Anti-Semitic violence on the Rise

Hunter · 28-05-2008, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Bennett

Imperium wrote: "Whether you call that sinistor or not it is surely unacceptable that small immigrant community should wield such immense influence totally beyond their proportionate size upon a host population? Does this not reinforce the popular negative perception of the archetypal Jew?"

REPLY: It depends whether that 'disproportionate influence' is for good or not. Sure, there have been evil and greedy Jews. But why not look, more positively, at - for example - the scientific, engineering, technical and medical achievements of Jews over history, especially recent history.

Then examine the fantastic success they have made out of being allocated a tiny proportion of Palestine in 1947. Without oil riches to help them, they have created a stable, prosperous democracy - reclaiming the desert and making it fertile - whilst surrounded by bitter enemies who seek nothing less than their total elimanation from Palestine, and have frequently attacked them.

After pondering these matters, we might rather attribute Jewish successes to: their capacity for hard work, their genetic intelligence, the closeness and mutual support within their community, and so on.

No wonder the Arabs/Palestinians are so jealous.

The Arabs weren't forced to leave Israel in 1948; they did so voluntarily and then tried to destroy the infant nation at birth, receiving a bloody nose in the process from the wholly outnumbered Jews. Since then the Arab states have, as a matter of strict policy, never accorded even *one* Palestinian refugee status - meaning that Palestinians find it difficult to settle in any oher Arab nation

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting reply TB. Being of the belief that the majority of the present Government are traitors and have brought this country close to ruin, I would suggest that the 'disproportionate influence' is most definately not for the benefit of Britain. One only has to look at the overwhelming influence members of the Jewish community have on the Labour Party to answer this.

There are many members of the Jewish community who have contributed greatly to this country, there is no argument there. Many of them are decent hard working people whom I would have no problem calling friend or neighbour. This does not detract from the destruction imposed on us by a Party that is wholly in the grip of Jewish backers and members. The favourite as replacement for Brown is Jewish, and is quite happy to use it to his advantage when it suits him. I'm sure I don't have to go through a list of which members of the front bench are Jewish, but it shows how powerful they are when they can force the 'sacking' of a member of the House of Lords for mentioning the financial grip the Jewish community has on her Party.

Your recollection of the founding of the State of Israel seems somewhat flawed, at least according to accepted history. I seem to recall the murder of a number of British soldiers by Jewish terrorists, many of whom are now high ranking politicians, yet are still regarded as terrorists.

Amnesty International regularly condemns Israel for the murders and mistreatment of non-Israeli people, and for the treatment of civilians in what is still 'occupied territory'. Something which is against International Law

The contempt with which Israel treats the International Community will backfire on them one day. It is only the support they receive from the USA and Britain that has allowed them to survive so long.

Meanwhile, back in Britain, there are an increasing number of Jewish people who are beginning to speak out against the actions of Israel and have openly stated that the Board of Deputies do NOT represent them. It is for this reason that I believe it unfair that ALL members of the Jewish Community are tarred with the same brush. But this does not detract from my point that Jewish people do exercise an unrepresentative amount of influence on the workings of this country - to our detriment.

BonnieDundee · 29-05-2008, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

Parts of The Bible CONTAINS Christian teaching, much does not, but the essence of Christianity is in what I was brought up to call not the New Testament but rather the New Covenant.

To get a hold on the Christian message in the Bible probably the best place to look is Matthew 5.

That being said, The Bible is a book that was compiled by a group of guys who picked what they wanted to support the Theocracy that was at the heart of the Roman Empire and that at the time brought the Roman Catholic Church into being and created the first pope.

Describing the Roman Catholic Church as being Christian sent my old man into a hissy-fit, he did say that no doubt there were many “saved” Christian people caught up in the RC but that was not the same thing as the RC being Christian, and he was absolutely right in that.

What is and is Xtianity could take a lifetime to decide. It simply seems you allow Xtianity to cherry-pick and Islam to not.

Quote:

Not if his brother was dead. And even then look at "The woman taken in adultery" and what he said at the end about not condemning her.

So the Jesus figure in the official NT is rather schizo it seems.

Quote:

I agree, though he did not attack any people, he attacked the conducting of business.

There is evidence that Temples (note the plural) had become places used for commerce and so detracted from their intended sanctity so it would make sense for someone trying to rid Judaism of what amounted to it having become “lawyer bound”.

Jesus over turned tables and I believe struck someone. I have been told by Xtians that this means Xtians don't have to turn the other cheek, so some at least take it as definite violence.

Quote:

That’s a very important plus point as it enables the message of Christ to transcend time.

It’s also why the rigidity within Islam can not transcend time since Islam can never change because The Koran can never change and therein lies its irrelevance and indeed incompatibility with our world today. WE are required to “wind back” to match the dictates of The Koran.

Isalm can do just what Xtianity has done. It can certainly move on.

Quote:

Then can we take up-to-date Islamic teaching.

There can BE no such thing as “up to date Islamic teaching” if it strays by as much as one iota from The Koran and the reported acts and sayings of Mohammed.

Well the sayings date from centuries later from the Koran in the first place, so that tends to rule that out. Suffi Islam dates from later and is very different so I simply don't buy that.

Quote:

There is not and can be no “up to date Islamic teaching”.

Suffi Islam, it says it all.

Quote:

“Up to date” is anathema in Islam, other than the world of today being made to comply with the laws and ideology of what was invented 1300 years ago.

And the same goes for many a protesetant sect from Luther onwards.

Quote:

If there is any change to be made it’s US who must change, Islam can not and more to the point to a Muslim MUST not. It is already perfect in every way as it was supposedly dictated to Mohamed from “Allah” and as “Allah” is always right why should the passage of a few years make one iota of difference to what was right to begin with?

Again Suffi islam seems to offer empirical proof that that is incorrect.

Quote:

To argue otherwise is actually to blaspheme, and I’m sure that you can guess what the penalty for Blaspheming is in Islam.

Not really, it is all the same as Xtianity. Some take the bible as the direct word of God others admit it is not always literal.

Quote:

A good and interesting point about The Suffi though.

Both the Sunni and Shi’ete observant schools of Islam, and especially the Wahhabis, maintain that Suffism is not truly Islamic, as the concentration is not on the absolute sanctity and precision of every written verse of the Koran, but more on how it relates to the world as a whole.

Just a shame that all of those caught up in Islam don’t follow Suffism.

Some Sunnis don't accept Shias and vice versa in the same way as that idiot Paisley called the antichrist. We just need to move forward from that old fashioned rubbish.

BonnieDundee · 29-05-2008, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by For_England

Most protestant church officially at least still teach the pope as the antichrist.

They're even worse. I'm not too xtian but I prefer the Catholic churchs ie Roman, Anglican, Orthodox etc over the silly protestant sects.

BonnieDundee · 29-05-2008, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

Care to enlarge? As I see it The Crusades were absolutely NOT Christian, they ran absolutely counter to true Christian teaching, though they were prosecuted by people who claimed Christianity as their justification and many of whom may have in many respects have been True Christians but that’s another matter.

You have a very selective view of what is true Xtianity. Xtianity is in truth largely inconsistent and incoherent but it has a definite violent edge, particularly in the doctrine of hellfire form infidels.

Quote:

Even the most devout and observant Christian can only aspire to the true guidance of their Christ. They certainly blew it in the case of the Crusades though!

The whole Xtian world supported it so I find it hard to see that it wasn't Xtian. You have too closed a view of what Xtianity is. It is more than just scriptures, which in Xtianity is pretty inconsistent, it is as much tradition and key thinkers. Alot of established Xtian doctrine even that used by Luther or Calvin comes from Church fathers lie Augustine and not just straight from scripture.

Quote:

In fact the position that the Pope took then shows just how far from Christianity the RC church was and is. His actions were all about retention of political relationships with the various European states and with maintaining the poser of the organisation of which he was CEO.

The catholic church is about as true Xtian as it gets. Xtianity doesn't just mean the bible, it means 2000 or more years of tradition and the church most represents that. Certainly more than any fanatical protestant sects.

The Bear · 29-05-2008, 06:51 AM

I guess it comes down to the essential difference between a true Christian, and a person who is a member of a church or organisation that purports to be Christian, yet actually is not though its members do try to adopt many Christian principles.

That is one reason that the true Christian will often refer to Christianity as it is generally understood as “Paulianity”.

I still thank God that I’m an now a born again atheist!

BonnieDundee · 29-05-2008, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

I guess it comes down to the essential difference between a true Christian, and a person who is a member of a church or organisation that purports to be Christian, yet actually is not though its members do try to adopt many Christian principles.

That is one reason that the true Christian will often refer to Christianity as it is generally understood as “Paulianity”.

I still thank God that I’m an now a born again atheist!

I simply find it hard to define what a true Xtian is.

The Bear · 29-05-2008, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

I simply find it hard to define what a true Xtian is.

In my opinion a TRUE Christian is a person who follows the teaching and actions not of any church but the written teaching and actions attributed to Jesus.

In my opinion the closest to true Christianity is based on the Anabaptist movement and its later forms especially The Brethren, in other words VERY “Low Church”.

I do NOT see the Roman Catholic church as being Christian if for no other reason than it having intermediaries between God and Man, a thing that is anathema in Christianity.

I also find the corruption of The Ten Commandments appalling, there is NO justification for it as the Ten Commandments are there in black and white in every Torah there ever was, is, or will be.

Can I even see myself “regaining my faith”?

No way. I see the whole thing, be it Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or whatever god based belief thing utterly ridiculous, and were in not for the evil that results it would be hilarious to watch grown people do what they do in their worship of their imagined “god”.

BonnieDundee · 29-05-2008, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

In my opinion a TRUE Christian is a person who follows the teaching and actions not of any church but the written teaching and actions attributed to Jesus.

In my opinion the closest to true Christianity is based on the Anabaptist movement and its later forms especially The Brethren, in other words VERY “Low Church”.

I do NOT see the Roman Catholic church as being Christian if for no other reason than it having intermediaries between God and Man, a thing that is anathema in Christianity.

I also find the corruption of The Ten Commandments appalling, there is NO justification for it as the Ten Commandments are there in black and white in every Torah there ever was, is, or will be.

Can I even see myself “regaining my faith”?

No way. I see the whole thing, be it Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or whatever god based belief thing utterly ridiculous, and were in not for the evil that results it would be hilarious to watch grown people do what they do in their worship of their imagined “god”.

I think you have an extremely selective view of what the words and teachings of Christ were or mean. They are both very peaceful and loving and very violent and negative. And that is without examining the problems with the selection of the cannon.

I much prefer the Catholic churchs like the Roman and Anglicans to the fanatical protestant sects.

Imperium · 29-05-2008, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

I guess it comes down to the essential difference between a true Christian, and a person who is a member of a church or organisation that purports to be Christian, yet actually is not though its members do try to adopt many Christian principles.

That is one reason that the true Christian will often refer to Christianity as it is generally understood as “Paulianity”.

I still thank God that I’m an now a born again atheist!

Yes of course you are.

BonnieDundee · 29-05-2008, 11:33 AM

Never Stop Posting.

29-05-2008, 06:51 AM	#75 (permalink)
The Bear Uber Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: East Anglia Posts: 2,133	I guess it comes down to the essential difference between a true Christian, and a person who is a member of a church or organisation that purports to be Christian, yet actually is not though its members do try to adopt many Christian principles. That is one reason that the true Christian will often refer to Christianity as it is generally understood as “Paulianity”. I still thank God that I’m an now a born again atheist! __________________ I am an old man. I have eaten much salt.

29-05-2008, 11:33 AM	#80 (permalink)
BonnieDundee Uber Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Between Mallaig and Cornwall. Posts: 2,362	Never Stop Posting. __________________ "It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state." -Bruce Schneier How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and pss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.* Edward Abbey Leopold Kohr.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode