Logic or Lunatic - Fairness or Un-reasonable - Right or Wrong -Defend or Lay Down and

[ContraMundum]

What is your point? It is you who is the bigot. If anyone disagrees with what you think, you paint a yellow swastica on their coat.

Hey, I just call it like I see it. The articles I cited simply point out how you use (and agree with) anti-semitic arguments. I think a careful analysis easily demonstrates that.

FYI: There is a non-Jewish side and a Jewish side to anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is a form of prejudice. That means I should not judge people for being "Jewish" . However Trotsky was muderous more than "Jewish". Do you see the difference?

You miss the point. Anti-semites always use Trotsky as an example as to why "Bolshevism" was a "Jewish plot" to take over the world. Interesting that you've been blaming Jewish capitalists for all the world's woes as well. You're the same bird. You say Jewish capitalists are taking over the world, they say Jewish socialists are taking over the world. Either way, you both blame Jews for the world's woes.

"Anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jew by the Jewish group. The Jewish group has thrived on oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world"

Albert Einstein

I don't think this quote means what you think it means.

Also you telling me that Judaism is not an inherently racist belief? I would really like to see you try.

Ah-ha. "Judaism is racist". How so? In Judaism, it is taught that any person from any race can be righteous before God. It merely states that Jewish people have a different set of rules that apply to them only. They have a mission from God and a covenant (which is about being a light to the world for the coming Messiah etc). Interestingly, while Christianity says that only believers can be saved (a narrower view of salvation), it also teaches clearly that "salvation is from the Jews"- is that racist too? It's merely affirming Jewish theology.

 

[gwynedd1]

Hey, I just call it like I see it. The articles I cited simply point out how you use (and agree with) anti-semitic arguments. I think a careful analysis easily demonstrates that.



You miss the point. Anti-semites always use Trotsky as an example as to why "Bolshevism" was a "Jewish plot" to take over the world. Interesting that you've been blaming Jewish capitalists for all the world's woes as well. You're the same bird. You say Jewish capitalists are taking over the world, they say Jewish socialists are taking over the world. Either way, you both blame Jews for the world's woes.




I don't think this quote means what you think it means.



Ah-ha. "Judaism is racist". How so? In Judaism, it is taught that any person from any race can be righteous before God. It merely states that Jewish people have a different set of rules that apply to them only. They have a mission from God and a covenant (which is about being a light to the world for the coming Messiah etc). Interestingly, while Christianity says that only believers can be saved (a narrower view of salvation), it also teaches clearly that "salvation is from the Jews"- is that racist too? It's merely affirming Jewish theology.

I am sorry but once again you make it up on the fly. I know what the quote means and there are many others like it. Here is the scripture:

1 Sam 15
2] Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
[3] Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Deut 7

[6] For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

 

[ContraMundum]

I am sorry but once again you make it up on the fly. I know what the quote means and there are many others like it. Here is the scripture:

1 Sam 15
2] Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
[3] Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Deut 7

[6] For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

Sorry, but these quotes completely undermine your position- as last time I looked they were in the canon of Christian scriptures. Therefore, these scriptures are accepted as read and are true and authoratative in the Christian Church, whether you like it or not.

Simply put, if you think these scriptures are racist, then you are a member of a religion that promotes racism. I, on the other hand, do not think these scriptures, properly understood promote racism at all. The first speaks of warfare against the enemies of Israel (which God used and commanded), and the second merely speaks of a holy mission uniquely given to the Jews, which Christianity affirms. The two are to be taken in their context.

So- what do you think? Are they true or not? If they are, then do you think they teach racism? If they do, as you have tried to say, then you are involved in racism by calling these texts holy and inspired.

On the other hand, the orthodox Christian understanding says that these texts stand as read- there is no racism spoken of in them and salvation comes from the Jews.

You've got an awful lot of interpretive problems in your presentation of texts gwynn....you should reconsider your position.

 

[Treppers]

I am so frightfully glad you brought up the 'New' Anti-Semitism Contra. I note that you have reverted to your previous efforts to rub out the distinction between right-wing Zionists and Jews generally by the way.

The New Anti-Semitism: I believe this particular project to immunise Israel from criticism began in 1973 with the publication of Arnold Forster's and Benjamin Epstein's book called The New Anti-Semitism. It was followed in 1982 with Nathan and Ruth Perlmutter's effort The Real Anti-Semitism In America and then yet again, most recently, with Abraham Foxman in 2003 with his amusing Never Again? The Threat From The New Anti-Semitism. How many New Anti-Semitisms are there? Well, about as many as there are Israeli atrocities.

1973, I think this should be obvious to everyone. 1982, Sabra, Shatila, the destruction of much of southern Lebanon (rings a bell). 2003, in the aftermath of the slaughter at Jenin (that's 'Jenin' to you anti-Arab racists) and after Palestinians renewed their resistance to Israeli occupation, with Israel accordingly escalating its brutality.

Can you spot a pattern Contra? I sure can, and it ain't anti-Semitism.


Actually, since I mentioned Sabra and Shatila, let's briefly review Israel's own investigation into the massacres.

The Commission determined that the massacre at Sabra and Shatilla was carried out by a Phalangist unit, acting on its own but its entry was known to Israel. No Israeli was directly responsible for the events which occurred in the camps. But the Commission asserted that Israel had indirect responsibility for the massacre since the I.D.F. held the area, Mr. Begin was found responsible for not exercising greater involvement and awareness in the matter of introducing the Phalangists into the camps. The Commission recommended that the Defense Minister [Ariel Sharon] resign, that the Director of Military Intelligence not continue in his post and other senior officers be removed.

Why might Israel's own investigation suggest that Butcher Sharon step down from his post as Defence Minister?

The Responsibility for the Massacre

In this section of the report, we shall deal with the issue of the responsibility for the massacre from two standpoints: first from the standpoint of direct responsibility - i.e., who actually perpetrated the massacre - and then we shall examine the problem of indirect responsibility, to the extent that this applies to Israel or those who acted on its behalf.

...



The Direct Responsibility


According to the above description of events, all the evidence indicates that the massacre was perpetrated by the Phalangists.

...


The Indirect Responsibility

Before we discuss the essence of the problem of the indirect responsibility of Israel, or of those who operated at its behest, we perceive it to be necessary to deal with objections that have been voiced on various occasions, according to which if Israel's direct responsibility for the atrocities is negated - i.e., if it is determined that the blood of those killed was not shed by I.D.F. soldiers and I.D.F. forces, or that others operating at the behest of the state were not parties to the atrocities - then there is no place for further discussion of the problem of indirect responsibility. The argument is that no responsibility should be laid on Israel for deeds perpetrated outside of its borders by members of the Christian community against Palestinians in that same country, or against Muslims located within the area of the camps. ...

We cannot accept this position. If it indeed becomes clear that those who decided on the entry of the Phalangists into the camps should have foreseen - from the information at their disposal and from things which were common knowledge - that there was danger of a massacre, and no steps were taken which might have prevented this danger or at least greatly reduced the possiblity that deeds of this type might be done, then those who made the decisions and those who implemented them are indirectly responsible for what ultimately occurred, even if they did not intend this to happen and merely disregarded the anticipated danger. A similar indirect responsibility also falls on those who knew of the decision; it was their duty, by virtue of their position and their office, to warn of the danger, and they did not fulfill this duty. It is also not possible to absolve of such indirect responsibility those persons who, when they received the first reports of what was happening in the camps, did not rush to prevent the continuation of the Phalangists' actions and did not do everything within their power to stop them.

...


The Minister of Defense, Mr. Ariel Sharon

In his testimony before us, and in statements he issued beforehand, the Minister of Defense also adopted the position that no one had imagined the Phalangists would carry out a massacre in the camps and that it was a tragedy that could not be foreseen. It was stressed by the Minister of Defense in his testimony, and argued in his behalf, that the director of Military Intelligence, who spent time with him and maintained contact with him on the days prior to the Phalangists' entry into the camps and at the time of their entry into the camps, did not indicate the danger of a massacre, and that no warning was received from the Mossad, which was responsible for the liaison with the Phalangists and also had special knowledge of the character of this force.


It is true that no clear warning Was provided by military intelligence or the Mossad about what might happen if the Phalangist forces entered the camps, and we will relate to this matter when we discuss the responsibility of the director of Military Intelligence and the head of the Mossad. But in our view, even without such warning, it is impossible to justify the Minister of Defense's disregard of the danger of a massacre. We will not repeat here what we have already said above about the widespread knowledge regarding the Phalangists' combat ethics, their feelings of hatred toward the Palestinians, and their leaders' plans for the future of the Palestinians when said leaders would assume power. Besides this general knowledge, the Defense Minister also had special reports from his not inconsiderable [number of] meetings with the Phalangist heads before Bashir's assassination.

Follow this link to read the report in full, Israeli culpability starts about halfway down.

 

[gwynedd1]

Sorry, but these quotes completely undermine your position- as last time I looked they were in the canon of Christian scriptures. Therefore, these scriptures are accepted as read and are true and authoratative in the Christian Church, whether you like it or not.

Simply put, if you think these scriptures are racist, then you are a member of a religion that promotes racism. I, on the other hand, do not think these scriptures, properly understood promote racism at all. The first speaks of warfare against the enemies of Israel (which God used and commanded), and the second merely speaks of a holy mission uniquely given to the Jews, which Christianity affirms. The two are to be taken in their context.

So- what do you think? Are they true or not? If they are, then do you think they teach racism? If they do, as you have tried to say, then you are involved in racism by calling these texts holy and inspired.

On the other hand, the orthodox Christian understanding says that these texts stand as read- there is no racism spoken of in them and salvation comes from the Jews.

You've got an awful lot of interpretive problems in your presentation of texts gwynn....you should reconsider your position.

I notice how you have begun to turn to "not properly understood" in the light of irrefutable evidence.You just never see the context of God's covenant. Even "everlasting" covenants may be broken by men. God does not change but men do.

Here is something also easy to understand. Under the old covenant it would be considered racist today. It was racist and even genocidal. It is absurd to say it was not(put away foriegn wives?). That was under God's guidiance because God knew what those nations would do. However the old covenant is gone. Many Jews do not know this but retain the old faith.

This is why Jusaism is essentially racist in many sects and dangerously so because under the Talmud and Kabbalah the dreams of men now intreprete the Torah. Anti-semite accusations are rather hypocritical. This is why there is seggragation because many Jews want it that way. It prevents assimliation.

Isaiah 24

[5] The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
[6] Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.

Jer 14

[19] Hast thou utterly rejected Judah? hath thy soul lothed Zion? why hast thou smitten us, and there is no healing for us? we looked for peace, and there is no good; and for the time of healing, and behold trouble!
[20] We acknowledge, O LORD, our wickedness, and the iniquity of our fathers: for we have sinned against thee.
[21] Do not abhor us, for thy name's sake, do not disgrace the throne of thy glory: remember, break not thy covenant with us.
[22] Are there any among the vanities of the Gentiles that can cause rain? or can the heavens give showers? art not thou he, O LORD our God? therefore we will wait upon thee: for thou hast made all these things.

Jer 22
[8] And many nations shall pass by this city, and they shall say every man to his neighbour, Wherefore hath the LORD done thus unto this great city?
[9] Then they shall answer, Because they have forsaken the covenant of the LORD their God, and worshipped other gods, and served them.

Jer 31

[31] Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
[32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
[33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.



The covenant with David has been fulfilled with Christ.
Jer 33

[20] Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
[21] Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
[22] As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.
[23] Moreover the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying,
[24] Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them.
[25] Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;
[26] Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.

 

[ContraMundum]

I notice how you have begun to turn to "not properly understood" in the light of irrefutable evidence.

You haven't provided anything even remotely "irrefutable" gywnedd, and you keep ignoring my posts, and you never address their content, but you continue to have your own dialogue with yourself, pretenting to prove "points" that no one recieves, so you make them only to yourself. You ignore my posts and their content, so I now choose to ignore yours.

Lk 10:11

 

[ContraMundum]

I am so frightfully glad you brought up the 'New' Anti-Semitism Contra. I note that you have reverted to your previous efforts to rub out the distinction between right-wing Zionists and Jews generally by the way.

The New Anti-Semitism: I believe this particular project to immunise Israel from criticism began in 1973 with the publication of Arnold Forster's and Benjamin Epstein's book called The New Anti-Semitism. It was followed in 1982 with Nathan and Ruth Perlmutter's effort The Real Anti-Semitism In America and then yet again, most recently, with Abraham Foxman in 2003 with his amusing Never Again? The Threat From The New Anti-Semitism. How many New Anti-Semitisms are there? Well, about as many as there are Israeli atrocities.

1973, I think this should be obvious to everyone. 1982, Sabra, Shatila, the destruction of much of southern Lebanon (rings a bell). 2003, in the aftermath of the slaughter at Jenin (that's 'Jenin' to you anti-Arab racists) and after Palestinians renewed their resistance to Israeli occupation, with Israel accordingly escalating its brutality.

Can you spot a pattern Contra? I sure can, and it ain't anti-Semitism.


Actually, since I mentioned Sabra and Shatila, let's briefly review Israel's own investigation into the massacres.


Why might Israel's own investigation suggest that Butcher Sharon step down from his post as Defence Minister?



Follow this link to read the report in full, Israeli culpability starts about halfway down.

What planet do you live on Treppers? Clearly not this one. Why do I think that? Because I have no idea what you're trying to prove by constantly bringing up disputable points as though they were beyond dispute, yet, when presented with evidence to counter your position, you happily ignore it, refuse to address it, and then act like you've made a point (when you haven't).

There is so much garbage in this post I can't begin to address it. I don't even care to- it's perhaps the most pointless thing anyone with care for God, His Word and His people could do. Why? Because you waste our time with your disengeuous debating style- you quote sources but don't address sources quoted to you. Like your alter-ego gywnn, you continue to make points to yourself, but no one is receiving them because you can't handle accepted, mainstream sources.

Go ahead, remain in your ways, argue, debate, hate, be cynical and only present one side of the debate. Remain unbalanced and biased. But God knows the heart young man. I'll not entertain you any longer, because I don't trust you enough to believe your interest is genuine and you are what you are trying to present to us.

The links I cited remain unchallenged. That's good enough for me.

 

[Treppers]

I present disputable evidence as indisputable? Please be specific. I'm happy to discuss any evidence I present believe me. If only others were willing to discuss it. You state that it is me who does not address mainstream sources, yet you ridicule HRW, Amnesty and B'Tselem, and have previously packed me off to obscure Zionist websites.

By the way (again), I am still waiting for you to address my prior posts on your own State Department terrorism reports, still waiting for you to produce a rebuttal of Benny Morris (Jewish), still waiting for you to address the findings of Harvard-trained political economist, and now Senior Research Scholar at Harvard's Centre for Middle Eastern Studies, Sara Roy (Jewish), and still waiting for you to produce a mainstream human rights organisation (Israeli or otherwise) that does heavily criticise Israel's human rights record.

Of course, I know that it's not because you don't want to, but because you can't. I'll summarise what I posted weeks ago.

Since the 'war on terror', terrorist acts have gone up by hundreds of percent. When their own reports started reporting what was widely predicted, the State Department issued new terrorism reports with no statistics in them. Israel is founded on ethnic cleansing, massacre and rape (Benny Morris). Since its inception it has pursued a deliberate policy of de-development of the Palestinian economy (Sara Roy) and has an atrocious human rights record (every single mainstream human rights organisation you care to mention). Israel kills civilians indiscriminantly, steals land, steals water resources, perpetrates war crimes, has engaged and engages in torture on a vast scale, is the only country in history have legalised torture, is the only country in history have legalised home demolitions, is the only country in history have legalised hostge-taking... (every mainstream human rights organisation bar none).

It's not me who's avoiding the issues mate.

Seeing as you don't think I adequately explained why the 'New' Anti-Semitism is just a media extravaganza to deflect criticism of Israel, would you like me to address the various productions of the 'New' Anti-Semitism by Forster-Epstein/ the Permlmutters/ Foxman in detail, with a comparison of the methods and contents of each book? Just say the word and it will be my next post on this thread.

For example, I'm sure you'll be shocked to hear that that Foxman (successor of Nathan Perlmutter as the National Director of the (now) execrable ADL) is mentioned both in the forewords of both the Forster-Epstein and Perlmutter books. Anyway, just let me know.

 

[ContraMundum]

By the way (again), I am still waiting for you to address my prior posts on your own State Department terrorism reports, still waiting for you to produce a rebuttal of Benny Morris (Jewish), still waiting for you to address the findings of Harvard-trained political economist, and now Senior Research Scholar at Harvard's Centre for Middle Eastern Studies, Sara Roy (Jewish), and still waiting for you to produce a mainstream human rights organisation (Israeli or otherwise) that does heavily criticise Israel's human rights record.

I never promised you I would address these things, but I did ask you to be specific and you didn't provide details. You've asked me to present rebuttals of names, not articles, issues, or books. How can anyone respond to something you haven't presented yourself?

The rest of your post is disputable. Your citations and claims are disputable. The nuts you follow make points that are disputed. Surely you know that. You've got nothing solid. Nothing at all.

Anyway, we are done. This is not profitable and you have not been honest with us.

 

[Treppers]

I never promised you I would address these things, but I did ask you to be specific and you didn't provide details. You've asked me to present rebuttals of names, not articles, issues, or books. How can anyone respond to something you haven't presented yourself?

Urgh. Here are the books:

[SIZE=-1]The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development by[/SIZE]Sara Roy for how Israel's policies in Gaza are in many respects worse than, say, Apartheid policies in South Africa.

The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited
and Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1999 by Benny Morris for history.

And I have been specific, even typing a few quotes from Morris' books.

The rest of your post is disputable. Your citations and claims are disputable. The nuts you follow make points that are disputed. Surely you know that. You've got nothing solid. Nothing at all.

This is simple ad hominem. As you well know, my allegedly nutty citations consist of mainstream human rights organisations (Israeli and non-Israeli) and include leading Harvard scholars. Neither you, nor anyone else, has produced a single mainstream human rights organisation, Israeli or otherwise, that doesn't heavily criticise Israel's atrocious record.

Anyway, we are done. This is not profitable and you have not been honest with us.

It's been fun to debate you. You've attacked my position and ideas, so I will have had to learn from that. Merci beaucoup, et au revoir.

 

[applepowerpc]

That is useful information, Treppers. I hope you keep it up. Just because you can't reach some people doesn't mean you aren't providing useful stuff for the rest of us.

 

[gwynedd1]

You haven't provided anything even remotely "irrefutable" gywnedd, and you keep ignoring my posts, and you never address their content, but you continue to have your own dialogue with yourself, pretenting to prove "points" that no one recieves, so you make them only to yourself. You ignore my posts and their content, so I now choose to ignore yours.

Lk 10:11

You rarely provided any content other than an opinion and other dubious material. You provided opinions which are false. You keep trying to unify Judiasm and Christianity into a single faith and they are not(The Mishnah never was). You asked why my comments about symbols do not apply to my faith? It is because I don't have such a faith. I am a Christian. I follow 2 laws.
You ask me why I don't consider my faith racist because of what is in the cannon of the Old Testament. It is the same reason a grown man does not breath through his belly button; the old law is complete in Christ so now we follow the law on our hearts.

Mark 12
28: And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
29: And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31: And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Judeo-Christianity is a 20th century apostasy introduced by the Scofield reference bible. Whoever believes in the Lord Jesus Christ is of God. The rest is not including Judaism, the state of Israel or Islam.

 

[Treppers]

I am glad some people find my musings useful!

On a random note, I just found the cutest bunnies ever! They are so sweet, you have to see!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg9x5mUjbH8

 

[Treppers]

Sorry, two last videos. Poor old Bush, hahaha!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdD5Qt3El-k


And this is even better. Go Ray McGovern! Rumsfeld telling a bare-faced lie, and the joke which is the corporate US media =D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrXaFluPY4A

 

[gwynedd1]

What planet do you live on Treppers? Clearly not this one. Why do I think that? Because I have no idea what you're trying to prove by constantly bringing up disputable points as though they were beyond dispute, yet, when presented with evidence to counter your position, you happily ignore it, refuse to address it, and then act like you've made a point (when you haven't).

There is so much garbage in this post I can't begin to address it. I don't even care to- it's perhaps the most pointless thing anyone with care for God, His Word and His people could do. Why? Because you waste our time with your disengeuous debating style- you quote sources but don't address sources quoted to you. Like your alter-ego gywnn, you continue to make points to yourself, but no one is receiving them because you can't handle accepted, mainstream sources.

Go ahead, remain in your ways, argue, debate, hate, be cynical and only present one side of the debate. Remain unbalanced and biased. But God knows the heart young man. I'll not entertain you any longer, because I don't trust you enough to believe your interest is genuine and you are what you are trying to present to us.

The links I cited remain unchallenged. That's good enough for me.

You mean Wikipedia? LOL. Its great metadata that you can go and verify but as a primary reference? They have editors that control favored information. I have seen it myself.

The primacy of Jewish bigotry is irrefutable and you cannot hide behind a "wiki". Today it is out of context and ungodly.

Acts 10

[28] And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

What about the ones who did not come to Christ? Do some Jews consider arabs as unclean?



Acts 11

[6] Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
[7] And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.
[8] But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.
[9] But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.



Judaism is a burdensome faith and still racist.

Acts 15

[8] And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
[9] And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
[10] Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
[11] But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
[12] Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

Maybe he thinks God is speaking to him?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1270038.stm


"It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable," he was quoted as saying in a sermon delivered on Monday to mark the Jewish festival of Passover."

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef

"The man of the future will be of mixed race. For Pan-Europe [that is united Europe] I want a European-Asiatic-Negroid mixed race. The leaders shall come from the Jews because a benevolent providence has with the Jews given Europe a new spiritual and intellectual noble race."

Coudenhove-Kalergi


Marzel to beauty queen: Don't marry a goy(And if a priest said don't marry a Jew?)


United Jewish Front leader begs local beauty queen Linor Aberjil not to marry her boyfriend, non-Jewish NBA player Sarunas Jasikevicius, and 'divorce the Jewish people'

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3223268,00.html


Sounds like the old covenant. Why would someone who believes in Judaism call people racist or anti-Semite? It is hypocritical. They can be racist, that is their right in a free country.

However no Christian should be racist in return because we are a race of faith and all our welcome.

Rome 2
[9] Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
[10] But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
[11] For there is no respect of persons with God.

 

[ContraMundum]

You mean Wikipedia? LOL. Its great metadata that you can go and verify but as a primary reference? They have editors that control favored information. I have seen it myself.

The primacy of Jewish bigotry is irrefutable and you cannot hide behind a "wiki". Today it is out of context and ungodly.

I "wiki-ed" because it sums up just nicely what I have read elsewhere and already agree with. I agree with the articles' primary source material too, and what's more, it seems that the articles on anti-semitism have the general consensus of the public as well as academia, which is OK by me too.

The point is- if you wish to question the Wiki- and we all should- you can easily go to the sources cited on the page and see for yourself and get back to us.

What about the ones who did not come to Christ? Do some Jews consider arabs as unclean?

Some do, sure. Not many though these days.

Judaism is a burdensome faith and still racist.

Tell me what you know about Judaism first, then tell me about it. I've lived it and the rest of my family still do- it's not racist or burdensome. It's big and complex, and of course there will always be individual racists in any religion (you know them even in Christianity, people that use the Bible to support their racism, you know the type), but to call a religion racist is hard to prove when you really don't understand how it actually works.

Tell me, have you ever read anti-missionary websites put up by Jewish groups? You'd be offended. You'd say "they have no idea what they're talking about" and "they don't understand what that means" etc. That's because they don't live Christianity so can't fully know it. They can quote the Bible, the Fathers, Christian leaders etc but you will still say "they don't get it", and maybe they don't, it's true. It's the same when you make comments like the one above- the religion could look racist and burdensome and evil or whatever to someone with an outsider's point of view (esp a biased one) but really it's just that you don't understand it.

Don't be offended, it's an easy place to find yourself in.

Maybe he thinks God is speaking to him?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1270038.stm

I doubt very much he thinks God is speaking directly to him, but he is a bit of an idiot when he overstates old Biblical commands to clear the land of the enemies etc. He's no where near as important as the article makes him out to be.

Marzel to beauty queen: Don't marry a goy(And if a priest said don't marry a Jew?)

News for you: priests do say "don't marry a Jew". Mullahs say "don't marry an infidel", fundies say "don't marry an unbeliever" (you know the verse they use!). Why all the division? Simple: inter-religious mixed marriages are complicated. I always advise people to marry other people of the same tradition if possible. How then is that any more "racist" than any other religion? You forget there are all kinds of races represented in Judaism too, so it's not about marrying into another race, but into another religion. Anyway: Are not all religions ones of separation?

Now, can we stop? This whole post was picking on Jews as racists- gywnedd, you're an anti-semite, and you still say that you're not. It's very hypocritical but I truly believe you don't realise it so I continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.

You said:

"The primacy of Jewish bigotry is irrefutable "

"Judaism is a burdensome faith and still racist"

Gwynedd, I hate to say it, but you need some help.

You can't call Jews bigots with a racist religion and not be anti-semitic. Such comments are by any definition truly anit-semitic. Repent brother.

Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, also the branches.
Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and became a sharer of the root and the fatness of the olive tree with them,
Rom 11:18 do not boast against the branches. But if you boast, it is not you that bears the root, but the root bears you.
Rom 11:19 You will say then, The branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.
Rom 11:20 Well, because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be high-minded, but fear.
Rom 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, fear lest He also may not spare you either!

 

[gwynedd1]

I "wiki-ed" because it sums up just nicely what I have read elsewhere and already agree with. I agree with the articles' primary source material too, and what's more, it seems that the articles on anti-semitism have the general consensus of the public as well as academia, which is OK by me too.

The point is- if you wish to question the Wiki- and we all should- you can easily go to the sources cited on the page and see for yourself and get back to us.

Some do, sure. Not many though these days.

Tell me what you know about Judaism first, then tell me about it. I've lived it and the rest of my family still do- it's not racist or burdensome. It's big and complex, and of course there will always be individual racists in any religion (you know them even in Christianity, people that use the Bible to support their racism, you know the type), but to call a religion racist is hard to prove when you really don't understand how it actually works.

Tell me, have you ever read anti-missionary websites put up by Jewish groups? You'd be offended. You'd say "they have no idea what they're talking about" and "they don't understand what that means" etc. That's because they don't live Christianity so can't fully know it. They can quote the Bible, the Fathers, Christian leaders etc but you will still say "they don't get it", and maybe they don't, it's true. It's the same when you make comments like the one above- the religion could look racist and burdensome and evil or whatever to someone with an outsider's point of view (esp a biased one) but really it's just that you don't understand it.

Don't be offended, it's an easy place to find yourself in.

I do not take offense. I just speak the truth for the sake of all and if for the sake of only one if it be the case. If I hated the natural branches then their oblivian under Judaism would be my joy. It is not, I wish every Jew would be saved. The time for seperation has passed.

This is the faith without Christ. What has changed? It has changed for a disciple of Christ but what of Judaism?

Acts 21

[28] Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

There was no justification for Jews to be with gentiles under the law because gentiles did not have the law. However Christ has cleaned and justified ALL who have faith.

[11] And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
[12] Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
[13] And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
[14] But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
[15] And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

I have explained many of my thoughts on Judiasm. There are many beliefs and sects. The worst of them are even considered apostates among the Jews and they are right and they are vulnerable to them(this is even complex as many Frankists are only part Jewish and are "crypto-Jewish" so one could point to gentile-Jewish corruption. They are Zionists however which as I stated does not mean you are Jewish. There are Christian Zionists). The Frankists as I explained herd the Jews like cattle to Israel. They use anti-Semitism as such a tool.
Now as for me, did you know my doctor is "Jewish".? Did you know I went to a programming school as a post graduate that was run by Russian Jews? Did you know I helped a Jewish guy get his first job from that school? Did you know I attended a Sadre with my Reformed Jewish friend in college? Why is this relevant? They are mere anecdotes and I assumed scripture would suffice.

I doubt very much he thinks God is speaking directly to him, but he is a bit of an idiot when he overstates old Biblical commands to clear the land of the enemies etc. He's no where near as important as the article makes him out to be.


News for you: priests do say "don't marry a Jew". Mullahs say "don't marry an infidel", fundies say "don't marry an unbeliever" (you know the verse they use!). Why all the division? Simple: inter-religious mixed marriages are complicated. I always advise people to marry other people of the same tradition if possible. How then is that any more "racist" than any other religion? You forget there are all kinds of races represented in Judaism too, so it's not about marrying into another race, but into another religion. Anyway: Are not all religions ones of separation?

I did not say that the priest would be wrong. We also both know that racism within Israel is quite strong. This is not to say they are alone.

1 Cor 7 should be well known.

2 Cor 6

14] Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
[15] And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
[16] And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

.......

Now, can we stop? This whole post was picking on Jews as racists- gywnedd, you're an anti-semite, and you still say that you're not. It's very hypocritical but I truly believe you don't realise it so I continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Address the facts of anyone's post only. Do not call people racist or anti-Semites without a clear pattern of abuse. Do not assume anit-Zionist is anti-Jewish and we can certainly move on. You kept bringing up how many groups abuse the term anti-Zionist. Now I have also shown you how Judaism is used for equally nafarious purposes. Many of your posts pick on non-Jews as being inherently unfair to Jews. You see it folly when it is used against your will.


Is Judaism a racist religion? By modern standards yes, there is no doubt; it is in the scripture. But I believe God and it was the plan BEFORE Christ. Can this form of seperatism be benign? Yes it can. It also can be used to justify genocide without God's direction and I believe some sects are as such. You should not let them hide behind anti-Semitism when they do evil. What is my reaction to Ustase? Hatred of attrocites done in the Croatian name.
I would say it would be to your benefit to stop because there is plenty more evidence of Jewish racism. However my friends and many other s are not racist and I would rather we discusss the ideas and NOT the person, race, or blood line. All of our flesh is corrupt and ALL faith in Jesus Christ is pure.


You said:

"The primacy of Jewish bigotry is irrefutable "

"Judaism is a burdensome faith and still racist"

Gwynedd, I hate to say it, but you need some help.

You can't call Jews bigots with a racist religion and not be anti-semitic. Such comments are by any definition truly anit-semitic. Repent brother.

If being against anything that rejects the Lord Jesus Christ is such a definition then so be it. It is better to suffer, endure hatred, and even die than to reject Jesus who was justified in rejecting us but did not.

Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, also the branches.
Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and became a sharer of the root and the fatness of the olive tree with them,
Rom 11:18 do not boast against the branches. But if you boast, it is not you that bears the root, but the root bears you.
Rom 11:19 You will say then, The branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.
Rom 11:20 Well, because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be high-minded, but fear.
Rom 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, fear lest He also may not spare you either!

The natural branches are people , not the apostate faith of Judasim. This is an important section of scripture. We will need to rely on it anytime we feel superior. We should be greatful and pray for this generation that does not know Christ. There will be a day when a remnant will discover their Lord.


Isaiah 11

[10] And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
[11] And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.
[12] And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Would we have been better off if there had been no Jews or Hebrews at all? No, we would have been doomed from the start.

 

[applepowerpc]

You can't call Jews bigots with a racist religion and not be anti-semitic. Such comments are by any definition truly anit-semitic. Repent brother.

Okay let me get this straight: you call a group racist, and that makes YOU racist??