Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Sojourner

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28
1
General / Web's ability to spark bigotry rattles ADL chief
« on: February 18, 2007, 07:41:51 PM »
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/search/content/local_news/epaper/2007/02/10/m3c_ADL_0210.html

Web's ability to spark bigotry rattles ADL chief

By Ron Hayes

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Saturday, February 10, 2007

PALM BEACH `” The national director of the Anti-Defamation League speculated Friday that the Internet may be a major factor in growing anti-Semitism throughout the world.

"I'm becoming convinced more and more every day that the reason anti-Semitism is out there more is this highway, this transmitter belt," Abraham Foxman told about 350 people gathered for the ADL's national executive committee meeting, which runs through Sunday at The Breakers. "These blogs circulate it and reinforce it and so there's more of it."

While calling himself "a complete illiterate" who's only now learning about computers, Foxman said he's seen the potential for spreading hatred and bigotry online.

"Want to get sick?" he asked. "Log on to 'Holocaust.' With the Web you can extend and enhance and entertain, but it's also provided a legitimate highway for bigotry."

On the Internet, neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers have at least the same potential audience as Web sites that promote peace, love and understanding. But Foxman confessed frustration at finding an effective way to combat the Internet's potential for inflaming bigotry.

"We have to come up with a better answer so that when they Google 'Jew' they don't get a hateful, anti-Semitic definition," he said. "We have to tell the Jewish community to bombard the Web with 'Jewish' positively."

Foxman made his comments on the Internet as part of a keynote address in which he expressed concerns that anti-Semitism is rising throughout the world.

"Why are we now hearing all the hideous canards about Jewish people that we believed buried in history?" he asked.

Anti-Semitism seems to have increased since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Foxman said.

Many people believe Israel was behind the attacks, he said. "This is a fact in at least a third of the world, if not more."

Terrorist attacks in Bali and the Sinai and the recent shooting of a newspaper editor in Turkey are being blamed on Jews, he said.

"I almost expect to hear that the Denmark cartoons that insulted the prophet Mohammed were our fault," he said.

Foxman also criticized former President Jimmy Carter, whose current bestseller, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, has offended many Jews and other supporters of Israel.

"When Jimmy Carter says he chose that title to provoke debate because the Jews control the debate, that's an anti-Semitic canard," Foxman charged. "It wasn't David Duke or Pat Buchanan who said it. It's Jimmy Carter, a former president of the United States, and he's still saying it.

"I don't remember ever being so seriously concerned about the safety and security of my grandson."

___________________

Posters comment:
Quote
"We have to tell the Jewish community to bombard the Web with 'Jewish'
positively."

I'd say they have already heeded the call.. more than sufficiently...  ::)

2
General / Re: Egyptian-Canadian 'admitted to helping Mossad'
« on: February 16, 2007, 07:02:07 AM »
Quote
was advised to convert to Christianity

Proof that Christianity has been totally usurped by Talmudism-Judaism....

3
General / Re: Burnt Offerings - Make Mine Rare
« on: February 09, 2007, 06:02:59 PM »
Quote
If you saw an altar covered in blood and entrails with the severed head of a bull on top, how would you distinguish it from a sacrament to the God of the OT or Satan?

There are no more animal sacrifices to God.  I don't hang out at Satanic altars so its not something I'm going to see. 
 

4
General / Re: Burnt Offerings - Make Mine Rare
« on: February 09, 2007, 03:02:26 PM »
Quote
I don't believe I've mentioned abstinence from eating creatures for nearly a year.  Can you say the same about your religion?

I was referring to real life situations and not discussions on the net.  I do not push my beliefs on anyone, here or in real life.  If someone asks a question I'll answer or if they are distorting my beliefs I will try to explain where their wrong.

Quote
You don't desire the taste of flesh and blood yet you consume it?  Growing cows for the consumption of their bodies uses up grain which on its own would go farther in sustaining humans.  This plus the fact that animals are inhumanely warehoused and slaughtered for your consumption is of little concern to you so long as you can eat their "meat" makes you selfish.


I think you have a very sick and distorted view of what lust is. Not having an aversion to eating meat is NOT lusting after meat.  ::)

Quote
I'm not being sanctimonious.  I've already told you that I'm an ignorant hypocrite in denial.  I'm selfish too.

According to your formula anybody who would exist and eat anything is selfish because that food could go to someone else.  I don't believe in being a glutton or a cannibal but beyond that what anybody eats is none of my business and what I eat is none of yours.  I would hate to live in your guilt filled world.

Quote
Does calling your self Christian make you immune from these human conditions or something?

Eating to exist is not just a Christian condition.


Quote
You accused me of cherry picking but I notice you take some verses more literally than others.
I can think of a few things that if person literally put into their mouth would defile them.

Now you're being silly.

Mat 15:16  And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
Mat 15:17  Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

He's speaking about food and the normal things one would put in your mouth.  Are you going to start straining at gnats now too?  Maybe you should start a discussion with a Talmudist as that seems to be more up your alley.

Quote
I'm asking you; If Christ was standing next to you, could you slaughter a lamb?

I already answered you.  Evidently you don't comprehend or read well or you wouldn't keep repeating the same questions.

Quote
Quote
Rom 14:2  For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Rom 14:3  Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
_____

I eat pasta, too.

More gnat straining.

Quote
You are now quoting the OT to me, but you overlooked my question about that God, above.

Romans is from the NT.  I've answered all your questions.  If you're not getting the answer you want that's a personal problem.

Quote
There is no sacrifice with out violence. Does a violent God of ritual blood sacrifice fit your ideal?

I don't judge God and nor do I judge what he required of the Israelites for sin before Christ. 

5
General / Re: Burnt Offerings - Make Mine Rare
« on: February 08, 2007, 12:16:21 PM »
Quote
The following is not intended to be offensive or sanctimonious although it may sound so. 


Yeah right.  ::)  Your whole post is nothing but sanctimonious drivel.  I lived in the land of fruits and nuts for a while so I am very familiar with the "ideals" of vegetarians.  They were some of the most sanctimonious "holier than thou" bastards and bitches I ever met in my life. It's not just a preferred lifestyle to these people it's a freakin religion of which they never shut up about nor miss a beat in constantly condemning you for not being in their cult.  I have no problem if someone doesn't want to eat meat but they sure as heck have a problem with those that do.

Quote
More people are considering the  barbarism of eating flesh and blood and its selfishness and are giving up their lust for flesh.


I assure you I don't "lust" after meat and neither am I selfish for eating meat.  ::) 

Quote
I take it you've eaten lamb.  Could you kill one?  Not from a hundred feet away with a rifle, I mean close, with a lance or a blade?
 

Yes.

Quote
Could you do it   . . . . in the physical presence of Christ?

This would make a difference... because?   ???  Where does it say that Jesus Christ was vegetarian?

Mat 15:11  Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Rom 14:2  For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Rom 14:3  Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.


6
General / Re: Burnt Offerings - Make Mine Rare
« on: February 07, 2007, 09:45:10 AM »
I'd like your opinion.
Imagine your self watching the slitting of throats of animals (think of the aura of fear this would generate - animals do feel fear) and the spilling of their blood on altars, then the tossing of them on to a pyre.  Imagine the sounds and struggling of the animals and the odor of blood and the pyre which this God says is sweet to him.

Is the imagery of the scene not hellish to you?

Are you a vegetarian?  You seem to have a big hangup on killing animals.  Throughout the OT there are many references in how to treat animals.  None of them condone cruelty.  All I see in Leviticus is that they killed them, of which I'm sure was done in as humane a way as possible. Where are you finding that they slit their throats or that there was some long drawn out process of torturing these animals before sacrifice?  I live in a area of where there is a heavy population of wild animals. We shoot predatory animals that become a nuisance or danger and we also shoot and eat deer.  I've seen many a deer and rabbit gutted and skinned.  No, it ain't pretty nor do I get some kind of sick enjoyment from it, but I don't find it "hellish".

Quote
Regarding the quote about loving your enemies.  Doesn't love conquer all?

Loving someone who is evil doesn't conquer anything except your own destruction. 

Quote
I'm not trying to bait you or compare righteousness.  Trust me, I don't consider myself to be some kind of sage and am obviously no scholar.*

I'm just looking for what sounds true.  Like this Jefferson quote:

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.


Basically, and from what I understand, Jefferson was a Christian and referred to himself as one.  He was heavily influenced with what was referred to as the "Age of Enlightenment" and or the "Age of Reason" though and of which is heavily human secularism.   The point of which was to reason yourself right out of even the existence of God.

Reasoning is an attribute God has given us and He even asks us to reason with Him:
Isa 1:18  Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

We are also told to prove all things:
1Th 5:21  Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Or as the NASB renders it:
1Th 5:21  But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;

You cannot prove or examine everything carefully without doing a fair amount of reasoning.  Not to say that one shouldn't being praying heavily for discernment through this reasoning process. As to "blindfolded fear", there is faith and then there is "blind faith".  Personally I do not believe blind faith is required of us although some so called Christian preachers require blind faith from their congregations.  A big reason of why I don't belong to any church.  I'm a reasoning creature... and believe that ability to be a God given attribute. :)  Not to be confused with human secular reasoning though, which is of man and not God.  Something I believe that Jefferson had a hard time distinguishing between.... sometimes.  We all struggle with those things of which heavily influenced our thoughts and lives.



You interjected in a conversation with a person who said that jews were his enemy and that he hated them.  That's when I posted the red lettered quote. 

Here are a couple parts of your explanation,

Here is the entire quote,

Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you

If one brethren curses, persecutes or hates another, wouldn't that disqualify them as a brethren?

Luk 17:3  Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
Luk 17:4  And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.

Mat 18:21  Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
Mat 18:22  Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.


Doesn't exactly portray your brethren as being perfect, does it?  Also note that there is no requirement to forgive someone if they don't repent.  And why I find it especially repugnant seeing these people publicly forgiving murderers when they have neither repented nor asked for forgiveness.  Again, these are those who flaunt themselves as the "better than Jesus" crowd...

Quote
I'm not Jewish and don't know anything about universalism.  But, hatred blinds just as love can.
Loving your enemy, but not blindly, will help you overcome self-destructive emotions and help you better battle his wickedness.  So, the quote could be practical for everyone.  No?

Amo 5:15  Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph.

I don't believe hating evil blinds you, and in fact quite the opposite.  It's a matter of self preservation.  All these battered men and women who stay in these destructive relationships should learn to quit loving evil, don't ya think?  Not to mention those who would also subject their children to mistreatment...  Forgiveness is one thing, but becoming a complete suicidal nitwit who is incapable of recognizing evil, without any ability to flee from it, is throwing common sense out the window, and any ability to judge or reason a thing out is NOT what is being asked of one.  Judge not lest ye be judged doesn't mean you have no ability to judge between right and wrong and good and evil.  It just means don't be a hypocrite by judging others while you're doing the same thing or worse, and or prejudging the eternal condition of someones soul.  There is such a thing as the prodigal son.

Quote
Also, does the golden rule only apply to fellow brethren?
   

As it is written, yes.  It doesn't mean though that you are given free reign to go around being a jerk or doing evil to others.  You're still not allowed to lie, cheat, steal, covet, murder etc... So in that sense, it is applying to others.

7
General / Re: Burnt Offerings - Make Mine Rare
« on: February 06, 2007, 05:14:06 AM »

Are you referring to this quote:
Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you

Yes, and I went to great extents explaining why that is misinterpreted and a favorite of universalists.


Quote
I am trying to get you to say that the God of the Torah or OT required the blood sacrifice of animals. 
He said:  And you shall offer a holocaust for a most sweet odour to the Lord, one calf of the herd, one ram and seven lambs of a year old, without blemish.

Holocaust means burnt offering.  This God found the smell of burning carcasses to be sweet.
Slitting the throats of animals and spilling their blood on altars then tossing them on a pyre is cruel, gruesome and wasteful.  Does the scene not seem hellish to you?  Would you take the kids?

Maybe this will help your hangup on burnt sacrifices:

Jer 7:22  "For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Jer 7:23  "But this is what I commanded them, saying, 'Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.'
Jer 7:24  "Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and in the stubbornness of their evil heart, and went backward and not forward.

The point being... the whole elaborate sacrificial rituals that you find so cruel would never of been required if they would of just obeyed his voice when they were delivered out of Egypt.  They didn't.  It got to the point where the sacrifices became meaningless anyway and in the above chapter God basically tells them to eat the meat from them because that is the only good they are going to get out of them.



8
9/11 / Re: Bollyn on CNN - 'most trusted' stats
« on: February 05, 2007, 06:01:12 AM »
Does your God require blood sacrifices?

Numbers 29:2. And you shall offer a holocaust for a most sweet odour to the Lord, one calf of the herd, one ram and seven lambs of a year old, without blemish.

Blood sacrifices were offered for atonement of sin before the final blood sacrifice of Christ, yes.

Quote
Is he a vengeful God?

Numbers 31:1-2. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Revenge first the children of Israel on the Madianites

Yes, he is a vengeful God toward the enemies of His people.

Quote
Do you believe kidnaping, theft and plunder can be holy?

31:9-10. And they took their women, and their children captives, and all their cattle, and all their goods: and all their possessions they plundered: And all their cities, and their villages, and castles, they burned.

I don't know as I would refer to it as "holy" but it was a necessary evil for the survival of Gods people.

Quote
Is Moses a man of God?

31:15. [Moses] Said: Why have you saved the women?

31:17. Therefore kill all that are of the male sex, even of the children: and put to death the women, that have carnally known men.

They were severely reproved for saving the women alive. It is very probable that Moses had commanded them to kill the women, at least this was implied in the general order to avenge Israel of the Midianites; the execution having reference to that crime, their drawing them in to the worship of Peor, it was easy to conclude that the women, who were the principal criminals, must not be spared.
So yes, Moses is a man of God. He commanded the Israelites to do just as God had told him.

Quote
Godliness?

31:18. But the girls, and all the women that are virgins save for yourselves

Num 31:15  And Moses said to them, "Have you spared all the women?
You omitted: 
Num 31:16  "Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD.

The sons of Israel did not fully carry out the the directives of war by Moses by having spared the women so thus the curse of Balaam was going to continue...


Quote
Also from the OT.  Does this act sound blessed?

PSALMS 137:9  How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock.
though it may seem a piece of cruelty, was but a just retaliation; the Babylonians having done the same to the Israelite children, and is foretold elsewhere should be done to theirs, Isa_13:16. Nor is this desired from a spirit of revenge, but for the glory of divine justice, and that such a generation of cruel creatures might be rooted out of the earth;

Quote
Do you believe that the God of the OT is the same God Christ speaks of?  (q 1.)

Yes

Quote
Are you one of the ones the Father gave to Jesus, then? (q 2.)

It is my hope and faith, yes. :)

Quote
If I've quoted dictates of jewish universalism, please reference.

You cherry picked a verse used to portray universalism but that is very misunderstood and out of context.  Judeo Christians do it all the time too.

Quote
Does Jesus' blood wash away your sins? (q 3.)
 

Life is in the blood and blood is a symbol of life.  Does his literal blood drip over me?  No.  It is just a symbol used for life. 

Quote
Does judging not lest you be judged apply to you, if yes to #2? (q 4.)

Yes

Quote
I've kept the four questions simple yes or no but feel free to expound.  Forgive me if I'm sounding accusatory, but you don't seem very much a good representative of Christianity.  I've found that the better you get to know any religious person, the farther short they fall.
 

We all fall short.  Use Christ as "a good representative of Christianity".  I'm just a lowly sinner.

Quote
Consider that it's possible for someone to believe in Christ's teachings like "Turn the other cheek" but that he may wish to avoid making himself a complete hypocrite - in the name of Christ.

Feel free to adhere to any of Christs teachings.  Obviously, it gives you a sense of self righteousness to cherry pick what teachings you want to adhere to over all those "hypocritical Christians" who don't deny Christ...

9
9/11 / Re: Bollyn on CNN - 'most trusted' stats
« on: February 05, 2007, 04:39:22 AM »
Jesus says that it is not given for everyone to hear or to understand. Speaking to his disciples about the Edomite leadership of the Judean nation He said, "Because it is given unto you to understand the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given"-[Matt. 13:1 1 ].
_______________________________________________________

Now this I would pay to learn. What this world needs today is a good Christian school that is willing to connect all the dots. I would quit everything and go to this school.

I would too.. but it ain't gonna happen nowadays.  Jews would infiltrate it with their myths and fables just as they have every Christian seminary or the ACLU would sue the pants off of it...  :(

10
9/11 / Re: Bollyn on CNN - 'most trusted' stats
« on: February 04, 2007, 04:25:45 PM »
I was afraid of that...
Is it then not the same goddamned exclusionary, supremacist lunacy as that of the scribes and pharisees? None but the tribe count for anything at all?

There's a huge difference.  It is not supremacist at all as Gods chosen are humble and meek servants of God.  Jews are their own god.  Nor is it exclusionary in the way you think it is.  It is more like a duty and not something that would puff one up.  It's just a form of Godly government for His creation.

Quote
What if they seeked him out (which would be the comparison on subject)? Run away? Hide? Fall on the sword? Charge?

It depends on what Gods will is at that moment in time.  Like Christ told Peter when he tried to protect him:  Mat 26:53  Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?   But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?


Quote
I can also assure you, that not all have the tendency to look for ONE man with all the answers, not even an 'expert' group'. I don't have the foggiest idea whether any of these guys are pure at hearth, complete stinkers or any degree in between. Either way, I certainly would not follow any of them, tho I appreciate to learn from whatever they have to offer, once filtered through everything else I think I know.

On that I can agree with you ... :)

11
9/11 / Re: Bollyn on CNN - 'most trusted' stats
« on: February 04, 2007, 09:37:17 AM »
Whoops - you just lost me here...

I thought I spoke rather clearly...

Quote
Christ's teachings say: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you"

How can you possibly argue that these descriptions only refer to "his" - that's a stretch and a half.

It's not a stretch at all if you're a Christian and have been around other Christians.  Atheists just fluff you off and call you a stupid lunatic. Christians are Christians worst enemies. I know by experience.  I've been kicked out of most Christian forums.  They'll curse you and call you all kinds of names if you veer from their prescribed jewish mythical doctrine.  Had one guy publicly deliver me up to satan.   ::)  I still pray for them... although I doubt most of them are praying for me.  They're too busy praying for the "whole world" and being "better than Jesus".... 

Quote
If the above refers only to "his", who the hell would want to know?

"His" would want to know. 

Quote
While we are dancing on the proverbial pin, please tell me, do you agree with Chewbacca that the only 'way' is to be a 100%er at all times, even if according to the accounts Jesus himself somehow managed to survive for 30 years until "it is done"? Magic?

As far as Jesus Christ surviving for 30 years:  Joh 7:1  After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. In other words... he avoided them, that is how he survived.. 

No, I don't agree in 100% all the time.  Different people are at different levels of learning and education.  Hell, I'm a late bloomer and was basically an agnostic for the majority of my life. I didn't go around condemning Christians but just knew I didn't understand them and nor did I feel whatever it was they thought I should feel. What I thought I knew for the majority of my life turned out to be all wrong. If  I can't forgive myself for my own stupidity and ignorance I won't have any patience in trying to help others get out of their delusions.  I don't judge others learning curves but that doesn't mean I can't see that some of their thinking is wrong.  I can point it out, but it also doesn't mean that they are that point where they can comprehend it. There are many things that I had learned that were just impossible for me to comprehend until I had gotten over some of my other preconceived brainwashings. The ability to understand that everything doesn't come at once is what I believe to be part of the longsuffering and patience of the saints...  Coming to grips with the fact that none of us are perfect, including onesself, and that not everybody is destined to understand helps in attaining some patience and not judging others too quickly. 

It's not like one day you're lost and the next day you're saved and know everything. Even Christs disciples didn't understand everything he told them.  They were on learning curve just like the rest of us. There's a loooooooong journey and many fall by the wayside.  I've fallen off the path a few times... generally because I started listening to someone who I thought had all the answers instead of checking them out for myself.  We have a tendency to want to find some man we can trust who has all the answers.  It would be so much easier!  Well, that man doesn't exist and why I'm not a follower of any man whether it's Bollyn or Duke or any of the numerous "truthtellers".  I'm not so arrogant as to think that they might have something I can learn from them though.  We all have our specialties. Whether or not they're just Zionist shills will eventually come out in the wash.  Even the filthy Talmud has some truths in it, but it's not where I'm going to spend my time trying to search out some nuggets.  Those who are willing to expose the enemy in some manner I can at least lend my ear until they get too far off the path... and then I find them a total waste of time.  Which is not to say that I don't find a lot of the "truthtellers" a waste of time already.
   

12
9/11 / Re: Bollyn on CNN - 'most trusted' stats
« on: February 04, 2007, 06:31:49 AM »
This is what Benjamin Freedman is talking about.  It is ridiculous to hate Jews but follow their god who commanded Moses:

The jews god is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Todays jews are not the people of the OT.  They are NOT Israelites, Hebrews, of the tribe of Judah or Gods chosen.  But if they repeat the lie enough obviously there are a huge portion of Christians and non-Christians who will continue to believe it and continue to spew such nonsense.  All are willing dupes of the jews...  They've stolen everything else on the planet so what makes you think they have stolen the name of Gods chosen?

Quote
Christ's teachings say: Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you

That you don't follow this or understand its significance proves to me you are pretending to be Christian.

How the hell do you know what a Christian is and what they should be and what they should not do when you don't even believe? You haven't a clue of whom Christ is addressing or what he means in that statement.  He is only addressing those who are his.  Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.  He is speaking to, for and about his brethren. Those dictates ONLY apply to his brethren and how they are to conduct themselves amongst themselves. When he speaks to those who are not his, like the scribes and pharisees, he speaks only in condemning and mocking words.  He is not asking or dictating to those whom are his to be better than he is or under some kind of dictates that are contradictory to the volume of other scriptures.

Joh 17:9  I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

Jesus Christ does not pray for everyone, but only those who the Father gave him.  He is not going tell his followers "and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" if these people are not amongst those who were given him.

A lot of this stems from a common error of mistranslation. There are different words translated as `all`, `every` etc. in both Hebrew and Greek, and they are misused to promote forms of universalism. In the New Testament, the Greek word holos is used as `the whole`, whereas the more frequently used word pas is used to indicate `a part` as being all of either a greater or a lesser part. It is the making of pas to have the same meaning as holos that causes the error. Where translators have so often translated pas as `all`, `every` or `whosoever`, it means `all of that part`, or `every one of that part`, or `whosoever of that part`. The word, `whosoever` is frequently translated from the word pas that is also translated as `all`.

So, `does `all` usually mean `all of everything` or `all of that part being spoken about only`. Does `all the world` mean the people in the entire planet, or just all of those people in that part of the planet being spoken about? There is a weight of Scripture that shows that words such as `all` are strictly confined to `all` of each context only. In simple terms, `all the world` is better put as, `all that world`, thus excluding every other world = kosmos.

The words for `all`, `every`, `whosoever` etc. are often singular, NOT plural. Thus they refer to:
`all` the one [group],
or `the whole` of the class,
or `the entire` of the class.


Jesus says that it is not given for everyone to hear or to understand. Speaking to his disciples about the Edomite leadership of the Judean nation He said, "Because it is given unto you to understand the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given"-[Matt. 13:1 1 ].

Immediately we have just one exception like this, then "every" and "all" cannot include that exception, or the other exceptions. If an exception is made about the Edomites who cannot find repentance, or of those born as tares about which Jesus said, "Leave them alone", then these cannot be part of the "all" being addressed. 

Universalism is the teaching of jewish myths and fables.  Universalists may use what appear to be direct statements, but there are certain words that have been given new meanings and tenses and also a complete misunderstanding of whom is being addressed. Sometimes completely wrong and deceptive meanings have been placed on words and some of these have become accepted modern teachings.

Quote
I'm not Christian, that's why I may judge.

Judge away all you want...  it's totally irrelevant if you haven't a clue about what it is you're judging or just quoting the dictates of jewish universalism.

13
to read the Steinberg blogsite - it very much looks like someone studied iamthewitness.com or Duke..and then decided to make a fake blogsite and call it Danny Steinberg.


I would bet "Danny Steinberg" is a "dumb goyim" trying to expose the tactics, lies, and absurdities of the jews to his fellow "dumb goyim"....  ;) 

14
Mystica is not an "Occultist"...lol...jeez.  Now I am offended... >:(

Ok, maybe we can just put her in the wannabe Occultist category.  Obviously she is stuck in her Hydra syndrome and has a way to go.. ;D


15
Arghh, you Christian-Judeaics could have fooled me... ;D :D ;)

Them thars fightin words buster!
 ;D

Has Proemio been usurped by our resident occultists - "TheFetch and Mystica?!!!

16
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/     

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Judaics Rediscover the Pantheistic, Occult Origins of their Religion

EDITOR'S NOTE: Our "elder brothers in the faith" find their way back to one of the true origins of their faith: Tantric Hinduism.

The rabbis' pride would never allow them to admit it to a Goy, but it's Kundalini which informs Kabbalah and not the other way around as is claimed in the article below.

Tantric Hinduism (through it's Sri Yantra) is also the source of the Judaic six pointed star which has become the symbol of the "Jewish" State and all things Judaic. This symbol communicates a key gnosis to the initiate: that Judaism is an occult religion rooted in sex worship.

Yes, these people who JPII repeatedly told us are "our elder brothers in the faith" are in fact Pantheists who believe in reincarnation, that they can manipulate their god and nature through their sexual activity and many other such anti-Biblical things.

With yoga, meditation and other New Age practices and beliefs as dominant as they are today in the formerly civilized, Christian West, it can be chalked up as yet another contribution of Judaism to our contemporary world: the infiltration and replacement of Christianity with Eastern beliefs and practices which have been a part of the rabbinic tradition for centuries.

For those laboring under the false notion that "Orthodox Jews" are free of the influence of Kabbalah:

"In our century, scholarly researchers have made clear the centrality of Kabbalah to the whole of Jewish religious consciousness." (Barry W. Holtz, Director of Research, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, Back to the Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts, p.26)

"Kabbalistic ideas don't belong only to the chasidic point of view. They are a part of a general Jewish psychology and theology." (Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, premier Judaic scholar and Nasi of the reestablished Sanhedrin)

http://www.newkabbalah.com/stein.html

Kabbalah meets Kundalini

Published: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:36 PM EST

Raema Salmon, Jackie Tepper and Neshama Yoga

By Cindy Mindell

STAMFORD - The Zohar teaches, `If fire does not burn intensely, tap the wood, and it blazes forth. To the same effect, if the light of the soul does not burn brightly, tap the body, so that the light of the soul should blaze forth.`

It is an ancient belief that the body houses a soul, or a divine spark, that can be awakened through certain actions. The Kabbalistic teaching is echoed in Kundalini yoga, considered the `yoga of awareness,` an awareness that G-d is a part of us and we are a part of G-d, say Raema Salmon and Jackie Tepper, instructors of Neshama Yoga, Tepper's brainchild.

Just as Kabbalah guides a Jew to connect with G-d through prayer of the body, mind, and soul, so Kundalini uses meditation, breathing, and physical exercises to unite the divine spark in each of us with the greater divine. Jewish scholars point to `shukkling,` the rhythmic swaying that brings the body into active prayer, as an example of the body-mind-soul connection.

One Saturday morning last October, Salmon and Tepper introduced Neshama Yoga to the world, as part of Temple Beth El of Stamford's Synaplex. Fifty people braved a near Nor'easter to begin their Shabbat with a unique session of Kundalini yoga infused with Jewish spirituality. They came to pray with body, mind, and soul.

Tepper and Salmon created Neshama Yoga n neshama is Hebrew for `soul` -- as another way for Jews to deepen their spirituality and connect with G-d. The combination of breathing, meditation, chanting, and physical exercise offers a much different experience than a traditional prayer service, the instructors say. They will teach a second class at the February 10 TBE Synaplex Shabbat ...

Complete article:

http://www.jewishledger.com/articles/2007/01/16/news/news13.prt

Posters Comment:  Like I've said a hundred times before... Judaism has zilch to do with the Bible.  Jews are not nor never have been Israelites or Hebrews nor is their god the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob....  and Christianity is not a sideshow of Judaism...  Jews are usurpers and thieves of the one true religion just like they are of everything else. 


17

I have no idea how this proves that all of Wakefields research is invalid or a hoax to scam money for lawyers and their clients, but someone sure is out to make it appear that way`¦. And if making money off of research proves there is an ulterior motive - Big Pharma, who is pushing the vaccines, sure as hell has a black eye too. Of course, Big Pharma is promoted by our new and approved god - the state - so of course the masses are going to trust in their god over anybody else`¦

Personally, I just find it to be common sense that dumping multiple shots of who knows what into small babies with undeveloped immune systems could cause damage.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524335,00.html

MMR doctor given legal aid thousands

ANDREW WAKEFIELD, the former surgeon whose campaign linking the MMR vaccine with autism caused a collapse in immunisation rates, was paid more than £400,000 by lawyers trying to prove that the vaccine was unsafe.

The payments, unearthed by The Sunday Times, were part of £3.4m distributed from the legal aid fund to doctors and scientists who had been recruited to support a now failed lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers.

Critics this weekend voiced amazement at the sums, which they said created a clear conflict of interest and were the `financial engine` behind a worldwide alarm over the triple measles, mumps and rubella shot.

`These figures are astonishing,` said Dr Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon.

`This lawsuit was an industry, and an industry peddling what turned out to be a myth.`

According to the figures, released under the Freedom of Information Act, Wakefield was paid £435,643 in fees, plus £3,910 expenses.

Wakefield`s work for the lawyers began two years before he published his now notorious report in The Lancet medical journal in February 1998, proposing a link between the vaccine and autism.

This suggestion, followed by a campaign led by Wakefield, caused immunisation rates to slump from 92% to 78.9%, although they have since partly recovered. In March this year the first British child in 14 years died from measles.

Later The Lancet retracted Wakefield`s claim and apologised after a Sunday Times investigation showed that his research had been backed with £55,000 from lawyers, and that the children in the study used as evidence against the vaccine were also claimants in the lawsuit.

At the time Wakefield denied any conflict of interest and said that the money went to his hospital, not to him personally. No disclosure was made, however, of the vastly greater sums that he was receiving directly from the lawyers.

The bulk of the amount in the new figures, released by the Legal Services Commission (LSC), covers an eight to 10-year period. All payments had to be approved by the courts.

Those who received money include numerous Wakefield associates, business partners and employees who had acted as experts in the case.

Five of his former colleagues at the Royal Free hospital, north London, under whose aegis The Lancet paper was written, received a total of £183,000 in fees, according to the LSC.

Wakefield now runs a business in Austin, Texas, two of whose employees are listed as receiving a total of £112,000 in fees, while a Florida physician, who appointed the former surgeon as his `director of research`, was paid £21,600, the figures show.

All have appeared in media reports as apparently confirming Wakefield`s claims.

It is understood that the payments `” for writing reports, attending meetings and in some cases carrying out research `” were made at hourly rates varying between £120 and £200, or £1,000 a day.

`There was a huge conflict of interest,` said Dr John March, an animal vaccine specialist who was among those recruited. `It bothered me quite a lot because I thought, well, if I`m getting paid for doing this, then surely it`s in my interest to keep it going as long as possible.`

March, who the LSC allowed almost £90,000 to research an aspect of Wakefield`s theories, broke ranks this weekend to denounce both the science of the attack and the amount that the case had cost in lawyers` and experts` fees.

`The ironic thing is they were always going on about how, you know, how we`ve hardly got any money compared with the other side, who are funded by large pharmaceutical companies. And I`m thinking, judging by the amounts of money you`re paying out, the other side must be living like millionaires,` he said.

Also among those named as being paid from the legal aid fund was a referee for one of Wakefield`s papers, who was allowed £40,000. A private GP who runs a single vaccines clinic received £6,000, the LSC says.

Following The Sunday Times investigation, immunisation rates have risen and the General Medical Council launched an inquiry. This is due to culminate in a three-month hearing next summer, where Wakefield faces charges `” which he denies `” of dishonesty over his research.

The LSC is also unlikely to escape criticism. Three years ago the commission, which administers a £2 billion budget to give poor people access to justice, acknowledged that the attempt to make a case against MMR with taxpayers` money was `not effective or appropriate`.

The total cost for the attack on the vaccine was £14,053,856, plus Vat.

Following media campaigning, lawyers eventually registered 1,600 claimants in the lawsuit. None received any money.

This weekend Earl Howe, a Conservative party health spokesman, called for a parliamentary inquiry. `It`s astonishing,` he said. `This is crying out for select committee scrutiny.`

Wakefield said in a statement that he had worked on the lawsuit for nine years, charged at a recommended rate, and gave money to charity.

`This work involved nights, weekends and much of my holidays, such that I saw little of my family during this time,` he said. `I believed and still believe in the just cause of the matter under investigation.`

18
Philosophy & Religion / Re: Zionist or Jew (that is the question)
« on: January 01, 2007, 07:20:31 AM »
I don't see a difference. It's what I meant with "... whereby the fish you [God] love have an opportunity to measure themselves against that contrast, and hopefully grow in the process to your [God] expectations - or not."

An opportunity and a test => granting free will => love.

Ok, I see what you mean. 


Quote
We have, despite assurances that our  efforts don't count in the end :D

Our efforts will count in some manner despite the evil ones assurances to the contrary. :D As the Psalmist says - evil never rests - and in Luke it states that the wicked ones are more shrewd or prudent than the children of God.  So you could say we are at an disadvantage and go through these trials or tests with one arm tied behind our back.  Why any small victory is so much the sweeter or better though I would assume. ;)

The evil ones know this present life is as good as it gets and why they are so self absorbed and must indulge in the all the lusts of the world.  Reminds me of the movie "As good as it gets" starring Jack Nicholson.  If you saw the movie you see that what they get ain't much.... lol

19
General / Re: Happy New Year
« on: January 01, 2007, 06:02:29 AM »


20
Philosophy & Religion / Re: Zionist or Jew (that is the question)
« on: January 01, 2007, 05:52:26 AM »
Quote
I did. From a different perspective than religion, but it 'works' either way.

Religion is another one of those tricky words.  The word itself just means a set of beliefs but unfortunately it is connected with organized religion of which one is not necessarily connected with. 

Quote
So, for common ground, lets assume the certainty of God.

God creates all of this for reasons basically only known to him, but some reason(s) must surely exist. That reason or reasons must be more than simply watching a bunch of Goldfish on a bowl, which would be the case with happy little humans having happy little lives until they just keel over and die. To get anything interesting going you need to introduce a contrast, a challenge beyond mere surviving a sabertooth tiger or an earthquake. Enter evil, or better "necessary evil", whereby the fish you love have an opportunity to measure themselves against that contrast, and hopefully grow in the process to your expectations - or not.

I see it as a `necessary evil` too.  In a little different sense though.  God is love but he created man with a choice to love Him or not.  He could of created a bunch of automatons or robots that automatically love and serve Him but that pretty much defeats the purpose of what love is about.  If it isn`t a conscience decision and desire then I would have a hard time labeling it love.  We were created `in His image` meaning with a capability of being able to love and a sincere desire to be loved in return. 

Quote
IT (evil, Satan, contrast, whatever) is absolutely necessary to keep anything going, except in perfectly boring circles. The absence of a credible IT is why Hippie Communes don't survive for any significant length of time, except perhaps through drugs, which are of course IT by proxy.

That's why we will never be able to get rid of IT - neither God nor some galactic soup can allow that.

I think `IT (evil, Satan, contrast, whatever)` does eventually vanish or is destroyed at the end of this earth age. The much repeated phrase of John 3:16 - `for God so love the world He gave His only begotten son`  doesn`t mean He loves the present world of where evil exists for God can`t love evil.  He loved his original creation of a perfect world order before iniquity was found.  I think there was an earth age before this present one where Lucifer was probably head honcho and given that position by God.  Could be when Atlantis did exist in some form.  Anyway, it was the ultimate of power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Satan was no longer happy with ruling the world but wanted to be God.  That`s when Satan fell from power and God destroyed the first earth age.  That occurrence was what we probably see as the ice age.   

We`re presently in the second earth age.  The third earth age after the 1000 year millennium, where Jesus Christ rules and then turns over his rule to the Father, will be the perfected one where evil is no longer present.  At least that`s what I can tell from what my limited brain can decipher. ;)


Quote
But we could do a better job of keeping IT in its place...

Well, that is our mission, if we choose to accept it`¦  :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28