveté and, implicitly, self-hatred.


"In the end, his condemnation avoids facts and invokes, in their stead, inapposite truisms. If “Napoleon taught us the logical end of purely defensive warfare is surrender,” Mamet has yet to demonstrate that Reform Judaism does indeed surrender. He omits the evidence, because it contradicts his argument."


Who's right? The answer is: David Mamet. The anonymous Reform Jew concedes:


"In ritual and halakhic terms, Mr. Mamet offers nothing more than an anachronistic caricature, and in so doing, debases the Jewish communal conversation. Hebrew is a staple in Reform services, as is the millennial tradition of mutual aid. In theory, we are more flexible on matters of halakha than other non-Orthodox movements, but it’s not clear to me that our practice differs all that much. Shabbat services in Reform synagogues are lively affairs. Torah study for adults and religious schools for children flourish, and Reform Jews’ connectedness to Judaism—traditional and progressive—thickens day by day.

"As for our condemnation of fellow Jews in Israel: It is true that we will condemn someone for gratuitous violence, as we did in response to the recent arson attack on an Israeli mosque. And it is true that we will argue with fellow Jews for much less. But Mr. Mamet chooses to overlook the crucial fact that we argue with our coreligionists and, I trust, they requite le-shem shamayim, for the sake of heaven. We struggle with God Himself for the same purpose, namely, to work out the relationship between the sanctity of our Covenant, on the one hand, and the messy frailty of our worldly experience, on the other. Reform Judaism will not apologize for willingly, zealously engaging in that struggle, including both its traditional and modern aspects.

"For the sake of that argument, allow me to concede that it is true that in the nineteenth century, the Reform Movement did begin to take major steps in distancing itself from traditional forms of Judaism. It is also true that a large part of the American Reform Movement was non- or anti-Zionist leading up to 1948. For that very reason, Stephen S. Wise created a Reform alternative, known as the Jewish Institute of Religion, an avowedly Zionist academy. Following Israeli independence, the Hebrew Union College merged with the Jewish Institute of Religion, embracing its Zionism."

In conclusion, David Mamet pegged Reform Judaism well. David Mamet well concludes:

"We are enjoined, “Justice, justice shall you pursue.”

"The question, “What is justice,” is the eternal question of the Jew. The answer, “It is what my group tells me,” is not the Jewish answer."

Reform Judaism goes with URJ, CCAR, and other helping-to-serve-self thinking instead of with Tanakh. Tanakh gives three options-- all 613 mitzvot, Yeshua, or a whole host of tsuris. And Reform Judaism, being Non Messianic, does not have the option to skip any of the 613 mitzvot -- including supporting Yisra'el.

More URJ Arrogance: A Real Reform BA'AL Teshuvah Alright...

Richard Furman has hutzpah to be saying the following. Why did Moshe address the men, by the way? Moshe addressed primarily the men with He said to the people "'Be ready for three days, don’t go near a woman.'" The Ivri men and women understood this as that the men were not to have sexual relations with the women (and vice versa) during Hayamim L'Kiddush. And the ishim, being the roshim l'ishot, had to be addressed. Moshe was not being chauvinistic or "not do[ing] all of what he was told".




The moment of the revelation at Sinai is a curious moment; It begins with our text telling us how God tells Moses to prepare the Israelites:

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָֹה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵךְ אֶל־הָעָם וְקִדַּשְׁתָּם הַיּוֹם וּמָחָר וְכִבְּסוּ שִׂמְלֹתָֽם: וְהָיוּ נְכֹנִים לַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי כִּי | בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִשִׁי יֵרֵד יְהוָֹה לְעֵינֵי כָל־הָעָם עַל־הַר סִינָֽי:(שמות י"ט: י"-י"א)

God said to Moses “Go to the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow; they shall wash their clothes. They shall be ready on the third day, for on the third day Adonai will descend before the eyes of all the whole nation upon Mount Sinai.”(Ex. 19:10-11)

The actual delivery of this message is rather different:

וַיֵּרֶד מֹשֶׁה מִן־הָהָר אֶל־הָעָם וַיְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת־הָעָם וַֽיְכַבְּסוּ שִׂמְלֹתָֽם: וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־הָעָם הֱיוּ נְכֹנִים לִשְׁלשֶׁת יָמִים אַֽל־תִּגְּשׁוּ אֶל־אִשָּֽׁה:(שם, י"ד-ט"ו)

Moses descended from the mountain to the people. He sanctified the people and they washed their clothing. He said to the people “Be ready for three days, don’t go near a woman.”(Ibid, 14-19)

That Moses here is injecting a misogyny into the moment that God did not command is noted by Ellen Frankel in the Five Books of Miriam (117-118). Indeed, even the קול סתם, the narrative voice of Torah, tells us that Moses addresses “העם” whereas God told him to address "כל־העם", thus suggesting that Moses did not do all of what he was told. The injection of that misogyny, however, is not the main problem with this disparity, but rather that the change took place at all. This introduces the fundamental problem of mediated experience: the mediator necessarily changes the message.

Re My Math: Let's Recap How Jewish and gentile Dad and I Each Are Again...

So, only Great-Great-Granddad Trudniak was a gentile (as far as is known. Could I be fully Patrilineally Jewish? Maybe. But we'll eventually found out.). The rest were Anusim (Andrulewicz-Chernetski, Fosko-Rusnak, Fosko-Hanzok-- since the Foskos and Hanzoks still follow B'midbar 36--, etc.) or openly Non-Messianic Jewish (Morgiewicz/Margiewicz, Danilowicz-- except Mia, who still'd like to kill me; and I had to get the cheap shot in there--, etc.).

So, recap time (Jewish = Blue; gentile = green):

Mihal Trudniak + Ana Monkaova ==> (Mary M. Trudniak: (1/2 + 1/2) = Matrilineally Jewish) + Anthony Czarnecki, Sr. neeunknown Chernetski ==> (Jack Czarnecki: (1/4 + 1/4 + 1/2) = 3/4 mostly Patrilineally, Jewish) + Joan Gaydos ==> (Greg Czarnecki: (1/8 + 3/8 + 1/2) = 7/8, mostly Matrilineally, Jewish).

So I'm (as far as I know) 3.5/8 (Patrilineally) Jewish because Dad is almost fully Jewish. I'm 4.5/8 gentile; so I fall almost in between Ya'akov v'Esav  (Patrilineally Jewish through the first Jew, Yitzchak; toshav-habrit 'im Avraham) and b'nei Ya'akov (Patrilineally Jewish through Ya'akov, son of the first Jew, Yitzchak; toshav-habrit 'im Avraham. Remember that Avraham, Sarah, Rivkah, etc. were all Ivrim, but goyim-- not being toshav-habrit 'im Avraham as was Yitzchak).

By the way, want to guess who Esav represents spiritually? Non-Messianic Jews:

 

²² But the children struggled together within her; and she said, “If all is well, why am I like this?|” So she went to inquire of the LORD.

²³ And the LORD said to her:

“Two nations are in your womb,

Two peoples shall be separated from your body;

One people shall be stronger than the other,

And the older shall serve the younger.”

²⁴ So when her days were fulfilled for her to give birth, indeed there were twins in her womb.

⁶ But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, ⁷ nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”^{[b] 8} That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. ⁹ For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”^[c]

¹⁰ And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac ¹¹ (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), ¹² it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.”^{[d] 13} As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”^[e]

By the way, more is explained at Hebrew4Christians; but be careful: John Parsons holds what one could call a Reform or more-liberal Conservative Messianic view. In other words, he does not believe in the inerrancy of Tanakh. Contrast him with Kahal Yeshuat Yisra'el, who do believe in the inerrancy of Tanakh and-- I believe-- who used to be Conservative-Messianic affiliated.

Geraldo's Become More Religious; Let's Just Hope That It's For the Good

By the way, I got Anti-Semitically attacked for explaining this:

My explanation to Anti Semite Jackie White Snow, who subsequently had her comment removed. And Facebook just removed Carole Lynn's Anti-Semitic, personal attack against me (That was quick.).

Meanwhile, what I don't know is how good Geraldo becoming more religiously Jewish is. So, writing "God" as "G#d" on Geraldo's part may well reflect a further gravitation towards Far-Left, Self-Hating-Jewish (e.g., Eric Yoffe and Richard Jacobs), Union-of-Reform-Judaism Judaism. (And I give Masada2000.org this-- they show the damage of not believing that Tanakh is G-d's Word):

So, is that Geraldo is committed to Reform Judaism more necessarily a good thing considering this?

The Reform position is much more complicated. First, how do we know what God wants? Reform asserts that every knowledgeable Jew has an equal claim to a personal understanding of what God wants. Therefore, Movement-wide agreement is, in principle, not necessary nor desirable, nor probably even possible. We each (if we are knowledgeable about the tradition, if we confront it seriously and take its claims and its wisdom seriously) have the ability, the freedom, indeed the responsibility to come to a [potentially differing] personal understanding of what God wants us to do.
But if we are free to choose, what, then, is the point of Torah (and halacha)? For me, and I think for many other Reform Jews as well (though in principle it doesn't matter), it is a record of how our people, in widely differing times, places and societal circumstances, experienced God's presence in their lives, and responded. Each aspect of halacha is a possible gateway to experience of the holy, the spiritual. Each aspect worked for some Jews, once upon a time, somewhere in our history. Each, therefore, has the potential to open up holiness for people in our time as well, and for me personally.
However, each does not have equal claim on us, on me. Much of the halacha arose in societal settings where distance from the peoples in whose midst we lived was desirable. The "outside" world was dark, dangerous and threatening. That is no longer our situation. We welcome, applaud and are uplifted by much of Western culture. Portions of the halacha whose main purpose seems to be to distance us from our surroundings no longer seem functional.

This is also does become problematic especially when one considers, "Some (the agricultural laws, for instance) are no longer possible to observe. Others (the sacrificial laws, for instance) come from a social context so foreign to our own that it would be impossible to conceive modern people finding holiness in their revival."

Yet, if one is lo b'Yeshua, he or she must keep all 613 mitzvot. One either has to follow Torah-Moshe or the Brit Chadashah, which Torah-Moshe pointed to and-- where Torah Moshe does not deliberately contradict Brit Chadashah-- can be followed within the context thereof   (cf. Acts 15, Romans 7:4-25, 14; Galatians 1:6-12, 5:7-12): yeshuat cannot be found in both. The deliberate contradictions, by the way, are explained by Romans 7:4-25 and are exemplified in-- for instance-- D'varim 23:1-8; in where ahavah, rachamim, and other attributes are not shown. e.g. (Emphasis mine):

• ¹¹ For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. ¹² Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.¹³ Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. ¹⁴ For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. ¹⁵ For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. ¹⁶ If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. ¹⁷ But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. ¹⁸ For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. ¹⁹ For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. ²⁰ Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

• ¹ “He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the LORD.
  ² “One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD.
  ³ “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD forever, ⁴ because they did not meet you with bread and water on the road when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia,^[a] to curse you. ⁵ Nevertheless the LORD your God would not listen to Balaam, but the LORD your God turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the LORD your God loves you. ⁶ You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all your days forever.
  ⁷ “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land. ⁸ The children of the third generation born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD.

Yezhekel 18:1-9 helps explain Romans 7:4-25 in light of D'varim 23:1-8:

 
 ¹ The word of the LORD came to me again, saying, ² “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:

      ‘ The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
      And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

³ “As I live,” says the Lord GOD, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.
       ⁴ “ Behold, all souls are Mine;
      The soul of the father
      As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
      The soul who sins shall die.
       ⁵ But if a man is just
      And does what is lawful and right;
       ⁶ If he has not eaten on the mountains,
      Nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,
      Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife,
      Nor approached a woman during her impurity;
       ⁷ If he has not oppressed anyone,
      But has restored to the debtor his pledge;
      Has robbed no one by violence,
      But has given his bread to the hungry
      And covered the naked with clothing;
       ⁸ If he has not exacted usury
      Nor taken any increase,
      But has withdrawn his hand from iniquity
      And executed true judgment between man and man;
       ⁹ If he has walked in My statutes
      And kept My judgments faithfully—
      He is just;
      He shall surely live!”
      Says the Lord GOD.
   

Given  Yezhekel 18:1-9, then, D'varim 23:1-8 points to that "sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful." So, since Geraldo is lo b'Yeshua  and has to keep deliberately-hateful mitzvot such as D'varim 23:1-8-- regardless of the Union of Reform Judaism says--, Geraldo is becoming more religious in a bad way by gravitating more toward Reform Judaism (which, as I said, his writing "God" as "G#d" may well reflect).