justified by good works?

[randy]

This is just my take on an apparently old debate on justification. In
the beginning Adam was given access to the tree of knowledge of good
and evil. In partaking of the fruit of that tree Adam assumed control
over his own life, in the likness of God, and usurped God's place as
sovereign ruler over the will of man. Man yet retained the ability to
do good and to do evil, but in usurping God's place as Lord man became
a sinner, and became unable, through good works to obtain immortality.
The good works would always be spoiled by the evil works, and even the
good works would not be good enough to obtain God's eternal pleasure.
At best it could only reach out towards God or do things that please
God.

The Law portrayed the good of man as Israel reached out to God and did
what pleased God. But these good works could not obtain immortality,
because mankind had displaced God as Lord over their lives. Even those
who lived under the Law remained at least partly guilty of directing
their own lives, as opposed to surrending their lives completely to
the will of God.

God's plan was that Christ's spirit be exported from heaven into the
lives of those who would seek God and please him. The idea was to give
those who would do good what was lacking in their effort to become
immortal. What enables men to obtain immortality then is Christ's
spirit, and not simply the desire to do good. When men complement
their good works with Christ's spirit then they are able to obtain
immortality.

When we talk about justification by good works then we're talking
about a relationship between man's desire to do good and Christ's
spirit, working together in participation to produce immortal works.
It is not in the production of temporal works alone that justifies,
but rather, the use of temporal works in combination with Christ's
spirit that produces eternal works. It is not the eternal works that
justify alone, because that would imply that Christ alone is
justified. Rather, it is Christ's eternal works working in combination
with mortal man's temporal ability to do good that justifies man.

Just my thoughts on the subject...
randy

[Rob Strom]

On Sep 18, 12:50 am, randy <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
> This is just my take on an apparently old debate on justification. In
> the beginning Adam was given access to the tree of knowledge of good
> and evil. In partaking of the fruit of that tree Adam assumed control
> over his own life, in the likness of God, and usurped God's place as
> sovereign ruler over the will of man.

That's a misreading of the story.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil represented ... the knowledge
of good and evil! It didn't represent free will, and in fact,
God encouraged free will.

> Man yet retained the ability to
> do good and to do evil, but in usurping God's place as Lord man became
> a sinner, and became unable, through good works to obtain immortality.

The story doesn't say a thing about immortality, and in fact,
immortality is irrelevant.

>
> The good works would always be spoiled by the evil works, and even the
> good works would not be good enough to obtain God's eternal pleasure.
> At best it could only reach out towards God or do things that please
> God.

No, this sounds like the same Pauline stuff you always teach,
which is not at all taught in the Bible.

...

> When we talk about justification by good works then we're talking
> about a relationship between man's desire to do good and Christ's
> spirit, working together in participation to produce immortal works.

There are no such things as immortal works.

--
Rob Strom

[randy]

Rob Strom
randy

> > This is just my take on an apparently old debate on justification. In
> > the beginning Adam was given access to the tree of knowledge of good
> > and evil. In partaking of the fruit of that tree Adam assumed control
> > over his own life, in the likness of God, and usurped God's place as
> > sovereign ruler over the will of man.

> That's a misreading of the story.
> The tree of knowledge of good and evil represented ... the knowledge
> of good and evil!   It didn't represent free will, and in fact,
> God encouraged free will.

Well, we disagree on that. In the story I see that God did not want
Adam and Eve to exercise their free will to eat of the forbidden
fruit. In so doing they exercised their will to oppose God's will,
thus displacing God's place as sovereign lord over man.

> > Man yet retained the ability to
> > do good and to do evil, but in usurping God's place as Lord man became
> > a sinner, and became unable, through good works to obtain immortality.

> The story doesn't say a thing about immortality, and in fact,
> immortality is irrelevant.

We disagree on this as well. I believe in creating man, God made him
in His own eternal image. As God is eternal, so man was made to be
eternal. I believe that the tree of life in the midst of the garden
does represent immortality, or eternal life. Thus, the whole story has
to do with God's ultimate intention to give mankind eternal life,
which is obviously how Jesus interpreted it.

> > The good works would always be spoiled by the evil works, and even the
> > good works would not be good enough to obtain God's eternal pleasure.
> > At best it could only reach out towards God or do things that please
> > God.

> No, this sounds like the same Pauline stuff you always teach,
> which is not at all taught in the Bible.

I'm teaching that righteousness is an admixture between God's eternal
virtues and free human choice. We can truly do good, whether we live
in God's spirit or not. God enabled mankind to do good -- even after
the Fall. But God's wish, I believe, is that man use his free volition
to act in constant concert with God's spirit. The combination of free
human will and God's spirit is what contributes to good works that
last forever. It is a good formula, I believe, and it is also what I
think Paul taught.

> There are no such things as immortal works.

The New Testament talks about good works that follow you in death. I
would read it for yourself, Rob.
randy

[Rob Strom]

On Sep 20, 3:32 am, randy <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
> Rob Strom
> randy
>
> > > This is just my take on an apparently old debate on justification. In
> > > the beginning Adam was given access to the tree of knowledge of good
> > > and evil. In partaking of the fruit of that tree Adam assumed control
> > > over his own life, in the likness of God, and usurped God's place as
> > > sovereign ruler over the will of man.
> > That's a misreading of the story.
> > The tree of knowledge of good and evil represented ... the knowledge
> > of good and evil!   It didn't represent free will, and in fact,
> > God encouraged free will.
>
> Well, we disagree on that. In the story I see that God did not want
> Adam and Eve to exercise their free will to eat of the forbidden
> fruit. In so doing they exercised their will to oppose God's will,
> thus displacing God's place as sovereign lord over man.

It's a just-so story explaining why man is both aware of
good and evil, but subject to commiting sin.

>
> > > Man yet retained the ability to
> > > do good and to do evil, but in usurping God's place as Lord man became
> > > a sinner, and became unable, through good works to obtain immortality.
> > The story doesn't say a thing about immortality, and in fact,
> > immortality is irrelevant.
>
> We disagree on this as well. I believe in creating man, God made him
> in His own eternal image. As God is eternal, so man was made to be
> eternal. I believe that the tree of life in the midst of the garden
> does represent immortality, or eternal life. Thus, the whole story has
> to do with God's ultimate intention to give mankind eternal life,
> which is obviously how Jesus interpreted it.

If that's how Jesus interpreted it, he was mistaken.

If you view the tree of life as a symbol of immortality, then
you will see that God explicitly *didn't* want man to be immortal.

Here are the words of Genesis 3:
"God said, 'Man has now become like one of us in knowing good and
evil. Now he must be prevented from putting forth his hand and also
taking from the Tree of Life. He [can] eat it and live forever!'
God banished [man] from the Garden of Eden, to work the ground from
which he was taken.
He drove away the man, and stationed the cherubim at the east of Eden,
along with the revolving sword blade, to guard the path of the Tree of
Life"

So God explicitly said that having become more godlike in
knowing good and evil, it was essential for him *not* to
become immortal too, so He took two explicit steps
to prevent this from happening: (1) driving man away
from the Garden, (2) stationing a guard with a sword
to block the path to the Tree of Life.

It doesn't sound like God wanted man to be immortal from this;
the words imply the very opposite. See that phrase: "he must
be *prevented*" -- that means stopped.

...

>
> I'm teaching that righteousness is an admixture between God's eternal
> virtues and free human choice. We can truly do good, whether we live
> in God's spirit or not. God enabled mankind to do good -- even after
> the Fall. But God's wish, I believe, is that man use his free volition
> to act in constant concert with God's spirit. The combination of free
> human will and God's spirit is what contributes to good works that
> last forever. It is a good formula, I believe, and it is also what I
> think Paul taught.

I don't understand this, and I don't rely on Paul in any case.

>
> > There are no such things as immortal works.
>
> The New Testament talks about good works that follow you in death. I
> would read it for yourself, Rob.

I did a search for the combinations "works-follow", "follow-death",
and "works-death", and they all came up empty, so no,
the New Testament does not have any such language.

--
Rob Strom

[randy]

Rob Strom
randy

> > Well, we disagree on that. In the story I see that God did not want
> > Adam and Eve to exercise their free will to eat of the forbidden
> > fruit. In so doing they exercised their will to oppose God's will,
> > thus displacing God's place as sovereign lord over man.

> It's a just-so story explaining why man is both aware of
> good and evil, but subject to commiting sin.

That's only one way to look at it. I see it through the lens of NT
teaching, that the purpose of redemption is to bring our lives back
into conformity with God's spirit. The proper way to ensure this is by
modelling ourselves after Jesus, who was the *only* perfect example of
human righteousness on earth.

And I've written this in part to show that I find nothing essentially
wrong with free human will nor with inherent human goodness. It is
just that redemption is all about obtaining eternal life -- not just
exercising free will to do good.

> If you view the tree of life as a symbol of immortality, then
> you will see that God explicitly *didn't* want man to be immortal.

> Here are the words of Genesis 3:
> "God said, 'Man has now become like one of us in knowing good and
> evil. Now he must be prevented from putting forth his hand and also
> taking from the Tree of Life. He [can] eat it and live forever!'
> God banished [man] from the Garden of Eden, to work the ground from
> which he was taken.
> He drove away the man, and stationed the cherubim at the east of Eden,
> along with the revolving sword blade, to guard the path of the Tree of
> Life"

> So God explicitly said that having become more godlike in
> knowing good and evil, it was essential for him *not* to
> become immortal too, so He took two explicit steps
> to prevent this from happening: (1) driving man away
> from the Garden, (2) stationing a guard with a sword
> to block the path to the Tree of Life.

Yes, but there are two ways to look at this. Either God decided to
take away the promise of the "tree of life" forever, in that man had
become "like God." Or, God teased man with the hope there would be a
way to get back to the tree of life, by someone legally dealing with
this prohibition.

I accept the latter. Christian redemption is nothing but a big
explanation as to how God legally deals with the problem of our
becoming "God-like." Redemption is all about identification,
spiritually, with Jesus, so that in somehow spiritually participating
in his death we no longer have a curse upon our natural bodies. We
have ceased to be "God-like" in a legal sense. We *died.*

But in participating in Jesus' spiritual life we also identify with
his resurrection. That means that in dying legally we also rise
legally to go on participating in all the righteousness that comes to
us by way of his spirit.

Keep in mind I'm not talking about some hocus pocus spirituality in
which we transmigrate by our souls into the nether regions of Christ's
spirit. Rather, Jesus legally obtained for man the rights to retain a
spirituality that belongs to God. So God's Spirit comes to us by
virtue of His omnipresence, and settles upon us legally. Our only
obligation, according to our free will, is to choose participation.
The legal right to retain this spirituality for all eternity belongs
to Jesus. He can give it by his *own* legal rights to retain it.

> > The New Testament talks about good works that follow you in death. I
> > would read it for yourself, Rob.

> I did a search for the combinations "works-follow", "follow-death",
> and "works-death", and they all came up empty, so no,
> the New Testament does not have any such language.

Re 14:13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying, "Write this: Blessed
are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth." "Blessed indeed," says
the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds
follow them!"
(RSV)

Sometimes the search pursues only combinations of words within a
single verse. Since there are many synonyms for death, and since the
idea of death may actually be included in a broader context, you
cannot conclude there are no passages without the *idea* of works
following in death.

The NT Scriptures are all predicated on the idea of human eternity.
How we achieve eternal life *with God* is the "nut we have to crack."
Christians believe divine spirituality is evident in Jesus' life and
attainable only by receiving the testimony of his flawless
righteousness, choosing to emulate his life and spirituality.

But good works must be a combination of human will and *Jesus'
spirituality.* That is why Protestants say that justification is by
"faith alone." Apart from Jesus' spirituality, we are relying only on
"the natural man," whose good works fall far short of retaining divine
spirituality. Retaining that spirituality is the essential matter for
obtaining eternal life. Eternal life is obtainable only when we
combine our works with *Jesus' spirituality,* because it is only his
spirituality that lasts forever. Jesus' death served to show, I
believe, that *everything* belonging to the natural man is worthy of
death. Only Jesus' spirituality can now obtain that which lasts
forever.
randy

[Rob Strom]

On Sep 21, 1:15 pm, randy <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
> Rob Strom
> randy
>
> > > Well, we disagree on that. In the story I see that God did not want
> > > Adam and Eve to exercise their free will to eat of the forbidden
> > > fruit. In so doing they exercised their will to oppose God's will,
> > > thus displacing God's place as sovereign lord over man.
> > It's a just-so story explaining why man is both aware of
> > good and evil, but subject to commiting sin.
>
> That's only one way to look at it. I see it through the lens of NT
> teaching, that the purpose of redemption is to bring our lives back
> into conformity with God's spirit. The proper way to ensure this is by
> modelling ourselves after Jesus, who was the *only* perfect example of
> human righteousness on earth.

Even if that were true, modelling oneself on Jesus means doing
what he allegedly did (studying and obeying the law perfectly), not
just
"believing in him".


> ...

> > "God said, 'Man has now become like one of us in knowing good and
> > evil. Now he must be prevented from putting forth his hand and also
> > taking from the Tree of Life. He [can] eat it and live forever!'
> > God banished [man] from the Garden of Eden, to work the ground from
> > which he was taken.
> > He drove away the man, and stationed the cherubim at the east of Eden,
> > along with the revolving sword blade, to guard the path of the Tree of
> > Life"
> > So God explicitly said that having become more godlike in
> > knowing good and evil, it was essential for him *not* to
> > become immortal too, so He took two explicit steps
> > to prevent this from happening: (1) driving man away
> > from the Garden, (2) stationing a guard with a sword
> > to block the path to the Tree of Life.
>
> Yes, but there are two ways to look at this. Either God decided to
> take away the promise of the "tree of life" forever, in that man had
> become "like God." Or, God teased man with the hope there would be a
> way to get back to the tree of life, by someone legally dealing with
> this prohibition.

Unless you are already disposed to believe something else,
it is a gross perversion of a text that says "Now [man] must
be prevented from ... taking from the Tree of Life,
[so He drove man away and put up a guard on the Tree]" to say
that it means "God teased man with the hope there would
be a way to get back to the Tree".

>
> I accept the latter. Christian redemption is nothing but a big
> explanation as to how God legally deals with the problem of our
> becoming "God-like." Redemption is all about identification,
> spiritually, with Jesus, so that in somehow spiritually participating
> in his death we no longer have a curse upon our natural bodies. We
> have ceased to be "God-like" in a legal sense. We *died.*

This is all Humpty-Dumpty make words mean whatever you want.
A certain form of living is called "spiritually dying".

>
> But in participating in Jesus' spiritual life we also identify with
> his resurrection. That means that in dying legally we also rise
> legally to go on participating in all the righteousness that comes to
> us by way of his spirit.

And being unrighteous but worshipping Jesus gets called
"participating in the righteousness" even when it's not.

>
> Keep in mind I'm not talking about some hocus pocus spirituality in
> which we transmigrate by our souls into the nether regions of Christ's
> spirit. Rather, Jesus legally obtained for man the rights to retain a
> spirituality that belongs to God.

And this sentence is total nonsense.

...

>
> Re 14:13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying, "Write this: Blessed
> are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth." "Blessed indeed," says
> the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds
> follow them!"
> (RSV)
>
> Sometimes the search pursues only combinations of words within a
> single verse. Since there are many synonyms for death, and since the
> idea of death may actually be included in a broader context, you
> cannot conclude there are no passages without the *idea* of works
> following in death.

Yes, but what else could I do, since you didn't start by quoting this
verse?

The verse actually implies that people *don't* live forever.
The words seem to say that when you die, you *stop* doing
deeds, and go to a state of rest, which contradicts your
theory that you live forever. The dead "rest from their labor",
and they are remembered by the record of their past deeds,
which follow them. They don't do any new deeds after death.

That is the generally accepted modern view of dying,
in which people cease to do new deeds once they are dead,
and have only their memory/record of old deeds after death.

--
Rob Strom

[randy]

Rob Strom
randy

> > That's only one way to look at it. I see it through the lens of NT
> > teaching, that the purpose of redemption is to bring our lives back
> > into conformity with God's spirit. The proper way to ensure this is by
> > modelling ourselves after Jesus, who was the *only* perfect example of
> > human righteousness on earth.

> Even if that were true, modelling oneself on Jesus means doing
> what he allegedly did (studying and obeying the law perfectly), not
> just "believing in him".

There really is no such thing as "just believing in him." To believe
he was the Christ is to understand that we are to follow after him
spiritually. And this is done by actually receiving the spirit that
possesses the history of his own flawless record of righteousness.
When we possess this spirit and live according to this spirit, we
don't, of course, demonstrate flawless obedience. What we do, however,
is choose to participate in a spirituality that *by its own inherent
qualities* has proven to be capable of eternal righteousness.

> > Yes, but there are two ways to look at this. Either God decided to
> > take away the promise of the "tree of life" forever, in that man had
> > become "like God." Or, God teased man with the hope there would be a
> > way to get back to the tree of life, by someone legally dealing with
> > this prohibition.

> Unless you are already disposed to believe something else,
> it is a gross perversion of a text that says "Now [man] must
> be prevented from ... taking from the Tree of Life,
> [so He drove man away and put up a guard on the Tree]" to say
> that it means "God teased man with the hope there would
> be a way to get back to the Tree".

No, the passage does not prevent what followed. While it has been in
fact true that mankind had been prohibitted from ever receiving
eternal life *in his then-current form of righteousness,* it is not
true that he could not obtain legal rights to an eternal spirituality,
based upon a future form of righteousness.

> > I accept the latter. Christian redemption is nothing but a big
> > explanation as to how God legally deals with the problem of our
> > becoming "God-like." Redemption is all about identification,
> > spiritually, with Jesus, so that in somehow spiritually participating
> > in his death we no longer have a curse upon our natural bodies. We
> > have ceased to be "God-like" in a legal sense. We *died.*

> This is all Humpty-Dumpty make words mean whatever you want.
> A certain form of living is called "spiritually dying".

No, it is called "identification." We identify with Christ by assuming
his spirituality and by thus obtaining the legal rights that he
obtained when he experienced what he did. What Jesus experienced in
his earthly existence, in his death, and in his resurrection, remain
inherent qualities within the spirituality that he has now given to
men.

We have not obtained these legal benefits on our own, because they
belong to Christ's spirituality -- it is not our own spirituality.
However, in receiving this spirituality as the dominant element in our
works we obtain the inherent qualities of this spirituality legally,
because those qualities are resident in the spirituality we assume.

We in a very real sense "died with Christ on the cross" because the
spirituality that was with Christ on the cross was his own and now
resides within us. We possess the same capacity to declare ourselves
as having paid the penalty for human sin. We are thus free from
condemnation for *any sin* as long as we live in the spirituality of
Christ, who has already died.

Of course, in order to declare ourselves free of the condemnation of
sin we must live in the spirituality of Christ. In so doing we must
live in the righteousness that he exhibited in his earthly life.

> And being unrighteous but worshipping Jesus gets called
> "participating in the righteousness" even when it's not.

We do not have to be flawless when choosing to live in Jesus' spirit.
What we have to do is make Jesus' spirituality the prevailing element
in our lives. If we really choose to have Jesus' spirituality live
within us, we cannot have some pseudo-spirituality live within us. It
must really be Jesus' spirit, and must contain the very attributes
that he demonstrated he had in his earthly life.

> > Re 14:13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying, "Write this: Blessed
> > are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth." "Blessed indeed," says
> > the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds
> > follow them!"

> The verse actually implies that people *don't* live forever.

> The words seem to say that when you die, you *stop* doing
> deeds, and go to a state of rest, which contradicts your
> theory that you live forever.  The dead "rest from their labor",
> and they are remembered by the record of their past deeds,
> which follow them.  They don't do any new deeds after death.

Well, the point is that we must, as flawed human beings, die. That is
why Jesus died for us -- not because he himself deserved to die, or
was flawed, but that he wanted to demonstrate a spirituality that
could not be disqualified by our legal requirement to die.

In dying, he removed the condemnation for all our flaws, because
through death those flaws would've been paid for. By living in this
spirituality we live in a spirituality that had received an exemption
from any human disqualificaton.

We must all die, but our eternal life is predicated upon our receiving
a spirituality that not only gives us righteousness now, but is also
free from all future disqualification, including the experience of
death itself. Living in Christ's spirituality we obtain the rights
that go along with that spirituality, which involves the ability to
live in that spirituality forever.

Jesus died not to exempt us from death, but to give us a spirituality
tht endures beyond death. What his death did was remove any human
disqualification upon his spirituality because inherent in this
spirituality was the experience of human death, thus paying the legal
penalty for all of his theoretical human sin.

We are able to exhibit all that Jesus himself exhibited while he was
here on earth. We are able to obtain his legal rights to declare our
sins paid for, and to obtain his own eternal spirituality. We have the
same spirituality that demonstrated flawless righteousness on earth
and rose from the dead. And so we can demonstrate, even in our flawed
human experience, the characteristics of an unblemished divine
spirituality that is legally qualified to rise from the dead.

Our works "following us" means that we have all the rights that go
along with having a spirituality that existed in Jesus when he lived
on earth. As such we cannot be prevented by human death from resuming
its righteousness in a future resurrection, because that is an
inherent quality of the spirituality Jesus demonstrated when he lived
on earth.

All this I call "identification." It is validated not by a theoretical
"claim" to do good works, but rather, by a demonstrated quality of
spirituality that actually existed in the historical record of Jesus'
life. We should, in reality, demonstrate the love, compassion, and
kindness that Jesus himself demonstrated in the gospel records.
randy

[Rob Strom]

On Sep 22, 12:07 pm, randy <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
> Rob Strom
> randy
>
> > > That's only one way to look at it. I see it through the lens of NT
> > > teaching, that the purpose of redemption is to bring our lives back
> > > into conformity with God's spirit. The proper way to ensure this is by
> > > modelling ourselves after Jesus, who was the *only* perfect example of
> > > human righteousness on earth.
> > Even if that were true, modelling oneself on Jesus means doing
> > what he allegedly did (studying and obeying the law perfectly), not
> > just "believing in him".
>
> There really is no such thing as "just believing in him." To believe
> he was the Christ is to understand that we are to follow after him
> spiritually. And this is done by actually receiving the spirit that
> possesses the history of his own flawless record of righteousness.
> When we possess this spirit and live according to this spirit, we
> don't, of course, demonstrate flawless obedience. What we do, however,
> is choose to participate in a spirituality that *by its own inherent
> qualities* has proven to be capable of eternal righteousness.

This is just word games.

We believe in God and we do the best we can to obey His commandments.
Of course we don't succeed perfectly, so Christians come back and say
that this makes our attempts at obedience worthless.

Then you guys do the same thing -- you believe in Jesus, and you do
the best you can to follow him. Of course, you don't succeed
perfectly either. But now you say that's ok, because you have
"participated in a spirituality". Fooey. If *you* can obey partially
but not totally and be judged ok, then so can we.

...

> > Unless you are already disposed to believe something else,
> > it is a gross perversion of a text that says "Now [man] must
> > be prevented from ... taking from the Tree of Life,
> > [so He drove man away and put up a guard on the Tree]" to say
> > that it means "God teased man with the hope there would
> > be a way to get back to the Tree".
>
> No, the passage does not prevent what followed. While it has been in
> fact true that mankind had been prohibitted from ever receiving
> eternal life *in his then-current form of righteousness,* it is not
> true that he could not obtain legal rights to an eternal spirituality,
> based upon a future form of righteousness.

Anything is possible. It's also possible that Jesus' teachings are
temporary and will only apply until Alan Dershowitz comes and teaches
a "future form of righteousness". But that's not the plain meaning of
the text. The text said God prevented man from getting to the Tree,
not God teaqsed man with the hope there would be a way to get back.

...

> > > I accept the latter. Christian redemption is nothing but a big
> > > explanation as to how God legally deals with the problem of our
> > > becoming "God-like." Redemption is all about identification,
> > > spiritually, with Jesus, so that in somehow spiritually participating
> > > in his death we no longer have a curse upon our natural bodies. We
> > > have ceased to be "God-like" in a legal sense. We *died.*
> > This is all Humpty-Dumpty make words mean whatever you want.
> > A certain form of living is called "spiritually dying".
>
> No, it is called "identification." We identify with Christ by assuming
> his spirituality and by thus obtaining the legal rights that he
> obtained when he experienced what he did. What Jesus experienced in
> his earthly existence, in his death, and in his resurrection, remain
> inherent qualities within the spirituality that he has now given to
> men.

You said that in a legal sense we "died". It's another way to say we
did X but we're going to pretend that because we really really like
this guy who did Y, we're going to pretend that we did Y too.

I like Mariano Rivera, so therefore I spiritually can throw a 95 mph
cutter, because I identify with the participation of him.

...

> Of course, in order to declare ourselves free of the condemnation of
> sin we must live in the spirituality of Christ. In so doing we must
> live in the righteousness that he exhibited in his earthly life.

And I do better, because I live *on* the spirituality of Rivera. On
trumps in.

--
Rob Strom

[Pastor Dave, Th.D.]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 05:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Rob Strom
<st...@watson.ibm.com> said:


> randy wrote:
>
>> Rob Strom wrote:

>>
>>> randy wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's only one way to look at it. I see it through
>>>> the lens of NT teaching, that the purpose of
>>>> redemption is to bring our lives back into conformity
>>>> with God's spirit. The proper way to ensure this is
>>>> by modelling ourselves after Jesus, who was the
>>>> *only* perfect example of human righteousness
>>>> on earth.
>>>
>>> Even if that were true, modelling oneself on Jesus
>>> means doing what he allegedly did (studying and
>>> obeying the law perfectly), not just "believing in him".

<snip>

> Anything is possible. It's also possible that Jesus'
> teachings are temporary and will only apply until
> Alan Dershowitz comes and teaches a "future form
> of righteousness". But that's not the plain meaning
> of the text. The text said God prevented man from
> getting to the Tree, not God teaqsed man with the
> hope there would be a way to get back.

This is the unifying error of the Futurist doctrines.
They ignore the time line.

I.e., What Jesus did regarding the Law of Moses,
was for the time on His mission on this Earth.

That does NOT mean that He was also saying that;

"And Forever you must follow the Law!"

Once the Consummation happened, it was all done.

However, this is also Futurism's unifying problem. :)

They do not believe that this Consummation has yet
to occur. They cannot believe that yes, it has already
occurred, because then they would have to admit that
their belief system is in complete error, which would
of course mean that yes, they would still be under
the Law of Moses according to Matt 5:17-18 and yet,
they will not admit to that either, since that would mean
that they cannot be in Christ, since under the Law of
Moses, to become part of God's family, one must convert
to Judaism and that would be the "Law + Faith" being
required in order to be saved, which is what those who
came into the church at Galatia tried to preach to those
in that church (Judaizers) and is that which Paul had
outright rejected!

But what the Futurists also miss, is that Paul also wrote
throughout chap 3-4, is that national Israel (the Law)
was to be "tossed out" ("toss out the bondwoman"),
which was "an allegory" for the Law and national Israel
as the "children of God"!

It is for reasons such as this that I find Futurism to be
contract contradictions, one after the other and about
the most important, core beliefs of the Christian faith
and therefore, cannot abide by it in any sense! I do
wrestle with the idea of whether or not it is, as they say,
"a matter of salvation", but to state it clearly, as I do not
believe in hiding my belief from anyone, as I would not
want anyone else sneaking up on me regarding what
it is that they believe, at least right now, I do lean toward
it being a matter of salvation, as I am forced to ask myself;

"How can we claim to be in Christ, when we simply do not
believe Him and substitute our own teachings for His and
totally rewrite the Consummation of the Kingdom of God?!"

--

Pastor Dave, Th.D.

The best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!

When you get tangled up in your problems, be still.
God wants us to be still, so he can untangle the knot.

[randy]

Rob Strom
randy

> This is just word games.
> We believe in God and we do the best we can to obey His commandments.
> Of course we don't succeed perfectly, so Christians come back and say
> that this makes our attempts at obedience worthless.
> Then you guys do the same thing -- you believe in Jesus, and you do
> the best you can to follow him.  Of course, you don't succeed
> perfectly either.  But now you say that's ok, because you have
> "participated in a spirituality".  Fooey.  If *you* can obey partially
> but not totally and be judged ok, then so can we.

No, this is not just word games. This is Christian theology in which
we actually go beyond mere "belief" to objective proof that our
character has supernatural elements that validate our claim to posses
what Christ possessed. If we show we possess Christ's spirituality, we
show that we possess all that goes along with that spirituality,
including the ability to die and rise from the dead. We're not showing
that *we* died, but that the spirituality that now dominates us died.
And if that spirituality has suffered death, then by living in that
spirituality we throw our lot in with a spirituality that is legally
exempt from death.

The most obvious way of "objectively" demonstrating the supernatural
character of our alliance with Christ is by showing in our
spirituality the character of Christ. This rises above what the
"natural man" can produce, independent of God. It should show a life
that harmonizes with the way Christ himself lived, according to the
gospels. That is not just "good words," but the demonstration of a
personal character that *only Christ demonstrated.* In that way we can
know that we have benefits from Christ's own spirituality.
randy

[Rob Strom]

On Sep 26, 1:04 pm, randy <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
> Rob Strom
> randy
>
> > This is just word games.
> > We believe in God and we do the best we can to obey His commandments.
> > Of course we don't succeed perfectly, so Christians come back and say
> > that this makes our attempts at obedience worthless.
> > Then you guys do the same thing -- you believe in Jesus, and you do
> > the best you can to follow him.  Of course, you don't succeed
> > perfectly either.  But now you say that's ok, because you have
> > "participated in a spirituality".  Fooey.  If *you* can obey partially
> > but not totally and be judged ok, then so can we.
>
> No, this is not just word games. This is Christian theology in which
> we actually go beyond mere "belief" to objective proof that our
> character has supernatural elements that validate our claim to posses
> what Christ possessed. If we show we possess Christ's spirituality, we
> show that we possess all that goes along with that spirituality,

I don't think you can demonstrate "Christ's spirituality" objectively.

> including the ability to die and rise from the dead.

And certainly I think we can demonstrate objectively
only the first but not the second of these (ability
to die, but not ability to rise from the dead).

Even Vince, who claims to have visited Hell and has
reported on who's there, has not produced objective
evidence of anyone risen from the dead.

(I'm not sure that conversing with Rabbi Landau during
a visit to Hell constitutes proof that the Rabbi has "risen"?)

> We're not showing
> that *we* died, but that the spirituality that now dominates us died.
> And if that spirituality has suffered death, then by living in that
> spirituality we throw our lot in with a spirituality that is legally
> exempt from death.

I haven't the foggiest idea on what it means for a spirituality
to suffer anything, much less death.

>
> The most obvious way of "objectively" demonstrating the supernatural
> character of our alliance with Christ is by showing in our
> spirituality the character of Christ. This rises above what the
> "natural man" can produce, independent of God.

On the contrary, the character of Christians and the
character of non-Christians are at the same levels.


--
Rob Strom

[randy]

Rob Strom
randy

> I don't think you can demonstrate "Christ's spirituality" objectively.

Well, it depends on what we mean by "objective proof." If we
physically see a person whose life evidences "change," we have to
define how we view that change. Can we really see evidence of
*spiritual* change? I believe so, but that is my perspective. Your
perspective may completely discount any "spiritual" evidence, simply
because you don't believe in it and have never experienced it.

In my favor are countless thousands of testimonials regarding
perceived spiritual changes in the lives of men when they have been
"born again." The change in character is indeed perceived as
"supernatural," so it may not fit your criteria for "objective proof."
However, the fact it is seen as such *publicly* indicates to me that
it qualifies as "objective proof."

> > including the ability to die and rise from the dead.

> And certainly I think we can demonstrate objectively
> only the first but not the second of these (ability
> to die, but not ability to rise from the dead).

The second is not yet objectively seen, correct. However, I did not
mean to say that Christians experience death when they obtain Christ's
spirituality. I'm saying that the spirituality they receive belongs to
Christ so that when he died, the spirituality that is given to us
qualifies as having died for us. When we thus receive this
spirituality we ourselves do not have to die for our sin, because
Christ and the spirituality he gives to us has already died for sin.

> Even Vince, who claims to have visited Hell and has
> reported on who's there, has not produced objective
> evidence of anyone risen from the dead.

Jesus is the one who provided objective evidence of rising from the
dead.

> I haven't the foggiest idea on what it means for a spirituality
> to suffer anything, much less death.

The spirituality of Jesus is the spirit of Jesus -- his humanity
inhabited by the spirit of his person. I refer to it as a
"spirituality" only because Jesus was able to transfer his spiritual
essence into us -- not that we become one with Jesus' person, but
rather, that we obtain some of his attributes. For example, the fact
Jesus died for sin means that receiving his spirit we don't have to
die for sin. Receiving his spirit means that we can rise from the
dead, just as he already rose from the dead. We can live in in
character and righteousness because that's who he demonstrated he was,
and that's who he continues to be.

> On the contrary, the character of Christians and the
> character of non-Christians are at the same levels.

Christians and nonChristians can both conform to the appearance of
righteousness and can even be righteous in many respects. But no,
nonChristians *cannot* reflect the spirituality of Jesus, and thus
display Jesus' character. It is one thing to act like Jesus, and quite
another to actually *display* Jesus. And it is only when we display
Jesus that we show we have his spirit, and all of the benefits that
Jesus earned for us when he lived as a human spirit.
randy

[Rob Strom]

On Sep 29, 3:21 am, randy <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
> Rob Strom
> randy
>
> > I don't think you can demonstrate "Christ's spirituality" objectively.
>
> Well, it depends on what we mean by "objective proof." If we
> physically see a person whose life evidences "change," we have to
> define how we view that change. Can we really see evidence of
> *spiritual* change? I believe so, but that is my perspective. Your
> perspective may completely discount any "spiritual" evidence, simply
> because you don't believe in it and have never experienced it.

I can see people having change. I've seen good character
manifested in different people, Jews and Christians. My
objection is your calling the good character of Christians
supernatural and spiritual but not the identical good
character of Jews.

>
> In my favor are countless thousands of testimonials regarding
> perceived spiritual changes in the lives of men when they have been
> "born again." The change in character is indeed perceived as
> "supernatural," so it may not fit your criteria for "objective proof."
> However, the fact it is seen as such *publicly* indicates to me that
> it qualifies as "objective proof."

Objective means that anybody can check and validate it.
Just like if I said that this strand of DNA has an ACT triplet,
anybody can do an analysis and check it.

...

>
> The second is not yet objectively seen, correct. However, I did not
> mean to say that Christians experience death when they obtain Christ's
> spirituality. I'm saying that the spirituality they receive belongs to
> Christ so that when he died, the spirituality that is given to us
> qualifies as having died for us. When we thus receive this
> spirituality we ourselves do not have to die for our sin, because
> Christ and the spirituality he gives to us has already died for sin.

The Bible said everybody dies for his own sin, so you can't
say that one person can die for the sins of another. Wouldn't
be just anyway.

>
> > Even Vince, who claims to have visited Hell and has
> > reported on who's there, has not produced objective
> > evidence of anyone risen from the dead.
>
> Jesus is the one who provided objective evidence of rising from the
> dead.

I actually don't think he did. How could I check?

>
> > I haven't the foggiest idea on what it means for a spirituality
> > to suffer anything, much less death.
>
> The spirituality of Jesus is the spirit of Jesus -- his humanity
> inhabited by the spirit of his person. I refer to it as a
> "spirituality" only because Jesus was able to transfer his spiritual
> essence into us -- not that we become one with Jesus' person, but
> rather, that we obtain some of his attributes. For example, the fact
> Jesus died for sin means that receiving his spirit we don't have to
> die for sin. Receiving his spirit means that we can rise from the
> dead, just as he already rose from the dead. We can live in in
> character and righteousness because that's who he demonstrated he was,
> and that's who he continues to be.

I don't see any of that. Doesn't work for Mariano's cutter. I have
received the spirituality of Mariano's cutter over and over and
over again, and not only have I received it, but I have been
**washed unto** it!!! There's nothing more powerful
than being washed unto something, and still I can't throw
the blooming ball more than 37 miles per hour much
less get that late break.

>
> > On the contrary, the character of Christians and the
> > character of non-Christians are at the same levels.
>
> Christians and nonChristians can both conform to the appearance of
> righteousness and can even be righteous in many respects. But no,
> nonChristians *cannot* reflect the spirituality of Jesus, and thus
> display Jesus' character.

Jews have been washed unto God's character, so they get
the same result.

To use a phrase you used earlier in your post,
your perspective may completely discount the evidence for this,

simply because you don't believe in it and have never experienced it.

--
Rob Strom

[vince garcia]

Sure they can. You have been shown this before that someone can atone
for another's sin, including giving up their lives to atone

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 3, 3:31 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Rob Strom wrote:
> ...

>
> > The Bible said everybody dies for his own sin, so you can't
> > say that one person can die for the sins of another.
>
> Sure they can. You have been shown this before that someone can atone
> for another's sin, including giving up their lives to atone

I'd prefer an actual reference.
And how do I cover over Deuteronomy 24:16, which explicitly
says that everyone dies for his own sin?

You object to people picking and choosing verses from the official NT,
yet when it comes to the original Bible, you seem to be cherry-picking
that one.

--
Rob Strom

[vince garcia]

Rob Strom wrote:
>
> On Oct 3, 3:31 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > The Bible said everybody dies for his own sin, so you can't
> > > say that one person can die for the sins of another.
> >
> > Sure they can. You have been shown this before that someone can atone
> > for another's sin, including giving up their lives to atone
>
> I'd prefer an actual reference.

Leviticus 27:29. A human reserved for sacrifice must be sacrificed and
cannot be redeemed. I understand Judaism might try and assert that this
portion of Leviticus refers to condemned criminals, but the text of the
entire chapter makes it clear that it is speaking about sacrifices vowed
or devoted to God, which is what Jesus ultimately was!

This is why Jephtah was bound by HIS vow. Thus, he was forced to make
his own daughter a human sacrifice because the Torah could not provide a
way around the requirement of Lev. 27:29!


Jesus, by John the Baptist's own proclamation, was the "Lamb of God,"
whom God Himself had reserved as a sin offering. Thus, Jesus had to die
according to Leviticus, and this was entirely lawful for God to
institute even if it was unlawful for the Jews themselves otherwise.


We also see later, in 2nd Samuel 21, when David executes Michal's
innocent sons for Saul's sin, their human deaths were accepted by God as
atonement for the sins of their grandfather against the Gibeonites, thus
ending a divine famine--another direct contradiction to what the rabbis
typically claim is possible!

Elsewhere in the Tanakh, Job was required to intercede for his friends
to avert God's wrath against them (Job 42:8), and earlier than that (Job
1:5), he had offered up sacrifices to atone for his children in the
event they had sinned. Moses likewise (Exodus 32:30) offered to make
atonement for the sins of Israel.

Further, during the festival of Sukkot, 70 bullocks were sacrificed for
the sins of the (obviously unrepentant) Gentile nations. We thus can
overwhelmingly establish that, contrary to what Judaism teaches, the
death of one or more innocent human men can indeed be accepted by God as
atonement for the sins of others, and/or that a man can offer atonement
for the sins of someone other than himself. Since Christians believe
that Jesus was the agent of mankind's creation, how much more
appropriate would His own sacrifice be to atone for the sins of the
children He had fathered than Job's sacrifices for his own children!

Rashi himself, meanwhile, noted that the death of the righteous,
'atones like the sacrifices.'

Solomon Schechter, in Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, for instance,
pointed out that: "The death of the righteous atones just as well as
certain sacrifices'; and, "This readiness to sacrifice oneself for
Israel is characteristic of all the great men of Israel, the patriarchs
and the prophets acting in the same way, whilst also some Rabbis would,
on certain occasions, exclaim, 'Behold, I am the atonement of Israel.'"

> And how do I cover over Deuteronomy 24:16, which explicitly
> says that everyone dies for his own sin?

I'd say context. This is saying an outside authority cannot--at least
normally--judicially punish a parent for his kid's sin, though God can
make an exception as He did when Michal's sons were slain for Saul's sin
with God making no intervention to save those fully innocent men

[Pastor Dave, Th.D.]

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:41:15 -0700, vince garcia
<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> said:


> Rob Strom wrote:
>
>> vince garcia wrote:

>>
>>> Rob Strom wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Bible said everybody dies for his own sin,
>>>> so you can't say that one person can die for
>>>> the sins of another.
>>>
>>> Sure they can. You have been shown this before
>>> that someone can atone for another's sin, including
>>> giving up their lives to atone
>>
>> I'd prefer an actual reference.
>

> Leviticus 27:29: A human reserved for sacrifice must be

> sacrificed and cannot be redeemed. I understand Judaism
> might try and assert that this portion of Leviticus refers to
> condemned criminals, but the text of the entire chapter
> makes it clear that it is speaking about sacrifices vowed
> or devoted to God, which is what Jesus ultimately was!

If a goat is good enough to be a sacrifice for humans,
why can't another human be? :)

Most people don't realize, that's where the term
"scapegoat" comes from:

Leviticus 16:7-10

7) And he [Aaron] shall take the two goats
and present them before the Lord at the
door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
8) And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two
goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other
lot for the scapegoat.
9) And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which
the Lord's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering.
10) But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the
scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the
Lord, to make an atonement with him and to
let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

I do find it amazing that someone who says they're
Jewish would say something like that. The whole
covenant is "sacrifice for sins" based! :)

> Jesus, by John the Baptist's own proclamation,

"Elijah returned". :)


> was the "Lamb of God", whom God Himself

> had reserved as a sin offering. Thus, Jesus

> had to die according to Leviticus and this was

> entirely lawful for God to institute even if it
> was unlawful for the Jews themselves otherwise.

Amen! :)

--

Pastor Dave, Th.D.

The best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!

“If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe
that his vengeance need not be feared.” - Niccolo Machiavelli

[randy]

Rob Strom
randy

> > Well, it depends on what we mean by "objective proof." If we
> > physically see a person whose life evidences "change," we have to
> > define how we view that change. Can we really see evidence of
> > *spiritual* change? I believe so, but that is my perspective. Your
> > perspective may completely discount any "spiritual" evidence, simply
> > because you don't believe in it and have never experienced it.

> I can see people having change.  I've seen good character
> manifested in different people, Jews and Christians.  My
> objection is your calling the good character of Christians
> supernatural and spiritual but not the identical good
> character of Jews.

Objection noted. However, Jews and Christians suffer the debilitating
nature of those marred by sin. Jesus did not have that sin nature.
Thus, when he transfers his own pure spirituality into Christians they
can actually participate in the purity of Jesus' spirituality. Jews
cannot do this because they utterly reject Jesus' model of
righteousness, and reject the notion that he can transfer his
spirituality to us.

Nobody here is arguing whether both Christians and Jews can alike do
good works. I'm talking about the ability to display evidence of a
supernatural essence that is inherently pure and without sin. How can
we see or experience a sinless essence when our display of it is
itself marred and imperfect? Put simply, it is a display of a
different kind of character. There is love that people can express all
on their own, without acknowledgement of God. And there is love that
expresses God's love itself. These are two very different things,
although they can overlap. The good person can express God's love. Or
the good person may express only good works, and not God's essence of
love at all. I believe it is imperative that we express with our human
love God's love as well. God wants us to live in partnership with
Himself so that our love will not be something temporal, but something
of Himself -- something eternal.

> Objective means that anybody can check and validate it.
> Just like if I said that this strand of DNA has an ACT triplet,
> anybody can do an analysis and check it.

As I said, the kind of "objective evidence" I suggest here is
something that has *public* acknowledgement. When a whole crowd of
people witness a bolt of lightning in the sky, it is a *public*
experience. When people everywhere see in Christians a godly character
emerge out of those people that was not there before, it becomes for
me "objective evidence."

> > ....When we thus receive this

> > spirituality we ourselves do not have to die for our sin, because
> > Christ and the spirituality he gives to us has already died for sin.

> The Bible said everybody dies for his own sin, so you can't
> say that one person can die for the sins of another.  Wouldn't
> be just anyway.

It is not only just because Christians receive a worthy spirituality,
but also because they choose to *live by* this spirituality. In other
words, they obtain with this spirituality the same merit that was in
Jesus when he lived a sinless life and rose from the dead. We do not
have to die again because he already did it.

> > Jesus is the one who provided objective evidence of rising from the
> > dead.

> I actually don't think he did.  How could I check?

Pray.

> I don't see any of that.  Doesn't work for Mariano's cutter.  I have
> received the spirituality of Mariano's cutter over and over and
> over again, and not only have I received it, but I have been
> **washed unto** it!!!  There's nothing more powerful
> than being washed unto something, and still I can't throw
> the blooming ball more than 37 miles per hour much
> less get that late break.

I'm sure I'd break my aging arms trying to throw a baseball like I did
when I was a kid! ;)

We're not talking about going through a religious ritual in the name
of someone to have their abilities imputed to us. And we don't have to
do it in pentecostal volume or King James English to accomplish
anything. ;) What I'm suggesting is that God is spirit, and
communicates with us via spiritual means. In the same way Jesus offers
us God's spirituality in the name of his own human experience. That
is, he communicates to us not only what God's character is, but also
everything he personally went through on earth. When we live by his
spirit we assume the rights to Jesus' death and resurrection, as well
as to Jesus' righteousness. Even though we remain flawed, we can turn
our flawed lives over to a path of righteousness that proved to be
capable of resurrection from the dead.

> Jews have been washed unto God's character, so they get
> the same result.

Jews were *supposed* to be baptized into God's character when they
went to be baptized by John the Baptist. But they didn't listen to
John when he pointed to Jesus. So no, they didn't get God's true
character, which was revealed in the life of Jesus. Instead, they got
a lot of attempts at *immitating* God's character, and lost the
essential spirituality necessary in displaying that character. They
had been able to display God's character under the Law. But when Jesus
came all spirituality was directed towards him for the purpose of
eternal life. The Jews simply didn't believe the message. They lost
the spirituality as well as God's character. And they have also lost
the certainty of eternal life with God.

> To use a phrase you used earlier in your post,
> your perspective may completely discount the evidence for this,
> simply because you don't believe in it and have never experienced it.

No, I fully experience the difference between the Jews' observance of
righteousness under the Law and the Christians' observance of
righteousness through the spirit of Jesus. I would credit Jesus'
spirit with true righteousness, and nothing else. It is not a matter
of performance by either Christians or Jews. Rather, it is a matter of
who Jesus' spirituality resides in. It is a matter of Jesus himself.
randy

[Pastor Dave, Th.D.]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 00:15:39 -0700 (PDT),
randy <rkl...@wavecable.com> said:

> Rob Strom said:
>
>> I can see people having change.  I've seen good
>> character manifested in different people, Jews
>> and Christians.  My objection is your calling the
>> good character of Christians supernatural and

>> spiritual, but not the identical good character

>> of Jews.
>
> Objection noted. However, Jews and Christians suffer
> the debilitating nature of those marred by sin. Jesus
> did not have that sin nature.

You may want to consider the following (KJV):

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched
with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points
tempted like as we are, yet without sin." - Hebrews 4:15

And to see it in a literal, word for word translation (KJ3):

"For we do not have a high priest not being able to sympathize
with our infirmities, but One having been tried according in all
things according to our likeness, apart from sin." - Hebrews 4:15

Could He be tempted/tried as we are, if He had no sin nature
(stain of original sin)?

How can one be tested, when there is no chance of failure,
due to there being no ability to sin, let alone ability to be
tempted? How can one, according to this, be tempted,
when one cannot be tempted?! Wouldn't that be a lie?

Now of course His Father, God the Father is without sin,
not being born an earthly being.

But what is it that Jesus received from His mother, Mary?
A good woman, no doubt. But certainly not without the
stain of original sin, as the RCC'ers are wont to claim.

So what did He receive from her "side"? How could
He not have received this from her, being born here?

God has no sin, so if Christ had no "sin nature", as in
"the stain of original sin" passed on from Adam and
through Mary, then wouldn't it be the same thing
that we must be able to claim about God the Father?
That He could also, "be tempted by sin"? If not true
(and of course it's not, as I said above), then how
can this be said of Jesus, by claiming that He had
"no sin nature, being God"? If the stain of original
sin was not passed down to Him through Mary,
then how can it be anything but the same claim
about both? I know this is to many, one of the
"great theological questions" of all time, but it
doesn't seem to me to be so complex. :)

Furthermore, how would that not mean that the RCC'ers
are right? After all, in order for the stain of original sin
to not have been passed down through Mary, it would
mean that Mary also had to have been born without sin
(the Immaculate Conception, which contrary to what
some believe, is not about Jesus being born without sin,
but is about Mary being born without sin, so that the stain
of original sin would not be passed down to Jesus when
He was born).

Do you see what I'm saying here? According to Hebrews,
it seems that the victory over sin is in the fact that He was
tested, but did not sin, even though this stain of original sin
was passed down to Him. What victory is there in a rigged
game? And when we look at Him praying in the garden,
we see how stressed out He was, to the point of being in
(from the Greek) "thromboi haimatos", or as it is commonly
referred to today, "hematohidrosis". And yes, just FYI, this
is an actual medical possibility. There are multiple blood
vessels around the sweat glands, in a net like formation and
although it is extremely rare, there are medically documented
cases of it happening and it is due to a great amount of stress,
beyond what any one of us could imagine!

Btw, you can tell that Luke is a doctor, as the word that
he used (idros/hidros) is often used as a medical term. :)

My point is, that there must have been a great fight
going on internally, or this would not have occurred
to Him (medically speaking), Him being "tested" like
you and I could not even imagine, coupled with the
knowledge of what He was about to go through, it
being the most painful and torturous execution that
one could go through, it being so horrible, that they
had to make up a new word to note the level of pain
that those crucified went through! In fact, that's where
we get our word "excruciating" from, which is why it
bothers me so much when people flippantly use the
word "excruciating" to describe their own pain and
unless you are experiencing the same level of pain
and the other torture that went along with hanging
on that cross (what it did to one's pulmonary system,
etc.) that a crucified person experienced, then your
pain is not "excruciating"! Anyway, the word that
we get our word "excruciating" from is a Latin word
"excruciatus", which means, "from/out of the cross".

> Thus, when he transfers his own pure spirituality
> into Christians they can actually participate in the
> purity of Jesus' spirituality.

Amen! :) If we are true to Him, then we will be guided
by the Holy Spirit, although I do not believe that it is as
it was back then, signs being necessary at that time,
even the resurrection of Christ being a sign, just as
Jesus said it was (Matt 12:38-40).

I.e., I do not believe that people today are "indwelt"
in the same way that they were back then in the
1st century church between Christ's Ascension and
the 70 AD event (after which time it is noted that
the gifts faded away, which is logical, them being
"sign gifts") that officially established the Kingdom
(and note that I said "officially").

Great signs have always happened during great events,
or a great message that God wanted spread out, which
we can see by us simply reading the Scriptures and the
appearance of the Messiah and the initial spreading of
the Gospel was certainly "a great event", with, as the
Scriptures tell us, "great signs following" (Mark 16:20)
and as Paul said (1 Cor 13:8-10), the gifts would fade.

> Jews cannot do this because they utterly reject Jesus'
> model of righteousness, and reject the notion that he
> can transfer his spirituality to us.

Amen! They seek to have their own righteousness
through their actions and ignore the thought that
they are incapable on their own in many cases.

Of course, there are Jews who attribute the goodness
to God, but they still attribute to themselves the good
works, kind of using a kind of "faith + works" doctrine
(without Christ, of course).

> Nobody here is arguing whether both Christians and
> Jews can alike do good works. I'm talking about the
> ability to display evidence of a supernatural essence
> that is inherently pure and without sin. How can
> we see or experience a sinless essence when our
> display of it is itself marred and imperfect? Put simply,
> it is a display of a different kind of character. There is
> love that people can express all on their own, without
> acknowledgement of God. And there is love that
> expresses God's love itself. These are two very different
> things, although they can overlap.

Agreed and well put. :)

> The good person can express God's love.

I disagree, only in that there is "none good".

But I agree, in that we are "good" after salvation,
in that it is Christ within us now and it is, as you
said above, His Goodness that flows out from
within us, to others. After salvation, He sees us
through Christ and not through the "old man".

We are called "saints" for a reason. Hahaha! :)

>> Objective means that anybody can check
>> and validate it. Just like if I said that this
>> strand of DNA has an ACT triplet, anybody
>> can do an analysis and check it.
>
> As I said, the kind of "objective evidence"
> I suggest here is something that has
> *public* acknowledgement.

How is it that people are so ridiculous, that they
require that God be put in a test tube for their
examination and analysis? After all, that's what's
really being required here. He's basically claiming
that you cannot make the claim of it being God's
love flowing out from within you, unless this can
be objectively analyzed in the way that one does
analyze DNA, which is in a small type of test tube.

This is pure arrogance, since of a man can place
God into a test tube, then that makes him "God".
In fact, it makes him greater than God, since how
can any man put God into a test tube for testing,
if he is not greater than/more powerful than God?

> When a whole crowd of people witness a bolt of
> lightning in the sky, it is a *public* experience.
> When people everywhere see in Christians a godly
> character emerge out of those people that was not
> there before, it becomes for me "objective evidence".

But for him, that is automatically discounted,
because that cannot be put in a test tube.
You cannot "objectively" (which he defines
as scientifically) "prove" (which cannot just
be observing actions, because he sees Jews
performing good acts as well) that it is what
you claim. Not with a "test tube" type of
objectivity, which is what he just stated that
he requires, before believing your stated
version of this.

>> The Bible said everybody dies for his own sin,
>> so you can't say that one person can die for
>> the sins of another.  Wouldn't be just anyway.
>
> It is not only just because Christians receive
> a worthy spirituality, but also because they
> choose to *live by* this spirituality.

Amen! Faith without works is dead (James 2:17)!

> In other words, they obtain with this spirituality
> the same merit that was in Jesus when he lived
> a sinless life and rose from the dead. We do not
> have to die again because he already did it.

Amen! :)

And how it is that people make such a claim,
knowing that even a goat (scapegoat) was
used as a substitute for the sins of the people,
I have no idea! :)

>> Jews have been washed unto God's character,

>> so they get the same result. To use a phrase

>> you used earlier in your post, your perspective
>> may completely discount the evidence for this,
>> simply because you don't believe in it and have
>> never experienced it.
>
> No, I fully experience the difference between
> the Jews' observance of righteousness under
> the Law and the Christians' observance of
> righteousness through the spirit of Jesus.

Amen! It is a completely different thing! :)

But as I said, he will (and has) discount this,
not having the Spirit within him and not
knowing Him.

--

Pastor Dave, Th.D.

The best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!

"The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz
did see. Howl ye; for the day of the Lord is AT HAND;
it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.
Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's
heart shall melt:" - Isaiah 13:1,6-9

This is the prophecy regarding Babylon, which was fulfilled
in 539 B.C.. Did "every man's heart (actually, physically)
melt? If not, then maybe you need to think about how you
read the New Testament, since it is not an all new thing,
but is the fulfillment of various prophecies that are found
in the Old Testament.

And if you still try to claim that the New Testament should
be taken as physically literal anyway, then you admit that
you lie when you claim to interpret Scripture by Scripture.
It is that simple!

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 3, 6:41 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Rob Strom wrote:
>
> > On Oct 3, 3:31 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > Rob Strom wrote:
> > > ...
>
> > > > The Bible said everybody dies for his own sin, so you can't
> > > > say that one person can die for the sins of another.
>
> > > Sure they can. You have been shown this before that someone can atone
> > > for another's sin, including giving up their lives to atone
>
> > I'd prefer an actual reference.
>
> Leviticus 27:29. A human reserved for sacrifice must be sacrificed and
> cannot be redeemed.

Let's look at the text.
"If a human being is declared taboo, he cannot be redeemed and must be
put to death."

I can't find anything in that sentence that means that the
condemned person (typically a criminal) is "atoning for the
sin of another".

...

>
> This is why Jephtah was bound by HIS vow. Thus, he was forced to make
> his own daughter a human sacrifice because the Torah could not provide a
> way around the requirement of Lev. 27:29!

But of course Jephtah *wasn't* bound by his vow, which is
why the story is about how tragically stupid he was to think so!

...

>
> We also see later, in 2nd Samuel 21, when David executes Michal's
> innocent sons for Saul's sin, their human deaths were accepted by God as
> atonement for the sins of their grandfather against the Gibeonites, thus
> ending a divine famine--another direct contradiction to what the rabbis
> typically claim is possible!

So you think 2nd Samuel 21 teaches that killing the innocent
made Saul now legally innocent???????????????????????

Wow!!!

NOTHING in this says that God called it an atonement.

What it said was that after Rizpah found that her sons had
been hanged, she covered their bodies so that the birds
couldn't eat them, and then David heard about this and
gave all the bodies a proper burial, and THAT was
when God "heeded supplications for the land".
Notice it didn't say that Saul was innocent. Otherwise
you'd have the horrible lesson that God will forgive
the guilty by killing the innocent. No. This was a lesson
about not leaving the bodies of hanged people out
in the air.

>
> Elsewhere in the Tanakh, Job was required to intercede for his friends
> to avert God's wrath against them (Job 42:8), and earlier than that (Job
> 1:5), he had offered up sacrifices to atone for his children in the
> event they had sinned.

Sacrifices don't atone.

> Moses likewise (Exodus 32:30) offered to make
> atonement for the sins of Israel.

Oh my goodness! You really REALLY misread the text!

Here is the text [after the golden calf]:
"The next day, Moses said to the people, 'You have committed a
terrible sin. Now I will go back up to God and try to gain atonement
for your crime.'
Moses went back up to God, and he said, 'The people have committed a
terrible sin by making a golden idol.
Now, if You would, please forgive their sin.
If not, You can blot me out from the book that You have written.'
God replied to Moses, 'I will blot out from My book those who have
sinned against Me."

So Moses asked for mercy. He didn't offer to kill some
innocent person to cause the guilty to not be punished. God forbid.

>
> Further, during the festival of Sukkot, 70 bullocks were sacrificed for
> the sins of the (obviously unrepentant) Gentile nations. We thus can
> overwhelmingly establish that, contrary to what Judaism teaches, the
> death of one or more innocent human men can indeed be accepted by God as
> atonement for the sins of others, and/or that a man can offer atonement
> for the sins of someone other than himself.

I don't see where the "thus" comes from.

Can you perhaps show me a quote in support of this???

...

>
>  Rashi himself, meanwhile, noted that the death of the righteous,
> 'atones like the sacrifices.'

>
> Solomon Schechter, in Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, for instance,
> pointed out that: "The death of the righteous atones just as well as
> certain sacrifices'; and, "This readiness to sacrifice oneself for
> Israel is characteristic of all the great men of Israel, the patriarchs
> and the prophets acting in the same way, whilst also some Rabbis would,
> on certain occasions, exclaim, 'Behold, I am the atonement of Israel.'"

It doesn't mean that the death of the innocent excuses
the guilty. It means that the country lives because good
people are brave enough to give up their lives for the cause.

>
>
> > And how do I cover over Deuteronomy 24:16, which explicitly
> > says that everyone dies for his own sin?
>
> I'd say context. This is saying an outside authority cannot--at least
> normally--judicially punish a parent for his kid's sin, though God can
> make an exception as He did when Michal's sons were slain for Saul's sin
> with God making no intervention to save those fully innocent men

That does not mean that Saul was declared innocent because
various innocents were killed, no.


--
Rob Strom

[vince garcia]

Rob Strom wrote:
>
> On Oct 3, 6:41 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> >
> > > On Oct 3, 3:31 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > Rob Strom wrote:
> > > > ...
> >
> > > > > The Bible said everybody dies for his own sin, so you can't
> > > > > say that one person can die for the sins of another.
> >
> > > > Sure they can. You have been shown this before that someone can atone
> > > > for another's sin, including giving up their lives to atone
> >
> > > I'd prefer an actual reference.
> >
> > Leviticus 27:29. A human reserved for sacrifice must be sacrificed and
> > cannot be redeemed.
>
> Let's look at the text.
> "If a human being is declared taboo, he cannot be redeemed and must be
> put to death."
>

>

I like how you use a bizarre translation that uses the word "taboo"
which is neither hebrew nor greek.

I'll stick with the king james


None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but
shall surely be put to death.

> I can't find anything in that sentence that means that the
> condemned person (typically a criminal) is "atoning for the
> sin of another".

That's not the point of that verse. That verse is saying that a human
sacrifice cannot be redeemed.

That's problematic for jews; it's not for us.

We know it ultimately refers to Christ, and was placed there for that
very reason, leaving you with a conundrum as to how a human can be
reserved for God in a sacrificial manner when your teachinsgs ay a man
cannot be reserved for God as a human sacrifice

> ...
> >
> > This is why Jephtah was bound by HIS vow. Thus, he was forced to make
> > his own daughter a human sacrifice because the Torah could not provide a
> > way around the requirement of Lev. 27:29!
>
> But of course Jephtah *wasn't* bound by his vow, which is
> why the story is about how tragically stupid he was to think so!

Of course he was bound. The OT always (except in the case of a wife)
teaches to fulfill your oaths to God, and THESE verses in question shows
he has no choice:

Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD
of all that he hath, both of MAN and beast, and of the field of his
possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy
unto the LORD.

None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but
shall surely be put to death.

.

Jews may have invented a non-biblical means of getting around/ignoring
the law when it suits them (some jewish movement are famous for that),
but the law is clear, and jephtah followed it

That's problematic for jews; it's not for us.

>
> ...
> >
> > We also see later, in 2nd Samuel 21, when David executes Michal's
> > innocent sons for Saul's sin, their human deaths were accepted by God as
> > atonement for the sins of their grandfather against the Gibeonites, thus
> > ending a divine famine--another direct contradiction to what the rabbis
> > typically claim is possible!
>
> So you think 2nd Samuel 21 teaches that killing the innocent
> made Saul now legally innocent???????????????????????

That's not saying that; it's saying Saul's sin, and the punishment that
came upon others because of saul's sin, was atoned for by the execution
of some INNOCENT MEN WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT SIN

>
> Wow!!!
>
> NOTHING in this says that God called it an atonement.

The word need not be used. The event and what's going on is 100% clear:
God accepted the deaths of innocent men to atone for their granddad's
sin.

>
> What it said was that after Rizpah found that her sons had
> been hanged, she covered their bodies so that the birds
> couldn't eat them, and then David heard about this and
> gave all the bodies a proper burial, and THAT was
> when God "heeded supplications for the land".


> Notice it didn't say that Saul was innocent. Otherwise
> you'd have the horrible lesson that God will forgive
> the guilty by killing the innocent.

That's problematic for jews; it's not for us. I refer you to quotes i
gave you:

"The death of the righteous atones just as well as
certain sacrifices'; and, "This readiness to sacrifice oneself for
Israel is characteristic of all the great men of Israel, the patriarchs
and the prophets acting in the same way, whilst also some Rabbis would,
on certain occasions, exclaim, 'Behold, I am the atonement of Israel.'"

This is an example. Sry if you're bothered by it

No. This was a lesson
> about not leaving the bodies of hanged people out
> in the air.

lol

>
> >
> > Elsewhere in the Tanakh, Job was required to intercede for his friends
> > to avert God's wrath against them (Job 42:8), and earlier than that (Job
> > 1:5), he had offered up sacrifices to atone for his children in the
> > event they had sinned.
>
> Sacrifices don't atone.

And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for
atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an
atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it.
--ex 29



Sry--bible says and shows it does. I just showed you. You should read
the law more carefully, not rely on commentaries and what your rabbi
says :)

>
> > Moses likewise (Exodus 32:30) offered to make
> > atonement for the sins of Israel.
>
> Oh my goodness! You really REALLY misread the text!
>
> Here is the text [after the golden calf]:
> "The next day, Moses said to the people, 'You have committed a
> terrible sin. Now I will go back up to God and try to gain atonement
> for your crime.'
> Moses went back up to God, and he said, 'The people have committed a
> terrible sin by making a golden idol.
> Now, if You would, please forgive their sin.
> If not, You can blot me out from the book that You have written.'
> God replied to Moses, 'I will blot out from My book those who have
> sinned against Me."
>
> So Moses asked for mercy. He didn't offer to kill some
> innocent person to cause the guilty to not be punished. God forbid.

I'm sorry--i guess you missed the word "atonement" in the passage you
quoted

>
> >
> > Further, during the festival of Sukkot, 70 bullocks were sacrificed for
> > the sins of the (obviously unrepentant) Gentile nations. We thus can
> > overwhelmingly establish that, contrary to what Judaism teaches, the
> > death of one or more innocent human men can indeed be accepted by God as
> > atonement for the sins of others, and/or that a man can offer atonement
> > for the sins of someone other than himself.
>
> I don't see where the "thus" comes from.
>
> Can you perhaps show me a quote in support of this???

For what? That the bullocks were for the 70 gentile nations? That's in
the talmud. see Sukkah 55b

Or is this more of your false claim sacrifices don't atone for sin so
these bullocks aren't for atonement?

If so, you might want to call God to account for torturing and slaying
70 innocent bullocks for no reason if they don't atone for anything.

>
> ...
> >
> > Rashi himself, meanwhile, noted that the death of the righteous,
> > 'atones like the sacrifices.'
>
> >
> > Solomon Schechter, in Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, for instance,
> > pointed out that: "The death of the righteous atones just as well as
> > certain sacrifices'; and, "This readiness to sacrifice oneself for
> > Israel is characteristic of all the great men of Israel, the patriarchs
> > and the prophets acting in the same way, whilst also some Rabbis would,
> > on certain occasions, exclaim, 'Behold, I am the atonement of Israel.'"
>
> It doesn't mean that the death of the innocent excuses
> the guilty.

It ATONES for the guilty in some cases. Not "excuses" them

It means that the country lives because good
> people are brave enough to give up their lives for the cause.

God accepted them as atoneent.

>
> >
> >
> > > And how do I cover over Deuteronomy 24:16, which explicitly
> > > says that everyone dies for his own sin?
> >
> > I'd say context. This is saying an outside authority cannot--at least
> > normally--judicially punish a parent for his kid's sin, though God can
> > make an exception as He did when Michal's sons were slain for Saul's sin
> > with God making no intervention to save those fully innocent men
>
> That does not mean that Saul was declared innocent because
> various innocents were killed, no.

That's not the intent of that passaage; the intent is to say that people
atoned for the sin and cancelled the punishment sent on others not
responsible for that sin.

You might want to go call God to account for inflicting a famine on
people who had nothing to do with the sin comitted in the first place.


>
> --
> Rob Strom

[Snow]

On Sep 19, 9:20 am, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:

> > The good works would always be spoiled by the evil works, and even the
> > good works would not be good enough to obtain God's eternal pleasure.
> > At best it could only reach out towards God or do things that please
> > God.
>
> No, this sounds like the same Pauline stuff you always teach,
> which is not at all taught in the Bible.

Respectfully, you and Randy have been taking sides on this issue for
at least 5 years that I've been watching you two go at it... clearly
neither of you are going to change your point of view so why do you
bother? It seems to me your time and energy would be much better
spent on ANYTHING else.

You know what I think.. you two should meet each other in person.

[Pastor Dave, Th.D.]

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 05:02:42 -0700, vince garcia

<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> said:


> Rob Strom wrote:
>
>> vince garcia wrote:
>>
>>> Rob Strom wrote:
>>>
>>>> vince garcia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rob Strom wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> The Bible said everybody dies for
>>>>>> his own sin, so you can't say that
>>>>>> one person can die for the sins
>>>>>> of another.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure they can. You have been shown

>>>>> this before, that someone can atone for

>>>>> another's sin, including giving up their

>>>>> lives to atone.

>>>>
>>>> I'd prefer an actual reference.
>>>
>>> Leviticus 27:29. A human reserved for sacrifice
>>> must be sacrificed and cannot be redeemed.
>>

>> Let's look at the text:

>> "If a human being is declared taboo, he cannot
>> be redeemed and must be put to death."
>
> I like how you use a bizarre translation that uses

> the word "taboo" which is neither Hebrew nor Greek.
>
> I'll stick with the King James.

I love the KJV and it is a beautiful, poetic and also
a pretty darn accurate translation, but I'll stick with
the KJ3, it being an even more literal and accurate
translation.

Not only this, but you'll find that when words aren't
rearranged and sometimes changed to, in theory,
make it more easier to read, that in the end these
changes and additions of words can change meanings
of various Scriptures and that it reads quite differently
in many places and that doctrinal bias have crept in
(which I agree is hard to control 100% and it may be
completely unintentional, at least in most passages)
and promotes an entirely different thought than the
one intended and this can easily happen when folks
do things during translation, like take out the double
negatives and replace them with positives, due to our
more modern view of what a double negative would
be doing there (but it wasn't intended for that purpose)
and I can tell you that even after all my many years of
careful examination of Scripture, that my understanding
of many verses has instantly and radically changed and
I can't count how many "Wow!" moments the KJ3 has
brought me! I just love the KJ3 translation! :)

You can read it online and also download it by of course,
right-clicking on the PDF's and doing so and your PDF
reader may have a "change to text" function that makes
it very easy to copy and paste in passages from it. :)

As for the things I mentioned, you can read about them
and much more at the link below and I can tell you from
spending a lot of time verifying the claims made there,
that they are 100% accurate claims and I never realized
just how many passages in various translation, including
the KJV (Which I dearly love!!!) are simply not correct
and are not bringing forth the correct words/thoughts!

While no translation is perfect, it is a refreshing thing to
have a translation that is so unbiased and accurate, Vince!

Of course there are going to be some errors. As I said,
no translation is perfect and some doctrinal bias slips in
to every translation (Futurist, since that is what translators
usually are), but in this translation, they are few and far
between, which I know due to working with the translator,
proof-reading and submitting corrections, which he then
reviews. Most have been accepted, him being the type
of guy to want an unbiased translation and being humble
enough to see how it was. I mean stuff like, for example,
where the word should be "the land" and not "the earth",
since most people take that as "the planet", instead of it
meaning what it does, using "the earth" as in "the land",
but in another location, the word was translated as
"the earth" and so, it wasn't consistent. This was one of
those cases where Futurist doctrinal bias slipped in, since
the same Koine Greek word was translated as "the land"
in Matthew, but as "the earth" in Revelation, of course
Revelation being in the Futurist mind, a description of
the end of the planet Earth. You see what I mean? :)

I am interested to see if that one was accepted, it being
sent in possibly after the deadline for printing and so then,
I will have to wait until I can get my genuine leather bound
copy of the KJ3. I have a paperback NT here and have
all of the PDF's, of course, but I do really, really want to
own it in the black genuine leather! :) I know, I know,
that's kind of vain! :) But I just love the feel of a good,
genuine leather covering a Bible, I really do! :)

About the KJ3: http://tinyurl.com/288q7zf

> "None devoted, which shall be devoted of men,
> shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to

> death." - Leviticus 27:29

See below, to just get to the point. :)

>> I can't find anything in that sentence that means
>> that the condemned person (typically a criminal)
>> is "atoning for the sin of another".
>
> That's not the point of that verse. That verse is saying
> that a human sacrifice cannot be redeemed.

I don't see where this verse says anything about
a human sacrifice. It speaks of animals and land.

The verses about humans are about the firstborn
and they did need to be redeemed (Num 3 & 18)
and the prescription was by cash. :)

Numbers 18:15-16

15) Every thing that openeth the matrix in all flesh,
which they bring unto the Lord, whether it be of
men or beasts, shall be thine: nevertheless the
firstborn of man shalt thou surely redeem and
the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem.
16) And those that are to be redeemed from a month
old shalt thou redeem, according to thine estimation,
for the money of five shekels, after the shekel of the
sanctuary, which is twenty gerahs.

And the Lord gives the reason;

"Because all the firstborn are mine; for on the day
that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt,
I hallowed unto me all the firstborn in Israel, both
man and beast: mine shall they be: I am the Lord."
- Numbers 3:13

Thus, the firstborn belong to the Lord, to do with
as He pleased. And when we read through the
Scriptures (as I said, we must know ALL of the Bible
and not just portions of it), then we shall see that
the first born of males were dedicated to the Lord
(Hannah and her son Samuel; Jesus and her Son
Jesus) and thus, to serve Him and were His to do
with as He pleased. So while yes, their redeeming
was to substitute a gift to the Lord for their death
(see Numbers again regarding the firstborn of
animals being offered), where does it say what
he contends there?


> That's problematic for Jews; it's not for us.

Well, it would be problematic for anyone who believes
in the word of God, if it said what he claimed there.
God does not change and while we may not be under
the Mosaic Law, as Paul said; "the law is good".


> We know it ultimately refers to Christ and was

> placed there for that very reason, leaving you
> with a conundrum as to how a human can be
> reserved for God in a sacrificial manner when

> your teachinsgs say a man cannot be reserved

> for God as a human sacrifice.

And it is important to note "their teachings" in contrast
to "the word of the Lord", as you are pointing out and
as found in Matt 15, where as you know, Jesus noted
this difference and how "their teachings have made null
the commandments of God".

Of course you are correct in saying that it ultimately
refers to Christ, Him being the "mystery" that is
throughout the Old Testament and it all ultimately
being about Him and there is a reason that He is
referred to as "the lamb of God" and the Psalm
notes His coming sacrifice:

Psalm 22:1,6-7,16,18

1) My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?
Why art thou so far from helping Me and from
the words of My roaring? [Matt 27:46]
6) But I am a worm and no man; a reproach of men
and despised of the people.
7) All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot
out the lip, they shake the head, saying; [Matt 27:39]
16) For dogs have compassed Me: the assembly of
the wicked have inclosed Me: they pierced My hands
and My feet. [Matt 27:35a]
18) They part My garments among them and cast lots
upon My vesture. [Matt 27:35b]

But let us note that this was not by His choice (Christ's).
While He did say that no one could take His life without
His consent, He was taken by force (knowing they would).

So why act like this was all something that they just
hopped and skipped along, cheering about? :)

And what puzzles me, is how Jews who don't believe
can think that these Jews back then, especially guys
like Paul, who was formerly a prominent Pharisee,
somehow just missed this and how it would have
been possible for them to teach all of these other
Jews the Gospel and they would have just glossed
over this fact, if indeed Rob were correct. Huh? :)

> "Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall

> devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, both of MAN

> and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be
> sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy

> unto the Lord. None devoted, which shall be devoted

> of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put

> to death." - Leviticus 27:28

>
> Jews may have invented a non-biblical means of getting

> around/ignoring the law when it suits them (some Jewish
> movements are famous for that), but the law is clear and
> Jephtah followed it.

And it is important to note "their teachings" in contrast
to "the word of the Lord", as you are pointing out and
as found in Matt 15, where as you know, Jesus noted
this difference and how "their teachings have made null
the commandments of God".

But again, I don't see where the verse(s) he noted are
specifically saying that they are about human sacrifice.


> That's problematic for Jews; it's not for us.

Well, it would be problematic for anyone who believes
in the word of God, if it said what he claimed there.
God does not change and while we may not be under
the Mosaic Law, as Paul said; "the law is good".

>>> We also see later, in 2nd Samuel 21, when David
>>> executes Michal's innocent sons for Saul's sin,
>>> their human deaths were accepted by God as
>>> atonement for the sins of their grandfather against
>>> the Gibeonites, thus ending a divine famine--another
>>> direct contradiction to what the rabbis typically claim
>>> is possible!
>>
>> So you think 2nd Samuel 21 teaches that killing
>> the innocent made Saul now legally innocent???
>

> That's not saying that; it's saying Saul's sin and

> the punishment that came upon others because

> of Saul's sin, was atoned for by the execution of

> some INNOCENT MEN WHO HAD NOTHING TO

> DO WITH THAT SIN.

I won't get into the guilt (whose and why this was done)
factor here, as I don't want to branch off into you and I
discussing the merits of your argument above, but I will
state that this was done at the request of the Gibeonites
and was done to make the peace between both parties.

>> Wow!!!
>>
>> NOTHING in this says that God called it an atonement.
>
> The word need not be used. The event and what's
> going on is 100% clear: God accepted the deaths
> of innocent men to atone for their granddad's sin.

Again, I won't get into this, as it would make the post
too long. :) But while some principles/motives/reasons
are obvious, it is not true in all cases that a word need
not be used and if one is going to make such a bold
statement about such an important statement, then
IMO, they should be able to show the word, or one
similar, or at least be able to show that the passages
(quoting more verses to show context, even if from
another book/letter) clearly speak of what one claims
they speak of, or the other person has every right to
request such evidence. After all, is this not what we
all do (make such a request), when people say that
a passage speaks of such and such? :)

<snip>

It was just more of the same type of thing below,
so that's why I snipped it. :)

--

Pastor Dave, Th.D.

The best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!

"Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason
Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary.
Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin and in
the rubble, you will find the sorry remains of the
Son of God. If Jesus was not the Redeemer... and this
is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."
- Richard Bozarth, Atheist

Make your choice, people! You can't have it both ways!

[randy]

Pastor Dave
randy

> > Objection noted.  However, Jews and Christians suffer
> > the debilitating nature of those marred by sin.  Jesus
> > did not have that sin nature.

> "For we do not have a high priest not being able to sympathize
>  with our infirmities, but One having been tried according in all
>  things according to our likeness, apart from sin." - Hebrews 4:15

> Could He be tempted/tried as we are, if He had no sin nature
> (stain of original sin)?

Fundamental Christian orthodoxy would state that Jesus had no sin
nature. So no, Jesus did not require a sin nature in order to be
tempted by sin. In other words, temptation is external to our human
nature. It can appeal even to a perfect human nature, such as when
Satan tempted Eve in the garden of Eden.

> Furthermore, how would that not mean that the RCC'ers
> are right?  After all, in order for the stain of original sin
> to not have been passed down through Mary, it would
> mean that Mary also had to have been born without sin
> (the Immaculate Conception, which contrary to what
> some believe, is not about Jesus being born without sin,
> but is about Mary being born without sin, so that the stain
> of original sin would not be passed down to Jesus when
> He was born).

Doesn't follow for me. Mary didn't have to be without sin in order to
give birth to a perfect child. The birth of Jesus was a miracle, an
act of God. A miracle does not require conformity to any known
physical laws.

Even more, Jesus was God Himself. If God was without sin, then Jesus
was without sin. In fact, it is a contradiction to say that the one
whose nature defines sin can be sinful Himself! ;)

We disagree on this one also, Dave. It's not that I stand with the
Catholics on Mary's Immaculate nature -- I don't. However, they are
indeed right if they state that Jesus was without sin. That is a
cardinal Christian doctrine. And I believe it is taught in Scriptures.
A flawless sacrifice had to be offered for the sins of mankind. Even
animals under the Law had some kind of flaws, even if they were
accepted on a ceremonial basis.

What mankind needed, I believe, was a pure spirituality capable of
resurrection from the dead. That only came from Jesus -- one man in
history. And he had to be God if he was to transfer his own human
spirituality over to us via the Spirit of God. We participate in his
human attributes through the Spirit of God, as we adopt his model of
humanity and demonstrate his own character.
randy

[SwordOz]

"Snow" <snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote in message
news:a1177e21-ce59-4b84...@k6g2000yql.googlegroups.com...

<soz:>
Well stated "Snow" ... Amen.

[Snow]

On Oct 6, 8:29 am, "SwordOz" <mar...@ptd.net> wrote:

> >> No, this sounds like the same Pauline stuff you always teach,
> >> which is not at all taught in the Bible.
>
> > Respectfully, you and Randy have been taking sides on this issue for
> > at least 5 years that I've been watching you two go at it... clearly
> > neither of you are going to change your point of view so why do you
> > bother?  It seems to me your time and energy would be much better
> > spent on ANYTHING else.
>
> > You know what I think.. you two should meet each other in person.
>
> <soz:>
> Well stated "Snow" ... Amen.

Rob is clearly a very intelligent guy so I don't know why he bothers
to waste his life sending messages trying to convince Randy of
anything. I love Randy too... He's a nice guy but he is going to stay
with his position until the day he dies.. so who cares. Whose to say
whose right and whose wrong.. all this endless nonsense.. it's not
just these two people but Rob is one of the more intelligent people
that post on this message board.. maybe I can get through to him.
Who knows... I just know he waste way to much time in argument over
something so silly.. the reality is so few people read these things
anyways.

Anyways, take care swordOz.. be at peace my friend.

[Sam Taylor]

If Jesus was Born Half G-D /half Man (Flesh)
He could not Sin........NOR...........Even
tempted by Sin.
Scriptures state He was .......Tempted...So He had to have been Flesh.
BUT WHAT FLESH?.......the exact replica of the First Adam had before He
sinned, BY CHOICE.
G-D breathed Into the First Adam, the Breath of Life.
This is NOT AIR....this is called the Ruach Kodash
or the Spirit of Life, or the Spirit of Holiness.
He thus became a Living Soul......not a Dead Soul,
When He Sinned that Spirit of Holliness depated,
and the Spirit of Death began to dwell in Him.
Where did He get that from?
from the Serpent.
for whom You will to Obey the Same is Your G-D.
He willed to choose the Will of the Deciever, over
that of G-D.
Sam
"randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote in message
news:ef6aab8e-e1df-4e97...@s9g2000yql.googlegroups.com...

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 5, 8:02 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Rob Strom wrote:
>
...
>

> > > Leviticus 27:29. A human reserved for sacrifice must be sacrificed and
> > > cannot be redeemed.
>
> > Let's look at the text.
> > "If a human being is declared taboo, he cannot be redeemed and must be
> > put to death."
>
> I like how you use a bizarre translation that uses the word "taboo"
> which is neither hebrew nor greek.
>
> I'll stick with the king james
>
> None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but
> shall surely be put to death.

Can you be at least consistent??

The word "devote" in your
favored KJV is equally neither Hebrew nor Greek;
it is etymologically Latin.
Later, you gloat about the appearance of the word "atonement";
that is also neither Hebrew nor Greek; it is etymologically Anglo-
Saxon.
In fact, in the past you always sneer at me whenever I use Hebrew.
But now you talk about Kaplan as a "bizarre translation"????

The reason I don't like the King James is that it is
written in an older form
of English that is hard for me to understand -- it is just as
difficult
for me to read the King James as to read one of
the foreign language Bibles such as the French or Hungarian ones.

I had to go look in a historical dictionary to find that the English
word
"devoted" in earlier times
(the language of the KJV Bible) didn't mean "loved", but
rather the opposite: "cursed, execrated, doomed to destruction",
and its initial meaning was "set apart by a vow".

If you want Hebrew, here is the passage:
"Kol-cherem asher yochoram min-ha'adam lo yipadeh mot yumat."

So the word is "cherem", the same word that is used to
denote someone who is ritually banished.

So "devoted of man" doesn't mean "devoted *by* man",
but "set apart/banished *from among* men", as the Hebrew indicates.

This has been a long discussion of philology and it
doesn't help one jot or tittle in showing that this passage
indicates that killing an innocent can forgive the sins
of the guilty.

In context it means you can't pay money to redeem somebody
from a death sentence.

Other cases of people being ritually set aside *can* be redeemed
by money, and in fact every Jew whose firstborn child is a son
(e.g. me) knows this. Numbers 18:16 authorizes it:
"The redemption [of a first-born human male] from one month old, shall
be made with [the usual] endowment of 5 shekels ..."

So everybody who's ever done a *pidyon ha-ben* knows that
you can redeem someone who's been consecrated to God,
despite what that passage from Leviticus seems to you
to be saying.

>
> > I can't find anything in that sentence that means that the
> > condemned person (typically a criminal) is "atoning for the
> > sin of another".
>
> That's not the point of that verse. That verse is saying that a human
> sacrifice cannot be redeemed.

There are no human sacrifices.

>
> That's problematic for jews; it's not for us.
>
> We know it ultimately refers to Christ, and was placed there for that
> very reason, leaving you with a conundrum as to how a human can be
> reserved for God in a sacrificial manner when your teachinsgs ay a man
> cannot be reserved for God as a human sacrifice

There is absolutely nothing in the passage about a human sacrifice.

...

>
> > But of course Jephtah *wasn't* bound by his vow, which is
> > why the story is about how tragically stupid he was to think so!
>
> Of course he was bound. The OT always (except in the case of a wife)
> teaches to fulfill your oaths to God, and THESE verses in question shows
> he has no choice:

No it doesn't, and if you read the 11th chapter of the book of
Judges, you will see a teaching that he was foolishly bound.

It is very odd especially at this time of year that you are
trying to teach that vows in vain are binding. In two days,
I will be singing with my choir the Kol Nidre, accompanied
by some of the most beautiful cello music ever, on
the holiest night of the year, an explicit affirmation
to repudiate foolish and vain vows that I may have made.

...

>
> None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but
> shall surely be put to death.

Wrong if it means the modern English sense of "devoted".

The earlier meaning of devoted is "doomed to destruction".
It means you can't undo a death sentence by buying
back the criminal with money.

Otherwise this passage contradicts the one in Numbers which
explicitly says that the consecrated firstborn sons are to
be redeemed.

...

>
> > So you think 2nd Samuel 21 teaches that killing the innocent
> > made Saul now legally innocent???????????????????????
>
> That's not saying that; it's saying Saul's sin, and the punishment that
> came upon others because of saul's sin, was atoned for by the execution
> of some INNOCENT MEN WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT SIN

How is your sentence different from mine?

Mine said killing the innocent made Saul now legally innocent.
Yours said Saul (and others) had their sin atoned for by
the execution of innocent men.

...

>
> The word need not be used. The event and what's going on is 100% clear:
> God accepted the deaths of innocent men to atone for their granddad's
> sin.

There is nothing in that passage that said this (at least if
for the Christian sense of "atone" which means turn
somebody from legally guilty to innocent, as opposed
to the normal sense of "atone" which means "an act
done by a guilty person to redeem himself in the eyes of God".)

>
>
>
> > What it said was that after Rizpah found that her sons had
> > been hanged, she covered their bodies so that the birds
> > couldn't eat them, and then David heard about this and
> > gave all the bodies a proper burial, and THAT was
> > when God "heeded supplications for the land".
> > Notice it didn't say that Saul was innocent.  Otherwise
> > you'd have the horrible lesson that God will forgive
> > the guilty by killing the innocent.
>
> That's problematic for jews; it's not for us. I refer you to quotes i
> gave you:

Nothing in what I said is problematic for Jews.

>
> "The death of the righteous atones just as well as
> certain sacrifices'; and, "This readiness to sacrifice oneself for
> Israel is characteristic of all the great men of Israel, the patriarchs
> and the prophets acting in the same way, whilst also some Rabbis would,
> on certain occasions, exclaim, 'Behold, I am the atonement of Israel.'"
>
> This is an example. Sry if you're bothered by it

I'm not bothered by it at all. It is talking about collective Israel,
and it says that noble acts by good people atone for evil
acts by bad people, which is not at all the same as saying
that killing innocent people washes away the sins of
guilty people.

>
>  No.  This was a lesson
>
> > about not leaving the bodies of hanged people out
> > in the air.
>
> lol

Why do you mock and laugh at the words of the Lord God???

The last thing that happened before God removed
the curse on the land was the burying of the bodies.

...

>
> > Sacrifices don't atone.
>
> And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for
> atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an
> atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it.
> --ex 29
>
> Sry--bible says and shows it does. I just showed you. You should read
> the law more carefully, not rely on commentaries and what your rabbi
> says :)

A sin offering, as explained by the prophets later, only atones
when the real atonement (t'shuvah) has been done by the guilty
person, otherwise no.

And on this week, you of all people should know this,
since you have Yom Kippur in 2 days!!

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Moses likewise (Exodus 32:30) offered to make
> > > atonement for the sins of Israel.
>
> > Oh my goodness!  You really REALLY misread the text!
>
> > Here is the text [after the golden calf]:
> > "The next day, Moses said to the people, 'You have committed a
> > terrible sin. Now I will go back up to God and try to gain atonement
> > for your crime.'
> > Moses went back up to God, and he said, 'The people have committed a
> > terrible sin by making a golden idol.
> > Now, if You would, please forgive their sin.
> > If not, You can blot me out from the book that You have written.'
> > God replied to Moses, 'I will blot out from My book those who have
> > sinned against Me."
>
> > So Moses asked for mercy.  He didn't offer to kill some
> > innocent person to cause the guilty to not be punished.  God forbid.
>
> I'm sorry--i guess you missed the word "atonement" in the passage you
> quoted

I see you don't mind that a non-Hebrew non-Greek word is used *here*.

Here is the Hebrew:
"Vayehi mimochorat vayomer Moshe el-ha'am atem chatatem chata'ah
gedolah ve'atah e'eleh el-Adonay ulay *achaprah* be'ad chatatchem"

So the word is the same as the word in Yom Kippur!

And you can see from the very next sentence that it doesn't
mean killing someone; it means repentance, as Moses
went to God and said "the people have committed
a terrible sin by making a golden idol". In short, it
is a confession and attempt to return to righteousness;
that is what atonement is, and that is what Moses
tried to do, and God actually *rejected* Moses'
offer for him to suffer in place of the people,
saying "mi asher chata-li emchenu misifri".
(Whoever sinned against me I will blot out of my Sefer/Book.)

This is Yom Kippur and the Days of Awe -- how
can you be getting the story so wrong?????


...

> For what? That the bullocks were for the 70 gentile nations? That's in
> the talmud. see Sukkah 55b
>
> Or is this more of your false claim sacrifices don't atone for sin so
> these bullocks aren't for atonement?

Sacrifices don't atone. Repentance and prayer atone,
and only then do sacrifices ceremonialize the deal.

...

>
> > It doesn't mean that the death of the innocent excuses
> > the guilty.  
>
> It ATONES for the guilty in some cases. Not "excuses" them

This whole discussion arose out of your strange theory
that Jesus' death can make innocent out of the guilty.
That is, that because Jesus (supposedly) didn't lie,
a liar who believes in Jesus is treated at judgment day
as if he's a non-liar, because the death of Jesus causes
the liar to be washed unto Jesus, and cleansed
or treated as innocent, or excused, or whatever word
you want to use for being given a better deal than
a Jew who sincerely repented from his lying but
who didn't believe in Jesus.

The conservative Christian motto for
this is "Jesus died for our sins".

It's wrong.


--
Rob Strom

[Rob Strom]

I was on the West Coast recently, but it was San Diego, which
is not close enough to where Randy lives (Washington State)
for this to happen. I've mentioned several times
to Randy that I'd *love* to visit his church and give
a talk there, but he indicated that they probably wouldn't be
receptive to non-Christian opinions.

I don't think the discussions here are necessarily to convince
one's interlocutors, but rather to provide perspective for others who
lurk and read the conversations.

I hardly ever initiate a thread here. Usually I respond to
specific topics of interest to me when
these are raised by others. When I first started
posting (1991) the main hot topics for me were
Messianic Jews and their attempts to convert naive
Jews and especially children -- this was personal,
as two in my wife's family had been converted
as children and then grew up and tried to convert mine.
Later, it branched out into the general issues of
what I considered to be the dangerous parts of
Christianity -- the Pauline view that religion
isn't about being good, but about going to heaven
and that the way to heaven was by faith. In
my opinion,
this leads to really dangerous consequences
in the lives of people, especially leaders who
boast about how Christian they are while
nevertheless ignoring the poor, neglecting
the sick, hunting for sport, lying to protect
their self-interest, and being in general
greedy and rapacious.

If Christians followed Jesus' teachings or
the lessons from Christian-oriented books
like Dickens' "A Christmas Carol", then
I doubt I'd be arguing with any of them.

As for time and energy, I'm retired now,
so I don't have to publish papers on
fault-tolerant distributed computing,
and can devote some energy to presenting
the works righteousness positions here.

Maybe a few will get the message.

--
Rob Strom

[Pastor Dave, Th.D.]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 10:55:59 -0700 (PDT), randy <rkl...@wavecable.com>
said:


> Pastor Dave wrote:

>
>> randy said:
>>
>>> Objection noted.  However, Jews and Christians
>>> suffer the debilitating nature of those marred
>>> by sin.  Jesus did not have that sin nature.
>>
>> "For we do not have a high priest not being able
>> to sympathize with our infirmities, but One having
>> been tried according in all things according to our
>> likeness, apart from sin." - Hebrews 4:15
>
>> Could He be tempted/tried as we are, if He had
>> no sin nature (stain of original sin)?
>

> Fundamental Christian Orthodoxy would state that

> Jesus had no sin nature. So no, Jesus did not
> require a sin nature in order to be tempted by sin.

Three things:

1) It's your claim that "Fundamental Christian Orthodoxy"
would state that, not proof that it would have.

2) That (#1) is an attempt to "win by default", since
you go on to state, "So no, Jesus did not require
a sin nature in order to be tempted by sin" and
whether you like hearing it or not, or feel as if
you're being attacked or not, it is a fact that that
is a disingenuous approach, at best.

3) "Fundamental Christian Orthodoxy" is irrelevant,
since by that we both know that you mean after
the New Testament was written and what the
later church said. That's "Churchology" randy,
not Biblical proof.

And you have conveniently changed the entire context
of my statements to you, by snipping the fact that in
what I said, I did not state to you which belief is correct.
I merely posed some questions about what you said and
began my post (you snipped that part and a lot more)
by saying the following;

"You may want to consider the following..."

So all I asked was that you consider some questions
and thoughts and I played a bit of "Devil's Advocate"
to your thoughts and claims, that's all.

Now why would one snip that, sir?

> In other words, temptation is external
> to our human nature.

Again, that is a claim, not proof, randy.

You Futurists really have a bad habit of assuming
that you're right before even trying to prove that
you are and of trying to act as if making a claim,
is the same as proving your claim and then, when
it's challenged, or even (as I did) just opened up
for discussion, acting as if repeating the same claim,
instead of going more in depth to respond directly
to any response, is proof of your initial claim. (:

I.e., To prove the initial claim, just ignore any type
of response to it and just repeat the initial claim.

That's basically what you're doing here and now,
since all you offered is your claim that your initial
claim is what ""Fundamental Christian Orthodoxy"
would have to say about it, pretending that your
claim of this is proved just by saying it! And this,
while you completely ignored the Scriptures that
I posted, just snipping them right out of my post!

Sorry sir! You don't get to "win by default" by just
making another claim that you're initial claim is right
and pretending that what you now claim about it
is correct and trying to make the other person feel
that they would have to be crazy to disagree with
your latest claim and make them afraid to respond,
by making them think that they didn't know that,
you stating it as if with authority, to make them
think they'll look really stupid if they disagree!

I don't know why you continue to try this approach
with me randy (and please don't insult my intelligence
by trying to pretend that you didn't know exactly what
you were doing, thereby calling me stupid again, randy),
when I have repeatedly told you that I am not stupid
and I know that you know that I am not an unintelligent
person, randy, so why do that???

I'm not saying that I'm the smartest guy in the world
(there is one guy smarter <lol!>), but I am not stupid
and do not, like the ignorant masses of supposed
(self-proclaimed) "well studied Christians"!

Do yourself a favor and when you see my name randy,
just think as follows before responding, please:

"Pastor Dave = Not stupid and won't fall for that!"

Thank you. :)

I'm sorry randy, but your response was not, as you
do well know, a genuine, nor an honest attempt
to respond intelligently and more in depth (which
is what the next round we're now in requires) to
my response. So why should I bother responding
to your newest one, when that's all you offered?

And no randy, that does not mean that to honestly
respond on this issue, that you now get to just keep
ignoring what I posted and try to support your claim
about ""Fundamental Christian Orthodoxy" and then
pretend that I'm the one running away from the
subject when I remind you that it is not the subject
that was under discussion, since as I said, no, that
wouldn't matter anyway, as those men were not
inspired speakers/writers and they certainly do not
trump the inspired writers of the Holy Scriptures,
nor was that, as I said, the subject at hand and
you know that, randy. So don't insult both of us
by doing so.

You're an intelligent man, randy. I really can tell that.
And so it genuinely saddens me to see you respond in
such a disingenuous manner. Especially knowing that
you are not one who is normally at a loss for words
when you want to talk about something. :)

And that would indeed be a funny comment, except for
the fact that I know that when you do respond being at
a loss for words and try to use another claim about your
initial claim as proof of your initial claim, then you are at
a loss to support your initial claim and instead, try to use
this type of ploy (asserting something as fact without any
support for that and changing the specific subject and
this, due to a lack of support), to try to make the other
person feel as if they would be stupid to respond to it
by disputing your claim, not knowing any better.

Of course, this approach must begin by first assuming
that when they snip the text in my post when responding,
that it disappears from every server in the world and that
now, no one can any longer see it/read it! <LOL!> :)

But I have a news flash for you... That isn't how it works!

Hahahahaha!!! :)

Why is it that 99.9% of the people who post in usenet,
think these weird methods of theirs will fly?! And when
their claims are questioned, they want to tell everyone
how they were attacked and/or how insulted they feel,
when in truth, it is they who are insulting the other
person's intelligence, by acting as if the other person
is stupid, seeing as how that's what would be required
for me to fall for that type of approach, randy! But no,
your attempt at deflection did not work and it is you sir,
in this case, who has insulted me! (:

I expected better than this from you and thought that
my response to your post was both respectful and also
enticed a more in depth discussion about the issue.

As I said, I did not even claim that you were wrong.

And this is what I got in return from you? C'mon. (:

As I said, this was nothing more than an attempt by you
to intimidate me into thinking that it would be stupid for
me to disagree with your, "It's a fact!" approach with
your latest claim, as if I am not educated on such things,
as sadly, most everyone else here isn't, as you also know.

But I do not fall for such approaches randy, as I said.

Now feel free to deny this and pretend that you have
no clue what I'm talking about. :)

Of course, that would mean that you would again be
insulting both of our intelligence, but hey, what the
Hell! Why not, right? :)

--

Pastor Dave, Th.D.

The best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!

"If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families,
have really started into life all at once, the fact would be
fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though
natural selection." - Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

This folks, is exactly what happened, as has been proved to
have occurred! The very same thing that Charles Darwin said
would be fatal to his theory and yet, they hang on to the
"theory" and still claim Darwin was right, when the truth is,
Darwin had no proof for the evolution of one kind to another!
None at all! That's why he stated in his book this among
other things, would disprove his theory. Because it wasn't
really a theory, but a hyposthesis and he knew that this book
was his imagination based mainly on some finches with different
beak sizes! Again, that's why he listed what would be fatal to
his "theory". Because he could not prove it/had no proof for it!
And no one since, as the big name evolutionists admit, has ever
shown that the intermediates necessary to prove his claims exist!

[randy]

Rob Strom

> I was on the West Coast recently, but it was San Diego, which
> is not close enough to where Randy lives (Washington State)
> for this to happen.  I've mentioned several times
> to Randy that I'd *love* to visit his church and give
> a talk there, but he indicated that they probably wouldn't be
> receptive to non-Christian opinions.

We are all very busy with our lives. With modern technology it would
be easy for us to exchange information live, using Instant Messenger,
or the like. I have a camera, microphone, and speakers. It is easy to
become very personal.

But that is not my reason for going on alt.messianic. I go on there
because it is a format where I can air my thoughts on subjects that
I'm presently working on. It actually helps me that I'm not very
personal with anyone, although I suppose that could change. I know my
wife wouldn't want me to just open my home up to strangers.

Anyway, I treat everyone as real people, and am truly open to
suggestions and to any honest imput. I try to hear God through both
friend and enemy alike. So it really doesn't matter whether we agree.
In fact, my enemies sometimes provide me with the very topics I want
to address. The only thing that distresses me is the inevitable
personal attacks...

> I don't think the discussions here are necessarily to convince
> one's interlocutors, but rather to provide perspective for others who
> lurk and read the conversations.

Exactly that.

> I hardly ever initiate a thread here.  Usually I respond to
> specific topics of interest to me when
> these are raised by others.  When I first started
> posting (1991) the main hot topics for me were
> Messianic Jews and their attempts to convert naive
> Jews and especially children -- this was personal,
> as two in my wife's family had been converted
> as children and then grew up and tried to convert mine.
> Later, it branched out into the general issues of
> what I considered to be the dangerous parts of
> Christianity -- the Pauline view that religion
> isn't about being good, but about going to heaven

> and that the way to heaven was by faith....

You have Paul wrong. In Romans 2 he clearly indicated that those who
do good works may be in pursuit of faith, which is nothing more than
being receptive to divine spirituality. Paul's argument is that good
works apart from divine spirituality cannot result in divine
characteristics, such as love, joy, peace, kindness, gentleness,
longsuffering, etc. We can only possess these things by faith, because
they are *spiritual* qualities.

So Paul is not denigrating good works. He is only insisting that they
be pursued through faith, so that good works are complemented by good
nature.

> In
> my opinion,
> this leads to really dangerous consequences
> in the lives of people, especially leaders who
> boast about how Christian they are while
> nevertheless ignoring the poor, neglecting
> the sick, hunting for sport, lying to protect
> their self-interest, and being in general
> greedy and rapacious.

Some people wait for Christian leaders to make a single mistake, in
order to leap upon them with hatred and anger. At the same time their
own heroes live corrupt lives on a daily basis, and there is no
concern about them at all. Now why is that?

I realize that Christian leaders have a message, and must support that
message by living consistent lives. However, they are human and
deserve compassion also. Even if some leaders fail, other succeed, and
recommend their message by the lives they lead.

> If Christians followed Jesus' teachings or
> the lessons from Christian-oriented books
> like Dickens' "A Christmas Carol", then
> I doubt I'd be arguing with any of them.

Many Jews have a deep-seated anger and resentment towards Christians
because some of them are bound to be rude towards Jews. However, many
Christians feel a great sense of gratitude towards the Jews, because
of their commitment to live by the Law of Moses. Though we feel that
this in some respects bypasses faith, in other ways this does promote
faith in God. And so many Christians feel some comradery with the
Jewish people.

Why don't you just exercise a little trust in your fellow man and
understand that some Christians share the gospel of Jesus with you
because we love you and want you to have eternal life? Whether you
agree or not is besides the point. Many of us do this because we
actually believe it is true! To not share the gospel with you would be
to not care about you at all!

> As for time and energy, I'm retired now,
> so I don't have to publish papers on
> fault-tolerant distributed computing,
> and can devote some energy to presenting
> the works righteousness positions here.
> Maybe a few will get the message.

If your message is righteousness you make my point for me. Some
Christians and some Jews share an interest in righteousness.
randy

[randy]

Pastor Dave
randy

> Three things:
>
> 1) It's your claim that "Fundamental Christian Orthodoxy"
>     would state that, not proof that it would have.
>
> 2) That (#1) is an attempt to "win by default", since
>     you go on to state, "So no, Jesus did not require
>     a sin nature in order to be tempted by sin" and
>     whether you like hearing it or not, or feel as if
>     you're being attacked or not, it is a fact that that
>     is a disingenuous approach, at best.
>
> 3) "Fundamental Christian Orthodoxy" is irrelevant,
>     since by that we both know that you mean after
>     the New Testament was written and what the
>     later church said.  That's "Churchology" randy,
>     not Biblical proof.

Dave, I'll get back to you on this. However, I want you to know that I
snip things and abbreviate because it's the right things to do. Not
only is it good to keep posts at a manageable size, but it is also
important to separate points so that the arguments remain clear.
Furthermore, readers won't get completely exhausted.

But here on the West coast it is after 1:00 AM, and I need to get up
tomorrow. In other words, I have to abbreviate things because I lack
time, but *find* the time because I enjoy the subjects. I'll try to be
back with what you're asking for tomorrow.

In the meantime please understand that "Fundamental Christian
Orthodoxy" is in fact a big part of my argument. I don't agree that it
is "Churchology." It is Christ in his Church -- a reality, and not a
joke. If *real* Christians through the ages interpret apostolic
doctrine a certain way consistently, it may indicate a universal
Christian truth. We can argue these things, doctrine by doctrine.
randy

[vince garcia]

Rob Strom wrote:
>
> On Oct 5, 9:27 am, Snow <snowpheo...@eck.net.au> wrote:
> > On Sep 19, 9:20 am, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > The good works would always be spoiled by the evil works, and even the
> > > > good works would not be good enough to obtain God's eternal pleasure.
> > > > At best it could only reach out towards God or do things that please
> > > > God.
> >
> > > No, this sounds like the same Pauline stuff you always teach,
> > > which is not at all taught in the Bible.
> >
> > Respectfully, you and Randy have been taking sides on this issue for
> > at least 5 years that I've been watching you two go at it... clearly
> > neither of you are going to change your point of view so why do you
> > bother? It seems to me your time and energy would be much better
> > spent on ANYTHING else.
> >
> > You know what I think.. you two should meet each other in person.
>
> I was on the West Coast recently, but it was San Diego, which
> is not close enough to where Randy lives (Washington State)
> for this to happen. I've mentioned several times
> to Randy that I'd *love* to visit his church and give
> a talk there, but he indicated that they probably wouldn't be
> receptive to non-Christian opinions.

Why didn't you come to mine? I'm only 300 miles away

[vince garcia]

Rob Strom wrote:
>
> On Oct 5, 8:02 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> >
> ...
> >
> > > > Leviticus 27:29. A human reserved for sacrifice must be sacrificed and
> > > > cannot be redeemed.
> >
> > > Let's look at the text.
> > > "If a human being is declared taboo, he cannot be redeemed and must be
> > > put to death."
> >
> > I like how you use a bizarre translation that uses the word "taboo"
> > which is neither hebrew nor greek.
> >
> > I'll stick with the king james
> >
> > None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but
> > shall surely be put to death.
>
> Can you be at least consistent??
>
> The word "devote" in your
> favored KJV is equally neither Hebrew nor Greek;
> it is etymologically Latin.
> Later, you gloat about the appearance of the word "atonement";
> that is also neither Hebrew nor Greek; it is etymologically Anglo-
> Saxon.
> In fact, in the past you always sneer at me whenever I use Hebrew.
> But now you talk about Kaplan as a "bizarre translation"????

How about not beeing foolish? "Taboo" is not english or hebrew. "devote"
and "atonement" ARE english.

>
> The reason I don't like the King James is that it is
> written in an older form
> of English that is hard for me to understand -- it is just as
> difficult
> for me to read the King James as to read one of
> the foreign language Bibles such as the French or Hungarian ones.
>
> I had to go look in a historical dictionary to find that the English
> word
> "devoted" in earlier times
> (the language of the KJV Bible) didn't mean "loved", but
> rather the opposite: "cursed, execrated, doomed to destruction",
> and its initial meaning was "set apart by a vow".

And Christ, the lamb of God, became a sacrifice for sin and became
cursed on the cross.

>
> If you want Hebrew, here is the passage:
> "Kol-cherem asher yochoram min-ha'adam lo yipadeh mot yumat."
>
> So the word is "cherem", the same word that is used to
> denote someone who is ritually banished.
>
> So "devoted of man" doesn't mean "devoted *by* man",
> but "set apart/banished *from among* men", as the Hebrew indicates.

As Christ, the HUMAN SACRIFICE, was

>
> This has been a long discussion of philology and it
> doesn't help one jot or tittle in showing that this passage
> indicates that killing an innocent can forgive the sins
> of the guilty.

I showed verses where that IS shown. THIS verse says a HUMAN proscribed
to death cannot be redeemed but nust be slain. And you missed this
verse:

every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD.

Followed immediately by:

None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed ; but
shall surely be put to death

The context is a HUMAN BEING who must die is "most holy" unto the Lord.

That don't work in YOUR world; it works perfectly in a Christian world
view when you see that verse is talking about the lamb of God dying as a
sacrifice.

It would be a weird God who saw criminals or slain pagsns as "most holy"


Thus, a HUMAN can be employed before God as a sacrifice as shown here,
is "most holy" before God, and as shown elsewhere can atone for sin as
shown in the saul's son incidents.

Those are what your scriptures show, and you're stuck with it.

> >
> > > I can't find anything in that sentence that means that the
> > > condemned person (typically a criminal) is "atoning for the
> > > sin of another".
> >
> > That's not the point of that verse. That verse is saying that a human
> > sacrifice cannot be redeemed.
>
> There are no human sacrifices.

I just showed you there were. You simply are trying to define "human
sacrifice" with your own terms when God's are different

>
> >
> > That's problematic for jews; it's not for us.
> >
> > We know it ultimately refers to Christ, and was placed there for that
> > very reason, leaving you with a conundrum as to how a human can be
> > reserved for God in a sacrificial manner when your teachinsgs ay a man
> > cannot be reserved for God as a human sacrifice
>
> There is absolutely nothing in the passage about a human sacrifice.

Yes there is.

>
> ...
> >
> > > But of course Jephtah *wasn't* bound by his vow, which is
> > > why the story is about how tragically stupid he was to think so!
> >
> > Of course he was bound. The OT always (except in the case of a wife)
> > teaches to fulfill your oaths to God, and THESE verses in question shows
> > he has no choice:
>
> No it doesn't, and if you read the 11th chapter of the book of
> Judges, you will see a teaching that he was foolishly bound.
>
> It is very odd especially at this time of year that you are
> trying to teach that vows in vain are binding. In two days,
> I will be singing with my choir the Kol Nidre, accompanied
> by some of the most beautiful cello music ever, on
> the holiest night of the year, an explicit affirmation
> to repudiate foolish and vain vows that I may have made.

SO WHAT? This NON-BIBLICAL holy day and process ISN'T IN THE SCRIPTURE
AT ALL, but was INVENTED by jews looking for ways to avoid doing what
scripture says about keeping vows made to God

I'm amazed you appeal to it like it was taught in scripture or was
available to jepthah

>
> ...
> >
> > None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but
> > shall surely be put to death.
>
> Wrong if it means the modern English sense of "devoted".

No one says it does. The BIBLE indicates the human who dies is "most
holy" just as ALL the things procribed in the passage are called "most
holy"


EVERY devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD.

Did you miss the word "every"?

> ...
> >
> > > So you think 2nd Samuel 21 teaches that killing the innocent
> > > made Saul now legally innocent???????????????????????
> >
> > That's not saying that; it's saying Saul's sin, and the punishment that
> > came upon others because of saul's sin, was atoned for by the execution
> > of some INNOCENT MEN WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT SIN
>
> How is your sentence different from mine?
>
> Mine said killing the innocent made Saul now legally innocent.
> Yours said Saul (and others) had their sin atoned for by
> the execution of innocent men.

I didn't say their deaths bought saul entrance into heaven )"legally
innocent") as you seem to suggest I must mean.

I said their deaths atoned for the consequences of his sin.

>
> ...
> >
> > The word need not be used. The event and what's going on is 100% clear:
> > God accepted the deaths of innocent men to atone for their granddad's
> > sin.
>
> There is nothing in that passage that said this

The whole incident shows it.

As always, when you don't like something, you require language so
specific you can'r find any theory to get around it before you'll admit
you're wrong...and you never DO admit your wrong on these sorts of
things

well--the passage teaches this CLEARLY, and your claim ir doesn't holds
no water.

(at least if
> for the Christian sense of "atone" which means turn
> somebody from legally guilty to innocent, as opposed
> to the normal sense of "atone" which means "an act
> done by a guilty person to redeem himself in the eyes of God".)
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > What it said was that after Rizpah found that her sons had
> > > been hanged, she covered their bodies so that the birds
> > > couldn't eat them, and then David heard about this and
> > > gave all the bodies a proper burial, and THAT was
> > > when God "heeded supplications for the land".
> > > Notice it didn't say that Saul was innocent. Otherwise
> > > you'd have the horrible lesson that God will forgive
> > > the guilty by killing the innocent.
> >
> > That's problematic for jews; it's not for us. I refer you to quotes i
> > gave you:
>
> Nothing in what I said is problematic for Jews.

It's ALL problematic.

1. You claim God can never accept or demand the sacrifice of a human
messaiah to atone for sin because the law "forbids" that.

2. You claim no one can atone for someoene else's sin.

3. You claim a human person's death cannot atone for sin.


I have shown all these claims to be FALSE.

God DID accept saul's sons' deaths to atone for their grandad's sin, and
the law has an enigmatic verse showing a human has the capacity to be
reserved to death for sin, and is actually "most holy" in that.

I showed verses where moses and job atoned for other people's sins on
behalf of them. job especially, and the bullocks on sokkhot.

I showed where the death of human men acted as a means of atoning for
other mens' sins and even posted jewish writings claiming that the death
of the righteous atones for sins in God's eyes

You can kick and scream all you like, but you have been shown your
error.

>
> >
> > "The death of the righteous atones just as well as
> > certain sacrifices'; and, "This readiness to sacrifice oneself for
> > Israel is characteristic of all the great men of Israel, the patriarchs
> > and the prophets acting in the same way, whilst also some Rabbis would,
> > on certain occasions, exclaim, 'Behold, I am the atonement of Israel.'"
> >
> > This is an example. Sry if you're bothered by it
>
> I'm not bothered by it at all. It is talking about collective Israel,
> and it says that noble acts by good people atone for evil
> acts by bad people, which is not at all the same as saying
> that killing innocent people washes away the sins of
> guilty people.
>
> >
> > No. This was a lesson
> >
> > > about not leaving the bodies of hanged people out
> > > in the air.
> >
> > lol
>
> Why do you mock and laugh at the words of the Lord God???

I laugh at your utter foolishness and blindness, thinking removing them
from hanging is the key point of the incident

>
> The last thing that happened before God removed
> the curse on the land was the burying of the bodies.

No, the last thing would have been Michal's going into mourning, or the
witnesses going back home, if you want to foolishly throw things out to
obfuscate the incident.

>
> ...
> >
> > > Sacrifices don't atone.
> >
> > And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for
> > atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an
> > atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it.
> > --ex 29
> >
> > Sry--bible says and shows it does. I just showed you. You should read
> > the law more carefully, not rely on commentaries and what your rabbi
> > says :)
>
> A sin offering, as explained by the prophets later, only atones
> when the real atonement (t'shuvah) has been done by the guilty
> person, otherwise no.

Are you retracting the statement "Sacrifices don't atone"? yes or no?

If the answer is NO, THIS shows how unworthy of consideration your views
are, and makes my point about your false theological views that deny
what God actually teaches:

And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for
atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an
atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it

Your claim that your repentance and penance are the atonement because
YOU atone for your sin by that-- and the animal really means/does
nothing--is not biblical

>
> And on this week, you of all people should know this,
> since you have Yom Kippur in 2 days!!

I don't believe your observance of yom kippur secures the forgiveness of
even one sin for you!

>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Moses likewise (Exodus 32:30) offered to make
> > > > atonement for the sins of Israel.
> >
> > > Oh my goodness! You really REALLY misread the text!
> >
> > > Here is the text [after the golden calf]:
> > > "The next day, Moses said to the people, 'You have committed a
> > > terrible sin. Now I will go back up to God and try to gain atonement
> > > for your crime.'
> > > Moses went back up to God, and he said, 'The people have committed a
> > > terrible sin by making a golden idol.
> > > Now, if You would, please forgive their sin.
> > > If not, You can blot me out from the book that You have written.'
> > > God replied to Moses, 'I will blot out from My book those who have
> > > sinned against Me."
> >
> > > So Moses asked for mercy. He didn't offer to kill some
> > > innocent person to cause the guilty to not be punished. God forbid.
> >
> > I'm sorry--i guess you missed the word "atonement" in the passage you
> > quoted
>
> I see you don't mind that a non-Hebrew non-Greek word is used *here*.

IT'S ENGLISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"taboo" is polynesian





Not

>
> Here is the Hebrew:
> "Vayehi mimochorat vayomer Moshe el-ha'am atem chatatem chata'ah
> gedolah ve'atah e'eleh el-Adonay ulay *achaprah* be'ad chatatchem"
>
> So the word is the same as the word in Yom Kippur!
>
> And you can see from the very next sentence that it doesn't
> mean killing someone; it means repentance, as Moses
> went to God and said "the people have committed
> a terrible sin by making a golden idol". In short, it
> is a confession and attempt to return to righteousness;
> that is what atonement is, and that is what Moses
> tried to do, and God actually *rejected* Moses'
> offer for him to suffer in place of the people,
> saying "mi asher chata-li emchenu misifri".
> (Whoever sinned against me I will blot out of my Sefer/Book.)

HUH??????????? You think the guy "put to death" isn't slain?

>
> This is Yom Kippur and the Days of Awe -- how
> can you be getting the story so wrong?????

Your sins remain on you before and after yom kippur even in a best-case
scenario with the goats being sacrificed, which never took sin away
after 30 AD since the wool stayed red.

Do you miss the significance of that? THe goat wasn't taking away sin
anymore so the wool never turned white again after the crucifixion in 30
AD

Now you don't even have the goat!

Your sin remains

>
> ...
> > For what? That the bullocks were for the 70 gentile nations? That's in
> > the talmud. see Sukkah 55b
> >
> > Or is this more of your false claim sacrifices don't atone for sin so
> > these bullocks aren't for atonement?
>
> Sacrifices don't atone. Repentance and prayer atone,
> and only then do sacrifices ceremonialize the deal.

And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for
atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an
atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it.

I'll stick with the bible on this issue, not your cliam

>
> ...
> >
> > > It doesn't mean that the death of the innocent excuses
> > > the guilty.
> >
> > It ATONES for the guilty in some cases. Not "excuses" them
>
> This whole discussion arose out of your strange theory
> that Jesus' death can make innocent out of the guilty.

uh. yeah--that's Christianity

> That is, that because Jesus (supposedly) didn't lie,
> a liar who believes in Jesus is treated at judgment day
> as if he's a non-liar, because the death of Jesus causes
> the liar to be washed unto Jesus, and cleansed
> or treated as innocent, or excused, or whatever word
> you want to use for being given a better deal than
> a Jew who sincerely repented from his lying but
> who didn't believe in Jesus.
>
> The conservative Christian motto for
> this is "Jesus died for our sins".
>
> It's wrong.

you're wrong


>
> --
> Rob Strom

[Pastor Dave, Th.D.]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 01:15:22 -0700 (PDT), randy <rkl...@wavecable.com>
said:

>Pastor Dave
>randy
>
>> Three things:
>>
>> 1) It's your claim that "Fundamental Christian Orthodoxy"
>>     would state that, not proof that it would have.
>>
>> 2) That (#1) is an attempt to "win by default", since
>>     you go on to state, "So no, Jesus did not require
>>     a sin nature in order to be tempted by sin" and
>>     whether you like hearing it or not, or feel as if
>>     you're being attacked or not, it is a fact that that
>>     is a disingenuous approach, at best.
>>
>> 3) "Fundamental Christian Orthodoxy" is irrelevant,
>>     since by that we both know that you mean after
>>     the New Testament was written and what the
>>     later church said.  That's "Churchology" randy,
>>     not Biblical proof.
>
> Dave, I'll get back to you on this.

You mean you'll repeat your initial claims, if you respond
to it at all, which I doubt, because it shows you as you are.

> However, I want you to know that I snip things
> and abbreviate because it's the right things to do.

And the spots that you snip just so happen to be the context
for what I say and the Scriptures. Yea, sure, right! <chuckle>

--

Pastor Dave, Th.D.

The best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!

Racism sucks! And it's illogical, since there is
only one race... the human race!

"[God] hath made of one blood all nations of men
for to dwell on all the face of the earth..."
- Acts 17:26

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 6, 6:17 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Rob Strom wrote:
>
...

> > > You know what I think.. you two should meet each other in person.
>
> > I was on the West Coast recently, but it was San Diego, which
> > is not close enough to where Randy lives (Washington State)
> > for this to happen. I've mentioned several times
> > to Randy that I'd *love* to visit his church and give
> > a talk there, but he indicated that they probably wouldn't be
> > receptive to non-Christian opinions.
>
> Why didn't you come to mine? I'm only 300 miles away

I'd love to come. I was on vacation with my family, though,
and this would have been a 5 hour drive each way!

Where's your church? Would they let me come and
give a talk on legalism?

--
Rob Strom

[Alfred Moss]

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 11:23:40 -0400, In article
<6ulo875ssdbbtp8uv...@4ax.com>,
"Pastor Dave, Th.D."
<news_gr...@somewhere.com> wrote:

>(Futurist, since that is what translators
>usually are)

Of course people who study and translate the
original languages of the Bible are going to be
futurist in their eschatology. People who are more
interested in their imagination than what the text
says become Preterists.

[SwordOz]

"Snow" <snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote in message

news:3867887c-1451-47db...@gd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

<soz:>
Patience is peace, my friend. Likewise to you.

[vince garcia]

Rob Strom wrote:
>
> On Oct 6, 6:17 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> >
> ...
> > > > You know what I think.. you two should meet each other in person.
> >
> > > I was on the West Coast recently, but it was San Diego, which
> > > is not close enough to where Randy lives (Washington State)
> > > for this to happen. I've mentioned several times
> > > to Randy that I'd *love* to visit his church and give
> > > a talk there, but he indicated that they probably wouldn't be
> > > receptive to non-Christian opinions.
> >
> > Why didn't you come to mine? I'm only 300 miles away
>
> I'd love to come. I was on vacation with my family, though,
> and this would have been a 5 hour drive each way!

YEah it is a hard drive. But if you have gone to Yosemite, you'd have
passed through here

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 7, 8:34 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Rob Strom wrote:...

> > > Why didn't you come to mine? I'm only 300 miles away
>
> > I'd love to come.  I was on vacation with my family, though,
> > and this would have been a 5 hour drive each way!
>
> YEah it is a hard drive. But if you have gone to Yosemite, you'd have
> passed through here

Well there's also the issue of my not knowing where your church is.

If you recall, I know where Randy's is, because when we were
discussing his (then) pastor's wife whose son Seldon was
(supposedly) brought up Orthodox, Randy posted a link to
the wife's book, which I was able to order online, and the
information in the bio told me where the church was.

All I know about you is that you live somewhere in California,
you work(ed) for the IRS for $20000/year, that you refuse to buy
health insurance, and that you own several books by
and about figures from the 3rd Reich.

--
Rob Strom

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 6, 6:59 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Rob Stromwrote:

...
>
> > > None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but
> > > shall surely be put to death.
>

> > Can you be at least consistent??
>
> > The word "devote" in your
> > favored KJV is equally neither Hebrew nor Greek;
> > it is etymologically Latin.
> > Later, you gloat about the appearance of the word "atonement";
> > that is also neither Hebrew nor Greek; it is etymologically Anglo-
> > Saxon.
> > In fact, in the past you always sneer at me whenever I use Hebrew.
> > But now you talk about Kaplan as a "bizarre translation"????
>
> How about not beeing foolish? "Taboo" is not english or hebrew. "devote"
> and "atonement" ARE english.

You said the word was neither Hebrew nor Greek. You have changed
the goalposts to "neither English nor Hebrew". And in fact, the
word "taboo" is just as English as the word "devote".

It is *etymologically* Polynesian, but is now English.
Just as the word "devote" is etymologically Latin,
but is now English.

...>

> > I had to go look in a historical dictionary to find that the English
> > word
> > "devoted" in earlier times
> > (the language of the KJV Bible) didn't mean "loved", but
> > rather the opposite: "cursed, execrated, doomed to destruction",
> > and its initial meaning was "set apart by a vow".
>
> And Christ, the lamb of God, became a sacrifice for sin and became
> cursed on the cross.

He was a condemned criminal. The law says he couldn't be redeemed.
I don't see how it says that human sacrifices are (a) ok and (b) atone
for sins.

...

>
>
> > If you want Hebrew, here is the passage:
> > "Kol-cherem asher yochoram min-ha'adam lo yipadeh mot yumat."
>
> > So the word is "cherem", the same word that is used to
> > denote someone who is ritually banished.
>
> > So "devoted of man" doesn't mean "devoted *by* man",
> > but "set apart/banished *from among* men", as the Hebrew indicates.
>
> As Christ, the HUMAN SACRIFICE, was

He was a condemned criminal, just like the passage was saying.

...>

>
> > This has been a long discussion of philology and it
> > doesn't help one jot or tittle in showing that this passage
> > indicates that killing an innocent can forgive the sins
> > of the guilty.
>
> I showed verses where that IS shown. THIS verse says a HUMAN proscribed
> to death cannot be redeemed but nust be slain. And you missed this
> verse:
>
> every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD.
>
> Followed immediately by:
>
> None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed ; but
> shall surely be put to death
>
> The context is a HUMAN BEING who must die is "most holy" unto the Lord.

Oh?? Then by your logic, the Canaanites were "most holy" unto the
Lord,
since they were also cherem. See Numbers 21:3, which uses the same
word, both in the Hebrew and in the translation:
"God heard Israel's voice, and He allowed them to defeat the
Canaanites.
[The Israelites] declared them and their cities taboo.
The place was therefore named Taboo (Charmah)."

>
> That don't work in YOUR world; it works perfectly in a Christian world
> view when you see that verse is talking about the lamb of God dying as a
> sacrifice.
>
> It would be a weird God who saw criminals or slain pagsns as "most holy"

Well, apparently He did exactly that with respect to the Canaanites in
Numbers 21.

...

>
> > > > I can't find anything in that sentence that means that the
> > > > condemned person (typically a criminal) is "atoning for the
> > > > sin of another".
>
> > > That's not the point of that verse. That verse is saying that a human
> > > sacrifice cannot be redeemed.
>
> > There are no human sacrifices.
>
> I just showed you there were. You simply are trying to define "human
> sacrifice" with your own terms when God's are different
>

Perhaps you can show me a quotation from the Bible that calls
a cherem a human sacrifice.

...

> > No it doesn't, and if you read the 11th chapter of the book of
> > Judges, you will see a teaching that he was foolishly bound.
>
> > It is very odd especially at this time of year that you are
> > trying to teach that vows in vain are binding. In two days,

> > I will be singing with my choir theKolNidre, accompanied

> > by some of the most beautiful cello music ever, on
> > the holiest night of the year, an explicit affirmation
> > to repudiate foolish and vain vows that I may have made.
>
> SO WHAT? This NON-BIBLICAL holy day and process ISN'T IN THE SCRIPTURE
> AT ALL, but was INVENTED by jews looking for ways to avoid doing what
> scripture says about keeping vows made to God

Uh, This Biblical holy day is mentioned by name in the scripture.
Leviticus 23:27 --
"The 10th of this seventh month shall be the Day of Atonement for
you.
It is a sacred holiday when you must fast and bring a fire offering to
God."
Ach be'asor lachodesh hashevi'i hazeh **Yom haKipurim** hu mikra-
kodesh
yihyeh lachem ve'initem et-nafshoteychem vehikravtem isheh l'Adonay.

...

>
> I'm amazed you appeal to it like it was taught in scripture or was
> available to jepthah

Kol Nidre (which begins Yom Kippur)
isn't some modern liberal or Reform idea -- it goes back *at least*
to the 10th century, so it is far more ingrained in Judaism than
Lutheranism is in Christianity. The procedure for
annulling vain or foolish vows goes back to
ancient times, so it's halachic!

The story of Jephthah was one of the *incentives* for
establishing a procedure.

In any case, it's in the Mishneh Torah:
"One who makes a vow and regrets it applies to a sage who dissolves
it, and the law of dissolution of vows is like the law of dissolution
of oaths, which can be dissolved only by a recognized sage or three
commoners in a place where there is no sage, and a vow is dissolved by
the same formula by which an oath is dissolved, and the other matters
that I explained in regard to oaths are the same for vows as for
oaths. (Mishneh Torah, Hilkot Nedarim, 4)"




...

>
> > Wrong if it means the modern English sense of "devoted".
>
> No one says it does. The BIBLE indicates the human who dies is "most
> holy" just as ALL the things procribed in the passage are called "most
> holy"
>
> EVERY devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD.
>
> Did you miss the word "every"?
>

Did you miss that they were talking about things vowed to the
sanctuary?

...

>
> > Mine said killing the innocent made Saul now legally innocent.
> > Yours said Saul (and others) had their sin atoned for by
> > the execution of innocent men.
>
> I didn't say their deaths bought saul entrance into heaven )"legally
> innocent") as you seem to suggest I must mean.
>
> I said their deaths atoned for the consequences of his sin.
>

The normal meaning of atone is to show in your
future actions that you deserve mercy for the
sin of your former actions.

...

>
> > There is nothing in that passage that said this
>
> The whole incident shows it.
>
> As always, when you don't like something, you require language so
> specific you can'r find any theory to get around it before you'll admit
> you're wrong...and you never DO admit your wrong on these sorts of
> things

That's the normal principle. Extraordinary things require
extraordinary evidence. You apply it all the time, e.g.,
you won't accept the dimensional transcendence theory
of Rebekah's womb because you would first look for
any way to read the passage as symbolic even though
the passage very clearly states that there were *nations*
in Rebekah's womb, not patriarchs of future nations.

...

>
> It's ALL problematic.
>
> 1. You claim God can never accept or demand the sacrifice of a human
> messaiah to atone for sin because the law "forbids" that.

I didn't say the law forbids that. I said that the Bible
teaches, both in the akeidah and in the rule that
everyone dies for its own sin that nobody
can be killed to take away the guilt of others.

>
> 2. You claim no one can atone for someoene else's sin.

The Bible says it.

>
> 3. You claim a human person's death cannot atone for sin.

Yes.

>
> I have shown all these claims to be FALSE.
>
> God DID accept saul's sons' deaths to atone for their grandad's sin,

No, it never says it atones for the sins.

It says, without commentary, that the sin happened, the plagues
happened, the
deal with the Gibeonites happened, the sons were
killed and left hanging in public. The bodies were
then buried. Then the plagues stopped.

> and
> the law has an enigmatic verse showing a human has the capacity to be
> reserved to death for sin, and is actually "most holy" in that.

Those are two different verses. One about property devoted to
the Temple (that is holy), and the other about persons
condemned to death. To say that all cherem is holy
would imply, as I've shown, that the Canaanites were holy.

>
> I showed verses where moses and job atoned for other people's sins on
> behalf of them. job especially, and the bullocks on sokkhot.

These are just usual sacrifices. If you attended YK services,
you'd have read from the prophets including Isaiah where
fasts and sacrifices without proper repentance and acts
of justice *don't* atone for anything, and another prophet
mentions that without sacrifices prayer and repentance *do* atone.

>
> I showed where the death of human men acted as a means of atoning for
> other mens' sins and even posted jewish writings claiming that the death
> of the righteous atones for sins in God's eyes

These are collective sins, and what is meant that good acts of
a people can mitigate the collective punishment of a people for
their bad acts, not that the death of innocents atones for
sins of guilty.


...

>
>
> > The last thing that happened before God removed
> > the curse on the land was the burying of the bodies.
>
> No, the last thing would have been Michal's going into mourning, or the
> witnesses going back home, if you want to foolishly throw things out to
> obfuscate the incident.

The last thing in the story.

...

>
> > A sin offering, as explained by the prophets later, only atones
> > when the real atonement (t'shuvah) has been done by the guilty
> > person, otherwise no.
>
> Are you retracting the statement "Sacrifices don't atone"? yes or no?

I am qualifying the statement.
...

>
> Your claim that your repentance and penance are the atonement because
> YOU atone for your sin by that-- and the animal really means/does
> nothing--is not biblical

Hosea 14:2 is an inkblot?

>
>
>
> > And on this week, you of all people should know this,
> > since you have Yom Kippur in 2 days!!
>
> I don't believe your observance of yom kippur secures the forgiveness of
> even one sin for you!

That's because you have a different religion from mine
and you don't accept Judaism!

...

>
> > I see you don't mind that a non-Hebrew non-Greek word is used *here*.
>
> IT'S ENGLISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> "taboo" is polynesian

"Taboo" ***was*** polynesian, just like "devote" ***was*** Latin,
but the word has been part of the English language for over a century
if not more. I checked and Boas definitely used the word in his books
...

>
>
> > Here is the Hebrew:
> > "Vayehi mimochorat vayomer Moshe el-ha'am atem chatatem chata'ah
> > gedolah ve'atah e'eleh el-Adonay ulay *achaprah* be'ad chatatchem"
>
> > So the word is the same as the word in Yom Kippur!
>
> > And you can see from the very next sentence that it doesn't
> > mean killing someone; it means repentance, as Moses
> > went to God and said "the people have committed
> > a terrible sin by making a golden idol". In short, it
> > is a confession and attempt to return to righteousness;
> > that is what atonement is, and that is what Moses
> > tried to do, and God actually *rejected* Moses'
> > offer for him to suffer in place of the people,
> > saying "mi asher chata-li emchenu misifri".
> > (Whoever sinned against me I will blot out of my Sefer/Book.)
>
> HUH??????????? You think the guy "put to death" isn't slain?

Where did I say that? I said that that Moses' atonement
consisted of a confession.

>
>
>
> > This is Yom Kippur and the Days of Awe -- how
> > can you be getting the story so wrong?????
>
> Your sins remain on you before and after yom kippur even in a best-case
> scenario with the goats being sacrificed, which never took sin away
> after 30 AD since the wool stayed red.
>
> Do you miss the significance of that? THe goat wasn't taking away sin
> anymore so the wool never turned white again after the crucifixion in 30
> AD
>
> Now you don't even have the goat!
>

You're still thinking like a primitive -- sins aren't taken away by
goats and magic. They are taken away by contrition and repentance,
and if you had fasted and gone to services Friday night and yesterday,
you might have learned this!!


--
Rob Strom

[vince garcia]

1. It's now way less than $20000/year
2. I do buy health insurance (when working)
3. I own no books by and about figures from the 3rd Reich.

[vince garcia]

Rob Strom wrote:
>
> On Oct 6, 6:59 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Stromwrote:
> ...
> >
> > > > None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but
> > > > shall surely be put to death.
> >
> > > Can you be at least consistent??
> >
> > > The word "devote" in your
> > > favored KJV is equally neither Hebrew nor Greek;
> > > it is etymologically Latin.
> > > Later, you gloat about the appearance of the word "atonement";
> > > that is also neither Hebrew nor Greek; it is etymologically Anglo-
> > > Saxon.
> > > In fact, in the past you always sneer at me whenever I use Hebrew.
> > > But now you talk about Kaplan as a "bizarre translation"????
> >
> > How about not beeing foolish? "Taboo" is not english or hebrew. "devote"
> > and "atonement" ARE english.
>
> You said the word was neither Hebrew nor Greek. You have changed
> the goalposts to "neither English nor Hebrew". And in fact, the
> word "taboo" is just as English as the word "devote".

Sorry, I erred by saying "greek". I did that out of force of habit.

The main point is, "taboo" is a HORRIBLE word to throw in there. In our
culture, it means "forbidden to do"

The hebrew word doesn't mean that AT ALL

>
> It is *etymologically* Polynesian, but is now English.
> Just as the word "devote" is etymologically Latin,
> but is now English.
>
> ...>
> > > I had to go look in a historical dictionary to find that the English
> > > word
> > > "devoted" in earlier times
> > > (the language of the KJV Bible) didn't mean "loved", but
> > > rather the opposite: "cursed, execrated, doomed to destruction",
> > > and its initial meaning was "set apart by a vow".
> >
> > And Christ, the lamb of God, became a sacrifice for sin and became
> > cursed on the cross.
>
> He was a condemned criminal. The law says he couldn't be redeemed.
> I don't see how it says that human sacrifices are (a) ok and (b) atone
> for sins.

He was the lamb of God who became a propitiary sacrifice for sin

a. Human sacrifices are NOT ok, but GOD made provision for CHRIST as a
propitiary sacrifice for sin, and HE is "most holy"

You're failing to see the ultimate point of that verse and trying to
give it a wooden, lieral interpretation when its deeper and ultimate
meaning is about CHRIST.

Also, criminals are not devolted/reserved to God as sacrifices just
because they are slain for their crimes. Christ WAS devoted to God, and
is the one person in all time whom WAS specifically reserved as a most
holy sacrifice for sin.

That's the ultimate point of the verse

b. You've been shown where men's lives can atone for sin. You just don't
like it and are trying to find a way around it

>
> ...
> >
> >
> > > If you want Hebrew, here is the passage:
> > > "Kol-cherem asher yochoram min-ha'adam lo yipadeh mot yumat."
> >
> > > So the word is "cherem", the same word that is used to
> > > denote someone who is ritually banished.
> >
> > > So "devoted of man" doesn't mean "devoted *by* man",
> > > but "set apart/banished *from among* men", as the Hebrew indicates.
> >
> > As Christ, the HUMAN SACRIFICE, was
>
> He was a condemned criminal, just like the passage was saying.

Criminals are not devolted/reserved to God as sacrifices just because
they are slain for their crimes. Christ WAS devoted/proscribed to God,
and is the one person in all time whom WAS specifically reserved as a
most holy sacrifice for sin.

> >
> > every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD.
> >
> > Followed immediately by:
> >
> > None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed ; but
> > shall surely be put to death
> >
> > The context is a HUMAN BEING who must die is "most holy" unto the Lord.
>
> Oh?? Then by your logic, the Canaanites were "most holy" unto the
> Lord,
> since they were also cherem.

Canaanites are not devolted/reserved to God as sacrifices just because
they are slain for their crimes. Christ WAS devoted/proscribed to God,
and is the one person in all time whom WAS specifically reserved as a
most holy sacrifice for sin.

That's what you miss

> ...
> >
> > > > > I can't find anything in that sentence that means that the
> > > > > condemned person (typically a criminal) is "atoning for the
> > > > > sin of another".
> >
> > > > That's not the point of that verse. That verse is saying that a human
> > > > sacrifice cannot be redeemed.
> >
> > > There are no human sacrifices.
> >
> > I just showed you there were. You simply are trying to define "human
> > sacrifice" with your own terms when God's are different
> >
>
> Perhaps you can show me a quotation from the Bible that calls
> a cherem a human sacrifice.

The passage in leviticus makes the point

>
> ...
> > > No it doesn't, and if you read the 11th chapter of the book of
> > > Judges, you will see a teaching that he was foolishly bound.
> >
> > > It is very odd especially at this time of year that you are
> > > trying to teach that vows in vain are binding. In two days,
> > > I will be singing with my choir theKolNidre, accompanied
> > > by some of the most beautiful cello music ever, on
> > > the holiest night of the year, an explicit affirmation
> > > to repudiate foolish and vain vows that I may have made.
> >
> > SO WHAT? This NON-BIBLICAL holy day and process ISN'T IN THE SCRIPTURE
> > AT ALL, but was INVENTED by jews looking for ways to avoid doing what
> > scripture says about keeping vows made to God
>
> Uh, This Biblical holy day is mentioned by name in the scripture.
> Leviticus 23:27 --
> "The 10th of this seventh month shall be the Day of Atonement for
> you.

That is Yom Kippur, not the Kol Nidre which was invented in the 10th
century and made a part of it!!!

This is "adding to the law" which the jews are forbidden to do, but yet
ignore and do when they want to "fix" the law

> It is a sacred holiday when you must fast and bring a fire offering to
> God."
> Ach be'asor lachodesh hashevi'i hazeh **Yom haKipurim** hu mikra-
> kodesh
> yihyeh lachem ve'initem et-nafshoteychem vehikravtem isheh l'Adonay.
>
> ...
> >
> > I'm amazed you appeal to it like it was taught in scripture or was
> > available to jepthah
>
> Kol Nidre (which begins Yom Kippur)
> isn't some modern liberal or Reform idea -- it goes back *at least*
> to the 10th century, so it is far more ingrained in Judaism than
> Lutheranism is in Christianity. The procedure for
> annulling vain or foolish vows goes back to
> ancient times, so it's halachic!
>
> The story of Jephthah was one of the *incentives* for
> establishing a procedure.

This is "adding to the law" which the jews are forbidden to do, but yet
ignore and do when they want to "fix" the law

>
> In any case, it's in the Mishneh Torah:
> "One who makes a vow and regrets it applies to a sage who dissolves
> it, and the law of dissolution of vows is like the law of dissolution
> of oaths, which can be dissolved only by a recognized sage or three
> commoners in a place where there is no sage, and a vow is dissolved by
> the same formula by which an oath is dissolved, and the other matters
> that I explained in regard to oaths are the same for vows as for
> oaths. (Mishneh Torah, Hilkot Nedarim, 4)"
>
> ...
> >
> > > Wrong if it means the modern English sense of "devoted".
> >
> > No one says it does. The BIBLE indicates the human who dies is "most
> > holy" just as ALL the things procribed in the passage are called "most
> > holy"
> >
> > EVERY devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD.
> >
> > Did you miss the word "every"?
> >
>
> Did you miss that they were talking about things vowed to the
> sanctuary?

Did you miss the part Christ cleansed the heavenly sanctuary with His
own blood, and was devoted to that?

>
> ...
> >
> > > Mine said killing the innocent made Saul now legally innocent.
> > > Yours said Saul (and others) had their sin atoned for by
> > > the execution of innocent men.
> >
> > I didn't say their deaths bought saul entrance into heaven )"legally
> > innocent") as you seem to suggest I must mean.
> >
> > I said their deaths atoned for the consequences of his sin.
> >
>
> The normal meaning of atone is to show in your
> future actions that you deserve mercy for the
> sin of your former actions.

That's nice. Who said this was a "normal" incident?

>
> ...
> >
> > > There is nothing in that passage that said this
> >
> > The whole incident shows it.
> >
> > As always, when you don't like something, you require language so
> > specific you can'r find any theory to get around it before you'll admit
> > you're wrong...and you never DO admit your wrong on these sorts of
> > things
>
> That's the normal principle. Extraordinary things require
> extraordinary evidence.

The resurrectrion IS extraordinary evidence ebrything i am saying is
true

You apply it all the time, e.g.,
> you won't accept the dimensional transcendence theory
> of Rebekah's womb because you would first look for
> any way to read the passage as symbolic even though
> the passage very clearly states that there were *nations*
> in Rebekah's womb, not patriarchs of future nations.
>
> ...
> >
> > It's ALL problematic.
> >
> > 1. You claim God can never accept or demand the sacrifice of a human
> > messaiah to atone for sin because the law "forbids" that.
>
> I didn't say the law forbids that. I said that the Bible
> teaches, both in the akeidah and in the rule that
> everyone dies for its own sin that nobody
> can be killed to take away the guilt of others.

And that has been shown to be wrong in at least Job amd the bullocks on
sukkhot, and in the jewish writings I cited which say the righteous can
atone by their deaths for the society as a whole as you seem to admit
below.

>
> >
> > 2. You claim no one can atone for someoene else's sin.
>
> The Bible says it.
>

And that has been shown to be wrong in at least Job amd the bullocks on
sukkhot

> >
> > 3. You claim a human person's death cannot atone for sin.
>
> Yes.

shown to be wrong

>
> >
> > I have shown all these claims to be FALSE.
> >
> > God DID accept saul's sons' deaths to atone for their grandad's sin,
>
> No, it never says it atones for the sins.

It don't have to "say" it; it shows it CLEARLY

>
> It says, without commentary, that the sin happened, the plagues
> happened, the
> deal with the Gibeonites happened, the sons were
> killed and left hanging in public. The bodies were
> then buried. Then the plagues stopped.

So? They stopped because the process of their deaths and burying was
completed--not because they were simply buried.

>
> > and
> > the law has an enigmatic verse showing a human has the capacity to be
> > reserved to death for sin, and is actually "most holy" in that.
>
> Those are two different verses. One about property devoted to
> the Temple (that is holy), and the other about persons
> condemned to death. To say that all cherem is holy
> would imply, as I've shown, that the Canaanites were holy.

not at all. Christ was prophesied to be a holy sacrifice for sin and
cleansed the ehavenly temple.

The canaanites didn't

>
> >
> > I showed verses where moses and job atoned for other people's sins on
> > behalf of them. job especially, and the bullocks on sokkhot.
>
> These are just usual sacrifices.

Those are just usual examples of people enacting sacrifices for the sins
of others

If you attended YK services,
> you'd have read from the prophets including Isaiah where
> fasts and sacrifices without proper repentance and acts
> of justice *don't* atone for anything, and another prophet
> mentions that without sacrifices prayer and repentance *do* atone.

Yet at the same time God shows instances where He allows others to
sacrifice for others

>
> >
> > I showed where the death of human men acted as a means of atoning for
> > other mens' sins and even posted jewish writings claiming that the death
> > of the righteous atones for sins in God's eyes
>
> These are collective sins, and what is meant that good acts of
> a people can mitigate the collective punishment of a people for
> their bad acts, not that the death of innocents atones for
> sins of guilty.

What drivel.

Christ did atome for the sins of many, and in your own writings, the
deaths of the RIGHTEOUS proves the deaths of INNOCENTS accomplishes
atonement for the guilt and sins of others.

>
> ...
> >
> >
> > > The last thing that happened before God removed
> > > the curse on the land was the burying of the bodies.
> >
> > No, the last thing would have been Michal's going into mourning, or the
> > witnesses going back home, if you want to foolishly throw things out to
> > obfuscate the incident.
>
> The last thing in the story.

Irrelevant. You're grasping at straws to soemhow make their deaths NOT
be payment for the sin, and that's obvious.

>
> ...
> >
> > > A sin offering, as explained by the prophets later, only atones
> > > when the real atonement (t'shuvah) has been done by the guilty
> > > person, otherwise no.
> >
> > Are you retracting the statement "Sacrifices don't atone"? yes or no?
>
> I am qualifying the statement.
> ...
> >
> > Your claim that your repentance and penance are the atonement because
> > YOU atone for your sin by that-- and the animal really means/does
> > nothing--is not biblical
>
> Hosea 14:2 is an inkblot?

The red wool is an inkblot?

And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for

atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an
atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it

The bullock--not the repentnance--is the atonemnt.

You need both, but once the person seeks forgiveness he isn't forgiven
until there is shed blood somewhere, either in the form of the
sacrificial offering, or through the grace of God applying the coming
merits of the cross

>
> >
> >
> >
> > > And on this week, you of all people should know this,
> > > since you have Yom Kippur in 2 days!!
> >
> > I don't believe your observance of yom kippur secures the forgiveness of
> > even one sin for you!
>
> That's because you have a different religion from mine
> and you don't accept Judaism!

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And think you for agreeing Judaism and Christianity are mutually
exclusive--and mutually exclusive because Christianity teaches CHRIST is
the atonement.

The precepts of Judaism have no place in the Christian faith, and those
who try to bring it in are apostates from both religions

agree?

Point is, HE secured the atonement, not the people repenting, praying
and giving alms as you teach

PS--next time you feel the need to give some alms to atone for your sin,
I'll be glad to take them. I'm poor

>
> >
> >
> >
> > > This is Yom Kippur and the Days of Awe -- how
> > > can you be getting the story so wrong?????
> >
> > Your sins remain on you before and after yom kippur even in a best-case
> > scenario with the goats being sacrificed, which never took sin away
> > after 30 AD since the wool stayed red.
> >
> > Do you miss the significance of that? THe goat wasn't taking away sin
> > anymore so the wool never turned white again after the crucifixion in 30
> > AD
> >
> > Now you don't even have the goat!
> >
>
> You're still thinking like a primitive

Your religion is "primitive"? Thanks for the admission

-- sins aren't taken away by
> goats and magic.

Your talmud says otherwise

They are taken away by contrition and repentance,
> and if you had fasted and gone to services Friday night and yesterday,
> you might have learned this!!

Unfortunately, being contrite and repenting does not remove the PENALTY
for sin by itself. Blood must still be shed and the penalty paid.

You will either pay it or Christ will pay it.

Choose

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 10, 7:30 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Rob Strom wrote:
>
...
>

> The main point is, "taboo" is a HORRIBLE word to throw in there. In our
> culture, it means "forbidden to do"
>
> The hebrew word doesn't mean that AT ALL

It also means set aside, which is what cherem means.

It's just that in different places, it means set aside for
death and in other places it means set aside for the temple,
and in general speech it means kicked out of the community.

...

>
> > He was a condemned criminal. The law says he couldn't be redeemed.
> > I don't see how it says that human sacrifices are (a) ok and (b) atone
> > for sins.
>
> He was the lamb of God who became a propitiary sacrifice for sin
>
> a. Human sacrifices are NOT ok, but GOD made provision for CHRIST as a
> propitiary sacrifice for sin, and HE is "most holy"

If human sacrifices are NOT ok, then God couldn't have "made
provision"
for Christ as a propitiary sacrifice for sin.

> You're failing to see the ultimate point of that verse and trying to
> give it a wooden, lieral interpretation when its deeper and ultimate
> meaning is about CHRIST.
>

There's nothing in there that says anything about Christ.

> Also, criminals are not devolted/reserved to God as sacrifices just
> because they are slain for their crimes.

I didn't say "as sacrifices". I said that the verse
that says don't redeem anything that is cherem
was talking about condemned criminals, and
not about "sacrifices".

> Christ WAS devoted to God, and
> is the one person in all time whom WAS specifically reserved as a most
> holy sacrifice for sin.

Remember that the word translated as "devoted" is "cherem",
and that in the days of the KJV, the word "devoted" didn't
mean "devoted"; it meant either "cursed" or "set apart
by a vow".

>

> That's the ultimate point of the verse
>
> b. You've been shown where men's lives can atone for sin. You just don't
> like it and are trying to find a way around it

No. I've been shown where good acts of some in a nation
can overcome the negative judgment resulting from
the bad acts of others.

...

>
> > He was a condemned criminal, just like the passage was saying.
>
> Criminals are not devolted/reserved to God as sacrifices just because
> they are slain for their crimes. Christ WAS devoted/proscribed to God,
> and is the one person in all time whom WAS specifically reserved as a
> most holy sacrifice for sin.

We don't know this at all. You can't infer that just because you
can't redeem criminals that they can act to wipe out
the sins of others.

...

> > > The context is a HUMAN BEING who must die is "most holy" unto the Lord.
>
> > Oh?? Then by your logic, the Canaanites were "most holy" unto the
> > Lord,
> > since they were also cherem.
>
> Canaanites are not devolted/reserved to God as sacrifices just because
> they are slain for their crimes. Christ WAS devoted/proscribed to God,
> and is the one person in all time whom WAS specifically reserved as a
> most holy sacrifice for sin.

Your logic was that you thought the passage said that anyone
who was cherem was also "most holy". I showed you
that it was unlikely that this meant "all cherem are holy"
given that Canaanites were also cherem.

...

>
> > > I just showed you there were. You simply are trying to define "human
> > > sacrifice" with your own terms when God's are different
>
> > Perhaps you can show me a quotation from the Bible that calls
> > a cherem a human sacrifice.
>
> The passage in leviticus makes the point

It doesn't say they are a sacrifice. And clearly
the passage about the Canaanites doesn't imply
they are a sacrifice.

...

>
> > Uh, This Biblical holy day is mentioned by name in the scripture.
> > Leviticus 23:27 --
> > "The 10th of this seventh month shall be the Day of Atonement for
> > you.
>
> That is Yom Kippur, not the Kol Nidre which was invented in the 10th
> century and made a part of it!!!
>
> This is "adding to the law" which the jews are forbidden to do, but yet
> ignore and do when they want to "fix" the law

We're not "adding to the law", since it's not *compulsory* to do Kol
Nidre.

But Judaism is an evolving religion, and the legislature is allowed to
decide when vows can be annulled. Christianity does this too:
marriage is supposed to be "until death do you part", but over time
the church has decided that some so-called marriages were
fraudulent or done while drunk or deceived or whatever, and they
could be annulled. Jews did the same thing. When Jews began
to be living in hostile environments it became necessary to
recognize a whole category of vain vows.

....

> > Kol Nidre (which begins Yom Kippur)
> > isn't some modern liberal or Reform idea -- it goes back *at least*
> > to the 10th century, so it is far more ingrained in Judaism than
> > Lutheranism is in Christianity. The procedure for
> > annulling vain or foolish vows goes back to
> > ancient times, so it's halachic!
>
> > The story of Jephthah was one of the *incentives* for
> > establishing a procedure.
>
> This is "adding to the law" which the jews are forbidden to do, but yet
> ignore and do when they want to "fix" the law

It's not adding to the law. Jews are not just allowed to interpret
the law, but are *required* to interpret it.

...>

> > > Did you miss the word "every"?
>
> > Did you miss that they were talking about things vowed to the
> > sanctuary?
>
> Did you miss the part Christ cleansed the heavenly sanctuary with His
> own blood, and was devoted to that?

Huh?????? I thought we were talking about a passage in Leviticus,
and all of a sudden, you're talking about cleansing a heavenly
sanctuary?

...>

> > The normal meaning of atone is to show in your
> > future actions that you deserve mercy for the
> > sin of your former actions.
>
> That's nice. Who said this was a "normal" incident?

You've switched from "normal meaning" to "normal incident".

Even if this was an abnormal incident, if you want to
describe it so that people hundreds of years later will
understand what you're talking about, you need words
that people will understand. If you invent new words --
or worse, use existing words with brand new meanings --
you will assuredly mislead.

...>

> > That's the normal principle. Extraordinary things require
> > extraordinary evidence.
>
> The resurrectrion IS extraordinary evidence ebrything i am saying is
> true

I don't believe in the resurrection, and the words in the Tanakh
have to mean what they meant for all these years before
Jesus was born.

>
> You apply it all the time, e.g.,
>
> > you won't accept the dimensional transcendence theory
> > of Rebekah's womb because you would first look for
> > any way to read the passage as symbolic even though
> > the passage very clearly states that there were *nations*
> > in Rebekah's womb, not patriarchs of future nations.
>
> > ...

I think you have no response to this.

...

>
> And that has been shown to be wrong in at least Job amd the bullocks on
> sukkhot, and in the jewish writings I cited which say the righteous can
> atone by their deaths for the society as a whole as you seem to admit
> below.
>

Bullocks are not human sacrifices. I told you what death
of righteous atones for sinners means -- it doesn't mean
that if you've committed a sin, shoot your neighbor's
child, because the death of that innocent will atone
for your sin.

...>

> > > 3. You claim a human person's death cannot atone for sin.
>
> > Yes.
>
> shown to be wrong

No, it just means that if Peter sins and harms his
country, Paul's brave acts can help the country.

...

>
> So? They stopped because the process of their deaths and burying was
> completed--not because they were simply buried.
>
>

Actually, the Bible is 100% silent on why the plagues stopped.

...

>
> > Those are two different verses. One about property devoted to
> > the Temple (that is holy), and the other about persons
> > condemned to death. To say that all cherem is holy
> > would imply, as I've shown, that the Canaanites were holy.
>
> not at all. Christ was prophesied to be a holy sacrifice for sin and
> cleansed the ehavenly temple.

Huh?????????????????????????????????????????????????

I've never heard of this. Please quote a verse where "Christ"
was prophesied to be a sacrifice for sin, and where he
cleansed the heavenly temple.

I didn't even know there was a heavenly temple.

....>

> > These are collective sins, and what is meant that good acts of
> > a people can mitigate the collective punishment of a people for
> > their bad acts, not that the death of innocents atones for
> > sins of guilty.
>
> What drivel.
>

Please show Biblical evidence for this being drivel.

> Christ did atome for the sins of many, and in your own writings, the
> deaths of the RIGHTEOUS proves the deaths of INNOCENTS accomplishes
> atonement for the guilt and sins of others.

No, they don't.

...

>
> > The last thing in the story.
>
> Irrelevant. You're grasping at straws to soemhow make their deaths NOT
> be payment for the sin, and that's obvious.

How could their deaths be payment for the sin?

We don't even know if the executed folks were innocent, and
in any case this was a deal worked out between the
Israelites and the Gibeonites.

...
> > > Your claim that your repentance and penance are the atonement because
> > > YOU atone for your sin by that-- and the animal really means/does
> > > nothing--is not biblical
>
> > Hosea 14:2 is an inkblot?
>
> The red wool is an inkblot?
>
> And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for
> atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an
> atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it
>
> The bullock--not the repentnance--is the atonemnt.

No. The bullock is a ceremony. The atonement is
the actual act of atoning for your sin.

>
> You need both, but once the person seeks forgiveness he isn't forgiven
> until there is shed blood somewhere, either in the form of the
> sacrificial offering, or through the grace of God applying the coming
> merits of the cross

I don't know what the term "coming merits of the cross" means,
but it's not written anywhere.

The prophets say that people will be forgiven for their
repentance an prayers, and that's good enough for me.

If you actually went to YK services, you'd know the
liturgy, that ends
"but repentance, prayer, and charity temper judgment's stern decree".

That's what Judaism is about.

That's not some new-agey modern version of Judaism, either,
but it's something that everyone from Orthodox to Reform teaches.

It's in the Unetaneh Tokef! That's pretty ancient!

....>

> > That's because you have a different religion from mine
> > and you don't accept Judaism!
>
> AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> And think you for agreeing Judaism and Christianity are mutually
> exclusive--and mutually exclusive because Christianity teaches CHRIST is
> the atonement.
>
> The precepts of Judaism have no place in the Christian faith, and those
> who try to bring it in are apostates from both religions
>
> agree?

Sure! If by "Christianity" you mean "conservative Christianity",
absolutely.

I don't believe the law is dead; I don't believe that I can forgive
my sins by killing some innocent person.

...>

> > > Now you don't even have the goat!
>
> > You're still thinking like a primitive
>
> Your religion is "primitive"? Thanks for the admission

In its earliest days, sure.

We don't actually believe that a scapegoat takes away sins.

>
> -- sins aren't taken away by
>
> > goats and magic.
>
> Your talmud says otherwise
>
> They are taken away by contrition and repentance,
>
> > and if you had fasted and gone to services Friday night and yesterday,
> > you might have learned this!!
>
> Unfortunately, being contrite and repenting does not remove the PENALTY
> for sin by itself. Blood must still be shed and the penalty paid.

Blood doesn't have to be shed.

>
> You will either pay it or Christ will pay it.
>
> Choose

By this logic, I could drown a kitten and pay for my sins. Don't
think so.

--
Rob Strom

[vince garcia]

Rob Strom wrote:
>
> On Oct 10, 7:30 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> >
> ...
> >
> > The main point is, "taboo" is a HORRIBLE word to throw in there. In our
> > culture, it means "forbidden to do"
> >
> > The hebrew word doesn't mean that AT ALL
>
> It also means set aside, which is what cherem means.

I jave never seen TABOO used to mean "set aside". Ever.

EVER. Every context I've ever heard it used in in my life meant "don't
do that"

I stand on what I said--taboo is a HORRIBLE word to use there

>
> It's just that in different places, it means set aside for
> death and in other places it means set aside for the temple,
> and in general speech it means kicked out of the community.
>
> ...
> >
> > > He was a condemned criminal. The law says he couldn't be redeemed.
> > > I don't see how it says that human sacrifices are (a) ok and (b) atone
> > > for sins.
> >
> > He was the lamb of God who became a propitiary sacrifice for sin
> >
> > a. Human sacrifices are NOT ok, but GOD made provision for CHRIST as a
> > propitiary sacrifice for sin, and HE is "most holy"
>
> If human sacrifices are NOT ok, then God couldn't have "made
> provision"
> for Christ as a propitiary sacrifice for sin.

Rob, of course He can. He can do whaetver He wants, and doesn't need to
justify Himself.

But this is the heart of the problem--you refuse to acknowledge Christ
as the lamb of God so you go on arguing about hebrew words and and
refusing to see the hidden references to Christ throughout the OT.

Doesn't change the fact I showed every point I made with an
illustration. You just choose to reject the illustration

And so far as the heavenly temple goes (which the jews did believe
existed)...

heb 8:55 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as
Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle:
for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern
shewed to thee in the mount.

heb 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the
heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things
themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which
are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in
the presence of God for us:

"What this signifies is that Moses' Tabernacle was made according to the
plan of a heavenly sanctuary; the Mishkan of Moses was like a copy, and
it was also a sort of continuation of the Lord's presence on high, on
top of Mount Sinai."

--Bar-Ilan University's Parashat Hashavua Study Center
Parashat Pequde 5763/ March 8, 2003

Why is it necessary for me to teach you the jews did and do believe in a
heavenly temple?

YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT WITHOUT MY TELLING YOU!

[randy]

Pastor Dave
randy:

> > Fundamental Christian Orthodoxy would state that
> > Jesus had no sin nature.  So no, Jesus did not
> > require a sin nature in order to be tempted by sin.

> Three things:
> 1) It's your claim that "Fundamental Christian Orthodoxy"
>     would state that, not proof that it would have.

The only proof I need is human experience, as compared with biblical
doctrine. Fundamental Christian Orthodoxy upholds what I believe,
because I directly experience it. I see human sin everyday -- in
others and in myself. I know, as a born again believer, that I have
Christ's nature living inside me, and that sin "knocks on my door"
from without, even though it is also in my "sin nature."

> So all I asked was that you consider some questions
> and thoughts and I played a bit of "Devil's Advocate"
> to your thoughts and claims, that's all.

Okay. If in theory Christ was perfect and without sin, then it is
entirely logical to believe that sin is something that arises via a
temptation from the outside. This means he can understand sin without
participating in it, without experiencing it, without having any guilt
whatsoever for sin. The Scriptures say that an unblemished sacrifice
was needed for sin. Under the covenant of Law that required an
unblemished animal. In heaven, God requires that we receive Christ as
our unblemished sacrifice for sin, as far as eternity goes.

This is for two reasons that make sense to me personally. One, Christ,
being sinless, can give us a pure spirituality that when indwelling us
indicates we've truly chosen to live in repentance, by a spirit that
is without sin. And two, it means we can obtain from Christ a divine
spirituality that elevates us to a status of participation with Christ
in his ability to live in his righteousness forever, free of death.
randy

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 10, 10:05 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Rob Strom wrote:
>
> > On Oct 10, 7:30 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > Rob Strom wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > > The main point is, "taboo" is a HORRIBLE word to throw in there. In our
> > > culture, it means "forbidden to do"
>
> > > The hebrew word doesn't mean that AT ALL
>
> > It also means set aside, which is what cherem means.
>
> I jave never seen TABOO used to mean "set aside". Ever.
>
> EVER. Every context I've ever heard it used in in my life meant "don't
> do that"
>

It means "this thing is so sacred that you can't speak
its name or -- if it's a place -- enter it -- except for
very special people at very special times".

"a sacred prohibition put upon certain people, things,
or acts which makes them untouchable, unmentionable, etc."

> I stand on what I said--taboo is a HORRIBLE word to use there
>

Things can be taboo either because they're so disgusting
you can't say or touch them, or because they're so holy/sacred
you can't say or touch them.

Moving from Polynesia to our own society, think of
the words that children are taught not to say --
they're either certain private bodily functions or
organs, or they're very holy things that it's considered
too sacred to say in ordinary conversation, e.g.
"Christ". That's taboo. They say "Crikey"
or "Jiminy Cricket" instead.

In Judaism, of course, you can't say the name of
God (except the high priest under certain conditions)
and you can't enter the holy of holies (except the
high priest under certain conditions). So even
when reading the Torah, we say Adonai when
we come to the name of God, even though what's
written there is not "Adonai". That's taboo.

"Set aside" means that the forbidden things
aren't always forbidden 100% of the time,
but rather *reserved* for specific special occasions or people.
So for Jews, one person in the tribe *is* allowed to
say the name of God. For Christians, you
can say "Jesus Christ" in prayers or
theological discussions, but not regular speech.

"Cherem" most often doesn't mean taboo -- it means
excommnicated. It just means taboo in this passage,
and I'm not going to take your word over Kaplan's.

...

>
> > If human sacrifices are NOT ok, then God couldn't have "made
> > provision"
> > for Christ as a propitiary sacrifice for sin.
>
> Rob, of course He can. He can do whaetver He wants, and doesn't need to
> justify Himself.

You can't make a legitimate argument for a point of view for which
you have no evidence by saying, "well God *could* have done
it this way because God can do *anything*."

>
> But this is the heart of the problem--you refuse to acknowledge Christ
> as the lamb of God so you go on arguing about hebrew words and and
> refusing to see the hidden references to Christ throughout the OT.

And you refuse to acknowledge Dershowitz as Messiah, so you
keep arguing about technicalities of obscure post-Biblical
books like Hebrews.

>
> Doesn't change the fact I showed every point I made with an
> illustration. You just choose to reject the illustration
>
> And so far as the heavenly temple goes (which the jews did believe
> existed)...
>
> heb 8:55 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as
> Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle:
> for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern
> shewed to thee in the mount.
>
> heb 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the
> heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things
> themselves with better sacrifices than these.
> 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which
> are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in
> the presence of God for us:
>
> "What this signifies is that Moses' Tabernacle was made according to the
> plan of a heavenly sanctuary; the Mishkan of Moses was like a copy, and
> it was also a sort of continuation of the Lord's presence on high, on
> top of Mount Sinai."
>
> --Bar-Ilan University's Parashat Hashavua Study Center
> Parashat Pequde 5763/ March 8, 2003
>
> Why is it necessary for me to teach you the jews did and do believe in a
> heavenly temple?

Oh **that** kind of "heavenly".

In this context, "heavenly" meant "on top of Mount Sinai".
It didn't mean "heavenly" in the modern English sense of the word
that refers to a place *outside the Earth* where in some
religious views God and the angels sit (or stand,
or whatever they do there), and in some religious views,
the souls of people will go after they die.

Strange that you reject even sacred commentaries
like Talmud, but think it's ok to go to a d'var torah
from some random person at Bar Ilan University
to decide what the tabernacle instructions meant.

--
Rob Strom

[vince garcia]

So do you retract two of your 3 statements since i corrected them?

[Rob Strom]

OK.
I'll retract them, but you did indicate that you once had Warum SA and
a book about Heydrich.
I admit I jumped to conclusions that you owned those books instead of
just reading them.

About you and health insurance, your exact words (except for context
in brackets) were:
"There are poverty level people like me who
make as little as i do but can't live as niggardly as i do, so they
have
ZERO extra to pay for [health] insurance. Even with all the claimed
subsidies [in the PPACA],
you, yourself, have still said I will pay SOMETHING.
Well, what about the people poor as me who can't afford to pay ONE
DIME,
even though they are required to?"
[Note: it was explained that you were not "poverty level" based on
what
you said your salary was, but you were despite that in a category
of people who thanks to the new law would get extra subsidies for the
insurance exchanges]

And later, this dialog, when I responded about your refusal to buy
health
insurance despite the law:
[Rob] "Worse, you're not only refusing health insurance for yourself,
but
you're trying to attack kindly people who are trying to make it
more available for others, including people with innocent dependents.
Shame.

[Vince] sorry, sam [sic] --i support health care reform! I simply
oppose THIS SORT of
answer to the problem.

If you're working intermittently, how can you "buy health insurance
when working"?
You get on and off insurance on a month by month basis?

--
Rob Strom

[Linda Lee]

On Oct 5, 5:29 pm, "SwordOz" <mar...@ptd.net> wrote:
> "Snow" <snowpheo...@eck.net.au> wrote in message

Yeah, they disagree on many subjects ...so they should both be silent,
and let you two spout your ignorant nonsense.

[vince garcia]

Well, it's not really a book; it's a pamphlet, but if you want to aplit
hairs...

and
> a book about Heydrich.

Don't recall saying THAT.

basically...

It's the government, you know. They do everything so efficiently. That's
why obamacare will be such a success
>
> --
> Rob Strom

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 21, 7:29 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Rob Strom wrote:
>
...

> > > > > All I know about you is that you live somewhere in California,
> > > > > you work(ed) for the IRS for $20000/year, that you refuse to buy
> > > > > health insurance, and that you own several books by
> > > > > and about figures from the 3rd Reich.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Rob Strom
>
> > > > 1. It's now way less than $20000/year
> > > > 2. I do buy health insurance (when working)
> > > > 3. I own no books by and about figures from the 3rd Reich.
>
> > > So do you retract two of your 3 statements since i corrected them?
>
> > OK.
> > I'll retract them, but you did indicate that you once had Warum SA
>
> Well, it's not really  a book; it's a pamphlet, but if you want to aplit
> hairs...
>
> and
>
> > a book about Heydrich.
>
> Don't recall saying THAT.

"Hate to tell you, but Reinhardt Heydrich spoke more on those topics
[insurance] than
Jesus ever did. "

Unless you're old enough to have personally heard him speak,
I reasoned that you had access to at least one written account of
Heydrich's speeches on insurance.

...

> why obamacare will be such a success.

Exactly.
Under PPACA you are eligible for a subsidized insurance through
the exchanges where you don't get on and off on a month by month
basis.

I still don't know why (a) you don't support the bill,
(b) don't avail yourself of the opportunity to get full-time
insurance,
and will prefer to both pay a penalty and, if you get
sick while uninsured, use the er instead knowing it
will be imposing a burden on the rest of us.

--
Rob Strom
>

[vince garcia]

READING about heydrich is not the same as owning a book on him, rob.

I assume you've read about heydrich yourself?

I've read the Talmud too; i don't own one

I don't support it because i think it will bankruot the country. I know
or have heard more than one businessman say they are holding back on
iring, or else are not exopanding with new jobs, because of the program

Next year should begin to tell as it starts to kick in. (Or is that in
'14?)

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 21, 11:30 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Rob Strom wrote:
> ...
>

> READING about heydrich is not the same as owning a book on him, rob.
>
> I assume you've read about heydrich yourself?
>
> I've read the Talmud too; i don't own one

Yes, I get the distinction.

I do own books on Heydrich too, though.

When I was a boy, I learned Edna St. Vincent Millay's poem
"The Children of Lidice", which indirectly was about Heydrich.

...

> > I still don't know why (a) you don't support the bill,
> > (b) don't avail yourself of the opportunity to get full-time
> > insurance,
> > and will prefer to both pay a penalty and, if you get
> > sick while uninsured, use the er instead knowing it
> > will be imposing a burden on the rest of us.
>
> I don't support it because i think it will bankruot the country. I know
> or have heard more than one businessman say they are holding back on
> iring, or else are not exopanding with new jobs, because of the program

Well the CBO disagrees. It both saves money *and* reduces
the uncertainties that risk people becoming bankrupt themselves
due to health issues.

>
> Next year should begin to tell as it starts to kick in. (Or is that in
> '14?)

It's in 2014, and I expect you to buy into the exchange by then.

--
Rob Strom

[vince garcia]

Rob Strom wrote:
>
> On Oct 21, 11:30 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > READING about heydrich is not the same as owning a book on him, rob.
> >
> > I assume you've read about heydrich yourself?
> >
> > I've read the Talmud too; i don't own one
>
> Yes, I get the distinction.
>
> I do own books on Heydrich too, though.
>
> When I was a boy, I learned Edna St. Vincent Millay's poem
> "The Children of Lidice", which indirectly was about Heydrich.

He was a very smart man. Too bad he was such a callous prick.

>
> ...
>
> > > I still don't know why (a) you don't support the bill,
> > > (b) don't avail yourself of the opportunity to get full-time
> > > insurance,
> > > and will prefer to both pay a penalty and, if you get
> > > sick while uninsured, use the er instead knowing it
> > > will be imposing a burden on the rest of us.
> >
> > I don't support it because i think it will bankruot the country. I know
> > or have heard more than one businessman say they are holding back on
> > iring, or else are not exopanding with new jobs, because of the program
>
> Well the CBO disagrees. It both saves money *and* reduces
> the uncertainties that risk people becoming bankrupt themselves
> due to health issues.

Great.

And if it doesn't, it will be the Repubs' fault, right?

Certainly not that the Repubs were right, and this bill was a
catastrophy?

>
> >
> > Next year should begin to tell as it starts to kick in. (Or is that in
> > '14?)
>
> It's in 2014, and I expect you to buy into the exchange by then.

More than one person has noted the timing is suspiciously AFTER the
election...
>


> --
> Rob Strom

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 21, 6:02 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Rob Strom wrote:
>
...

> > I do own books on Heydrich too, though.
>
> > When I was a boy, I learned Edna St. Vincent Millay's poem
> > "The Children of Lidice", which indirectly was about Heydrich.
>
> He was a very smart man. Too bad he was such a callous prick.

Somehow "callous prick" seems such an inadequate phrase
to describe the Butcher of Prague.

...

>
> > > I don't support it because i think it will bankruot the country. I know
> > > or have heard more than one businessman say they are holding back on
> > > iring, or else are not exopanding with new jobs, because of the program

Yes, what you have probably heard is the Tea Party Pledge. These
disgusting Sodomites have actually pledged to *make sure*
any Obama-devised job creation program will fail, even if it
means plunging the country into depression.

Here is the exact wording of the action component of their pledge:
"I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces
the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country,
hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war
against business and my country is stopped.

I hereby declare that my job creation potential is now ceased. "

When you make your next inspection visit to Hell, I think you'll find
any of these guys that died between then and now roasting on spits
there.
Say hi to them from me.

>
> > Well the CBO disagrees.  It both saves money *and* reduces
> > the uncertainties that risk people becoming bankrupt themselves
> > due to health issues.
>
> Great.
>
> And if it doesn't, it will be the Repubs' fault, right?

It could be the fault of the Tea Partiers and the banksters.
The banksters already threatened that if bank regulations
would pass (as a few did) they would retaliate against
customers. That has actually happened.

Expect to see a few Citibank and BoA folks on your next inspection
tour as well.

...

>
> > It's in 2014, and I expect you to buy into the exchange by then.
>
> More than one person has noted the timing is suspiciously AFTER the
> election...

You bet. The Sodomites wanted to do all they could that if they
couldn't stop the passage of the bill, they'd make sure that the
more dramatic of the improvements wouldn't be noticeable
by the population until after 2012, so that poor health care
and poor economic conditions would be more likely to continue
through the election.

May God have mercy on their souls.

--
Rob Strom

[Linda Lee]

Not every Christian is an ignorant teapartier; I plan to vote for
Obama again.

[vince garcia]

I am not a tea partier either, but the average tea partier I think is
far more intelligent than most of the brain dead communist scumbags I
see in the occupy wall street thing.

If they were really smart, they would target BOA and shut it down with
their protests.

Instead, they just hang out, do drugs, and have sex in the open.

Tea partiers don't smash windows and get into fights with cops. They do.

NOT TO MENTION THE OPEN ANTISEMITISM INFLUENCING THE MOVEMENT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb81Rbql6Nc




http://weaselzippers.us/2011/10/16/israelis-shocked-by-anti-semitic-flavor-of-occupy-wall-street-protests/

Yet dems support and praise them.

And some call ME a Storm Trooper?? Listen to the words of these
antisemites. My most vitriolic comments about the religion of judaism,
and not the people, pale in comparison to the hatred these guys have for
jews as people.

These DEMOCRAT-VOTING/OBAMA-SUPPORTING devils may as well sew on
swastikas.

Between me an them, who are the NAzis? Who are the antisemites? It is
these DEMOCRAT-SUPPORTED people who are openly calling for kicking the
jews out of society, and blaming Jews for their problems

Imagine how loud liberal hollywood and the liberal media would scream if
as much of the tea party held signs like this or said these things

Liberal hypocrisy.

[Linda Lee]

On Oct 25, 7:47 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Linda Lee wrote:
>
> > > ...
>
> > > > > > I don't support it because i think it will bankruot the country. I know
> > > > > > or have heard more than one businessman say they are holding back on
> > > > > > iring, or else are not exopanding with new jobs, because of the program
>
> > > Yes, what you have probably heard is the Tea Party Pledge. These
> > > disgusting Sodomites have actually pledged to *make sure*
> > > any Obama-devised job creation program will fail, even if it
> > > means plunging the country into depression.
>
> > > Here is the exact wording of the action component of their pledge:
> > > "I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces
> > > the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country,
> > > hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war
> > > against business and my country is stopped.
>
> > > I hereby declare that my job creation potential is now ceased. "
>
> > > When you make your next inspection visit to Hell, I think you'll find
> > > any of these guys that died between then and now roasting on spits
> > > there.
> > > Say hi to them from me.
>
> > > > > Well the CBO disagrees. It both saves money *and* reduces
> > > > > the uncertainties that risk people becoming bankrupt themselves
> > > > > due to health issues.
>
> > > > Great.
>
> > > > And if it doesn't, it will be the Repubs' fault, right?

Looks that way.

>
> > > It could be the fault of the Tea Partiers and the banksters.
> > > The banksters already threatened that if bank regulations
> > > would pass (as a few did) they would retaliate against
> > > customers. That has actually happened.
>
> > > Expect to see a few Citibank and BoA folks on your next inspection
> > > tour as well.
>
> > > ...
>
> > > > > It's in 2014, and I expect you to buy into the exchange by then.
>
> > > > More than one person has noted the timing is suspiciously AFTER the
> > > > election...
>
> > > You bet. The Sodomites wanted to do all they could that if they
> > > couldn't stop the passage of the bill, they'd make sure that the
> > > more dramatic of the improvements wouldn't be noticeable
> > > by the population until after 2012, so that poor health care
> > > and poor economic conditions would be more likely to continue
> > > through the election.
>
> > > May God have mercy on their souls.
>
> > > --
> > > Rob Strom
>
> > Not every Christian is an ignorant teapartier; I plan to vote for
> > Obama again.
>
> I am not a tea partier either, but the average tea partier I think is
> far more intelligent than most of the brain dead communist scumbags I
> see in the occupy wall street thing.

I think the Tea Partiers predominantly appear to be morons, and
bigoted against a black President. I am ashamed to say that my own
mother votes Republican and is still disgusted and fuming that a half-
black man was elected President, and that a black woman and black
children are in the White House as 'the first family'.

>
> If they were really smart, they would target BOA and shut it down with
> their protests.

I think the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement should protest already
existing laws that allow Wall Street to do what they do. Those on Wall
Street will just ignore them. They should protest outside the houses
of the federal government, assuming that is not illegal. Likely it is
not since the Million Man March descended on the White House in .

>
> Instead, they just hang out, do drugs, and have sex in the open.

I haven't seen any drugs or public sex reported, although a rape was
reported. So the claim is they're all braindead hedonist anti-semites,
and the Tea Partiers, who ignore all warnings about what their plans
would do to the economy, are intelligent, and it is implied they're
moral. Lol! Sorry Vince, I think the Tea Partiers are neither
intelligent nor moral, and I sincerely hope and pray that all the
Republicans get voted out of office for their uncaring attitudes. They
got the economy into this mess and on the whole couldn't care less,
and ignore all warnings about what they desire will do to many. I have
always been non-political, and have only voted in the last
presidential election, but even I am prompted to vote because of the
state the Republicans have gotten us into, and the uncaring attitude
they project.

>
> Tea partiers don't smash windows and get into fights with cops. They do.

The police have arrested people in the OWS Movement who were
protesting nonviolently. From what I've heard of this movement, the
cops' idea of 'disturbing the peace' means they should remain in total
silence, which is a violation of our rights to free speech.

>
> NOT TO MENTION THE OPEN ANTISEMITISM INFLUENCING THE MOVEMENT

Influencing the protests? Why do you say that? It doesn't matter who
the majority of those are ON "Wall Street"; whether they are Jewish or
Gentile doesn't change what Wall Street has done and is doing to the
rest of the country.

>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb81Rbql6Nc

You probably should have listened more closely to this very
informative video you provided from Fox News, as it does not say what
you want it to say; it did NOT support your claims against the OWS
Movement in any way, shape, or form; in fact, it negates them and
makes a very good case for the OWS/Occupy Wall Street Movement, and
identifies the worst "crony capitalists" of Blackrock, Citigroup, and
GE, who they say should be the movement's main targets.
I watched your video from Fox News at the link above, and you seem to
have missed a lot of it, including, about four minutes into it at the
END of his interview with Gary Bowers, the representative and one of
the leaders of the pro-Israel group 'The Group Emergency Committee for
Israel' (who called for the protesters' supporters to denounce the few
protesters making anti-semitic statements - which I also think they
should)', the newscaster said to Bowers of these anti-semitic
statements made by a few of the protesters in Los Angeles, "and even
if it's a SMALL MINORITY, WHICH IT CLEARLY _IS_ RIGHT NOW, you have to
nip it in the bug [i.e. bud]; if you don't nip it in the bug [i.e.
bud], these things have a tendency to grow", and that was the end of
the interview. The Fox newscaster is NOT making the inflammatory and
untrue statements that you are, i.e. that this is an anti-semitic
movement predominantly made up of Nazi devils; in fact the video is
supportive of the OWS Movement.

By the way, although one of the supposed "leaders" of the LA protest
refused to denounce Ms. Slaughter (ironic name), that bigoted black
female schoolteacher in LA, she was certainly denounced by the
government for her anti-semitic statements; she was immediately fired
from her job in the public school system. (And although her bigoted
statements had no merit, according to this same video from Fox News,
her concern about CEO's from Wall Street managing the Federal Reserve
is not without merit.)

And at the beginning of the tape when the newscaster, concerning the
"several anti-Jewish statements that have been caught on tape", asked
Bowers, "Are these very isolated examples, or are you seeing a growing
pattern here?", Bowers claimed that the alleged "pattern" of these
anti-semitic statements in the OWS movement had "grown" from President
Obama and others of whom he replied, "You know David, I think there's
a growing pattern. I mean, first of all, the context of this is, and
for over a year, the President and others have been railing at the top
1% of Americans, and suggesting that they're responsible for the
economic trouble we're having; it wasn't that big of a trip from THAT,
to then say, it's not just BANKERS, it's JEWISH bankers; it's not just
hedge-fund managers, it's JEWISH hedge-fund managers. This has shown
up, this kind of rhetoric, signs, etc., has shown up at almost every
one of the Occupy Wall Street events. It's disgusting, it's evil, and
it ought to be condemned by the President and anyone else that cares
about our country." It is LUDICROUS (and DISGUSTING AND EVIL) for
this man, Gary Bowers, to attempt to blame these anti-semitic
statements (and even tie them to Communism and Fascism) on President
Obama and others who have simply criticized the rich (for getting tax
loopholes, and for "outsourcing" their companies, establishing
factories in other countries where they don't have to pay decent wages
or provide group healthcare rates, and then importing their goods back
to American buyers, thereby making huge profits and SCREWING THE
AMERICAN WORKERS; denying Americans jobs (and money, and healthcare
from their jobs) in American corporations, and for not having to live
by the rules of the rest of America. I want that garbage to STOP NOW.
Unless you are very rich, you'd better wake up to what's been going on
for a long time.

>
> http://weaselzippers.us/2011/10/16/israelis-shocked-by-anti-semitic-f...

I have not yet looked at that second link you're providing, but I
will, as you've aroused my interest. I've just spent a couple of hours
listening to and transcribing material from the first video from Fox
News to which you provided a link (which video negated all of your
claims about the OWS Movement, by the way).

>
> Yet dems support and praise them.

Do they? I thought the Democrats generally were just supporting their
rights of free speech and non-violent protest.

>
> And some call ME a Storm Trooper??

Wasn't it Rob Strom, who is Jewish, who called you a "storm trooper"?
Rob strikes me as an intelligent person, so WHY would he be for this
movement (or for Obama who is blamed on this tape for starting it all)
if it were anti-semitic? That wouldn't be very wise, would it? Do you
think he's just another one posing as Jewish on the newsgroup or what?

> Listen to the words of these
> antisemites. My most vitriolic comments about the religion of judaism,
> and not the people, pale in comparison to the hatred these guys have for
> jews as people.

You are grossly exaggerating. Just because some bigoted anti-semites
have jumped on this bandwagon does not mean the entire movement is a
bunch of anti-semites.

>
> These DEMOCRAT-VOTING/OBAMA-SUPPORTING devils may as well sew on
> swastikas.

You're making a lot of unsupported slanderous claims, which I
personally know to be untrue, as _I_ voted for Obama (and plan to do
so again) and support the Democrats, and I am NOT a devil NOR a Nazi;
I am a saved Christian and have ZERO bigotry against Jews or any other
groups as a whole.

It is the Republicans who look like moronic lying devils to me.
George W. Bush an intelligent and responsible man OR a Christian?
Don't make me laugh. He 'showed his hand' during Hurricane Katrina and
elsewhere. CHENEY a Christian??? ROFLOL! It gives me a chill just
to look at a picture of Cheny; it would be hard to find a face that
looks more devilish and demonic than Cheney's.

>
> Between me an them, who are the NAzis? Who are the antisemites?

> It is
> these DEMOCRAT-SUPPORTED people who are openly calling for kicking the
> jews out of society, and blaming Jews for their problems
>
> Imagine how loud liberal hollywood and the liberal media would scream if
> as much of the tea party held signs like this or said these things
>
> Liberal hypocrisy.

You indicate that the majority of the Occupy Wall Street protesters
are openly calling for kicking Jews out of society and blaming Jews
for their problems??? Where is your proof of that? I don't think
there have been a whole lot of Jews in office who have passed these
laws allowing the rich to avoid paying taxes while the middle-class is
heavily taxed, but Repuglicans HAVE been. There are MANY Jews behind
the scenes in Hollywood AND in the "liberal media" and have been for
many decades, so why would they allegedly "allow" Democrats to be
openly anti-semitic, and not allow Republicans to be openly anti-
semitic or allow anyone to be openly anti-semitic? Sorry, but your
exaggerated inflammatory claims don't make any sense. A few bigots do
not a "movement" make.

Even in the second interview on that video with Andrew Breitbart (and
it is interesting that ALL of the signs shown during his interview
said NOTHING about Jews), who criticzed the Anti-defamation Leage for
not denouncing the anti-Jewish statements made at the protests, said
(at about 5 min. 40 seconds into the video), "Look, I wanna be
perfectly honest here; I'm NOT trying to state that the Occupy
Movement, at large, is ANTI-SEMITIC _OR_ that it's RASCIST (and we've
been able to find a ton of racism, including something that happened
yesterday in Oakland, where they've actually banished the free press.
The press has been told we voted that you can't be here. And one
reporter reportedly was said "We shoot white (we can't say the word)
like you here", and they won't even report on this. BUT THE POINT OF
THIS IS, IS THAT THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT IS THE ANTI-TEA PARTY MOVEMENT.
ALL of the people in this group are ANGRY THAT THE TEA PARTY WAS ABLE
TO FOCUS THAT GOVERNMENT WAS A PROBLEM HERE, __and it turns on the
spigot,__ so this is President Obama and Nancy Pelosi and the
Organized Left's TEA PARTY, and they're the ones who have said that
the Tea Party is racist because one sign in Tallahassee means the
entire group is guilty of guilt by association. They're being hoisted
by their own petard right now."

(OBVIOUSLY, the racist person in Oakland who threatened to shoot the
reporter was NOT white and was bigoted against WHITE people, not just
Jews, as he said "we shoot white ___ like you", and HE did not make a
"we".) And according to Andrew Beibart, "it turns on the
spigot"' ('comes back to haunt you', karma, whatever you want to call
it); because "President Obama and Nancy Pelosi and the Organized
Left's TEA PARTY" (the Democratic idea of the Republican Tea Party),
was defined as a racist movement, so now the OWS Movement is being
characterized as racist. IOW, Andrew Beibart is saying it is NOT TRUE
that the OWS Movement is racist, and the claims that the OWS Movement
is racist are simply retaliation for the Tea Party having been called
racist.
Then at about 10 minutes into the video, the Fox News reporter says,
"what IS surprising is how some of the CORPORATE LEADERS, that are the
target of the protesters, have EXPRESSED SYMPATHY AND UNDERSTANDING
FOR THEM" (the protesters in the OWS Movement). AND the reporter and
his new interviewee (Charlie Gasparino) agree that these statments are
absurd (because the CEO's are the guilty parties), and that those
CEO's are only saying such things to try to deflect the blame from
themselves onto other CEO's, Gasparino saying of these particular
CEO's they're quoting (from GE and Citigroup and Blackrock), they are
"one on one decent people, but they're also playing a game here, and
the game is simply this; these folks are not capitalists, they're kind
of crony capitialists; they should be the real sort of TARGET of these
protests", and they're "simply trying to deflect the story away from
them", and the reporter asks him, "How much TAXES DID THEY PAY?and
Gasparino's answer is, "ZERO, I believe, or something like that".

And in this Fox News TV interview, Gasparino says of Larry/Laurence
FINK (again IRONIC), who is the CEO from Blackrock (which Gasparino
says is a money management firm that manages the Federal Reserve);
that Blackrock and Fink manage "the Fed's balance sheet essentially,
all the bailout stuff that went on the Fed's balance sheet, all those
toxic acids, well guess whose managaing that money? RIGHT THERE,
Baby!" - meaning FINK the CEO of Blackrock (FINK, being one of the
hypocritical CEO's whom Gasparino says only claims he's sympathetic to
the OWS Movement in the hopes they won't target HIM).

If anyone in the OWS movement is listening to Fox News, they WILL
target FINK from BLACKROCK, and the CEO's from GE (GENERAL ELECTRIC,
whose CEO Jeffrey IMMELT whom Gasparino says "has his hand out
everyday" – asking for money from the government) and CITIGROUP (whose
CEO is Vikram PANDIT, and which Gasparino says is "the most bailed out
bank in the history of bailed-out banks" that "feasts off of" the fact
that the Federal Reserve is printing money, a Federal Reserve whose
balance sheet is overseen by his crony capitalist, Larry Fink at
Blackrock).

Again, you probably should have listened more closely to this very
informative video you provided from Fox News, as it does not say what
you want it to say; it did NOT support your claims against the OWS
Movement in any way, shape, or form; in fact, it negates them and
makes a very good case for the OWS/Occupy Wall Street Movement, and
identifies the worst "crony capitalists" of Blackrock, Citigroup, and
GE, who they say should be the movement's main targets.

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 25, 7:47 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Linda Lee wrote:
>
...

>
> > Not every Christian is an ignorant teapartier; I plan to vote for
> > Obama again.
>
> I am not a tea partier either, but the average tea partier I think is
> far more intelligent than most of the brain dead communist scumbags I
> see in the occupy wall street thing.

Which OWS did you attend, how long did you say, and what
questions did you ask in order to ascertain that they were
brain dead communist scumbags?

>
> If they were really smart, they would target BOA and shut it down with
> their protests.
>
> Instead, they just hang out, do drugs, and have sex in the open.

That's false. They have targeted BOA and Citibank and have
been arrested for "trespassing" trying to close their accounts!

>
> Tea partiers don't smash windows and get into fights with cops. They do.
>
> NOT TO MENTION THE OPEN ANTISEMITISM INFLUENCING THE  MOVEMENT
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb81Rbql6Nc
>

> http://weaselzippers.us/2011/10/16/israelis-shocked-by-anti-semitic-f...

You give me a Faux News account and claim this shows anything?

As we have been discussing elsewhere here, cherry-picking is evil.

I can show you racist and anti-Muslim tea-party events; see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S38VioxnBaI

...

> Imagine how loud liberal hollywood and the liberal media would scream if
> as much of the tea party held signs like this or said these things
>
> Liberal hypocrisy.

They *do*. And many of them carried guns while saying it, too.
If the OWS were carrying guns they'd be hauled off in no time.

Most OWS folks are in fact going after the banks and wall-street
deregulation and double standards in justice. Sadly,
Republicans, who *ought* to be representing folks like
you, are voting to let the unregulated be more unregulated,
and to deny justice to the 99%.

--
Rob Strom

[Linda Lee]

On Oct 25, 3:38 pm, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 7:47 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Linda Lee wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > Not every Christian is an ignorant teapartier; I plan to vote for
> > > Obama again.
>
> > I am not a tea partier either, but the average tea partier I think is
> > far more intelligent than most of the brain dead communist scumbags I
> > see in the occupy wall street thing.
>
> Which OWS did you attend, how long did you say, and what
> questions did you ask in order to ascertain that they were
> brain dead communist scumbags?
>
>
>
> > If they were really smart, they would target BOA and shut it down with
> > their protests.
>
> > Instead, they just hang out, do drugs, and have sex in the open.
>
> That's false.  They have targeted BOA and Citibank and have
> been arrested for "trespassing" trying to close their accounts!
>
>
>
> > Tea partiers don't smash windows and get into fights with cops. They do.
>
> > NOT TO MENTION THE OPEN ANTISEMITISM INFLUENCING THE  MOVEMENT
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb81Rbql6Nc
>
> >http://weaselzippers.us/2011/10/16/israelis-shocked-by-anti-semitic-f...
>
> You give me a Faux News account and claim this shows anything?

You should listen to that video from Fox News carefully, and read my
post that quotes some of it. It does not say what he thinks it does,
and in fact negates everything Vince said about the OWS Movement.

Apparently Fox News is not as bad as you think they are.

>
> As we have been discussing elsewhere here, cherry-picking is evil.
>

> I can show you racist and anti-Muslim tea-party events; seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S38VioxnBaI

[vince garcia]

I know plenty of TPers who denounce him. None care about his color; they
care about his policies

I am ashamed to say that my own
> mother votes Republican and is still disgusted and fuming that a half-
> black man was elected President, and that a black woman and black
> children are in the White House as 'the first family'.

I haven't heard one conservative I know personally (and I know a number)
who had griped about his race

>
> >
> > If they were really smart, they would target BOA and shut it down with
> > their protests.
>
> I think the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement should protest already
> existing laws that allow Wall Street to do what they do. Those on Wall
> Street will just ignore them. They should protest outside the houses
> of the federal government, assuming that is not illegal. Likely it is
> not since the Million Man March descended on the White House in .
>
> >
> > Instead, they just hang out, do drugs, and have sex in the open.
>
> I haven't seen any drugs or public sex reported,

OH MY LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just come to my 1 horse town. They're doing
drugs right out in the open, and I observed it not 2 days ago. The media
don't care because the media believes in legalizing many drugs

There are reports there was open sex in some of these, and things like
taking a dunmp in the open on a police car, and so on

although a rape was
> reported. So the claim is they're all braindead hedonist anti-semites,
> and the Tea Partiers, who ignore all warnings about what their plans
> would do to the economy, are intelligent, and it is implied they're
> moral. Lol! Sorry Vince, I think the Tea Partiers are neither
> intelligent nor moral, and I sincerely hope and pray that all the
> Republicans get voted out of office for their uncaring attitudes. They
> got the economy into this mess and on the whole couldn't care less,
> and ignore all warnings about what they desire will do to many. I have
> always been non-political, and have only voted in the last
> presidential election, but even I am prompted to vote because of the
> state the Republicans have gotten us into, and the uncaring attitude
> they project.
>
> >
> > Tea partiers don't smash windows and get into fights with cops. They do.
>
> The police have arrested people in the OWS Movement who were
> protesting nonviolently. From what I've heard of this movement, the
> cops' idea of 'disturbing the peace' means they should remain in total
> silence, which is a violation of our rights to free speech.

Plz name the last time a teap party demonstartion crapped on cop cars,
had drugs out in the open and smnashed windows.

Then we'll talk

>
> >
> > NOT TO MENTION THE OPEN ANTISEMITISM INFLUENCING THE MOVEMENT
>
> Influencing the protests? Why do you say that?

Because it's there. But of course you don't see the LIBERAL media point
that out.

i agree

>
> I have not yet looked at that second link you're providing, but I
> will, as you've aroused my interest. I've just spent a couple of hours
> listening to and transcribing material from the first video from Fox
> News to which you provided a link (which video negated all of your
> claims about the OWS Movement, by the way).
>
> >
> > Yet dems support and praise them.
>
> Do they?

Pelosi did.

I thought the Democrats generally were just supporting their
> rights of free speech and non-violent protest.

Except it's not non violent.

[Linda Lee]

P.S. I just listened to the last few seconds of that video you
provided, and it ends with a new story, which begins, "He tackled
payouts for 9/11 victims, the BP spill, and even as the White House
Pay Czar, but now he's taking on a whole new issue. Ken Feinberg is
ready to occupy Wall Street", and then he is quoted saying, "People
are upset; people want to know, 'What are those Wall Street guys
getting?'" Then Fox News says, "Why he says the Wall Street protesters
have EVERY RIGHT TO STORM THE STREETS". (This guy looks Jewish and
his name sounds Jewish, by the way.) I'd like to see that newscast,
but the video ends at that point.

[Linda Lee]

I see you stop here and have totally ignored how the video you
supplied negated all of your claims about the OWS Movement; I am
disappointed. I took the time to listen to the video you wanted me to
view and spent a lot of time listening to it and transcribing it for
you. I'd think you'd do the same.

[Linda Lee]

I just realized what a lame cop-out that is. I already viewed the
video you provided and now you claim I have to do more research before
you'll talk about this fiasco of a claim you've already made? Why
should I bother to counter your totally unsupported claim that the
protesters in your town have sex openly, do drugs openly, and are
violent and crapped in a police car, when you deliberately ignore the
contents of the very video YOU supplied that I bothered to take the
time (HOURS) to view and consider? Your video proved you way wrong,
whether you want to talk about it or not. Do you really care about
this political stuff or do you just want to win an argument? If you
care, you'd look at the video like you asked me to do, and you'd see
another point of view than your own. You've made a lot of false claims
about this movement, and your video proved it.
...

[Linda Lee]

Of course not; it's not 'politically correct' to admit what their real
problem is, just like my mother doesn't share with her black female
"friend" what she says to me about Obama and her never-ending horror
he was ever able to be elected. And yes, I've said to her, "I bet you
don't tell Shirley that." And she doesn't.

[vince garcia]

That statement is despicable. Implying they MUST be racist but won't
admit it is outrageous.

You should retract that statement and apologize.

How dare you pass judgment on people you don't even know and declare
them too politically correct to admit their racism. That's disgusting,
and I expect better from you

[vince garcia]

Linda Lee wrote:

> >
> > Pelosi did.
> >
> > I thought the Democrats generally were just supporting their
> >
> > > rights of free speech and non-violent protest.
> >
> > Except it's not non violent.
>
> I see you stop here and have totally ignored how the video you
> supplied negated all of your claims about the OWS Movement; I am
> disappointed. I took the time to listen to the video you wanted me to
> view and spent a lot of time listening to it and transcribing it for
> you. I'd think you'd do the same.
>

I listened to all of it before i sent it to you. I totally disagree with
your conclusion about it.

Did you ignore the statement from from the anti-defamation league saying
ststements out of the movement must not go unchellenegd?

Does that make the point the antisemitism is a non issue in your view?

Did you miss the part about the rape?


Did you miss the part about the threat on the KGO reporter Amy
Hollyfield if she tried to film?

I suppose all those are illustrative of how peaceful this movement is

Saying that the very video bringing up these facts "negated all of your
claims about the OWS Movement" is plain wrong

Did you hear the man you appealed to also say "some of them are
nasty--no doubt about that"?

I thought it was so peaceful and non violent...

Did you hear him say that a lot of them are confused kids "swayed by
marxist/leninist rhetoric"?

> Then at about 10 minutes into the video, the Fox News reporter says,
> "what IS surprising is how some of the CORPORATE LEADERS, that are the
> target of the protesters, have EXPRESSED SYMPATHY AND UNDERSTANDING
> FOR THEM"

And he went on to denounce those guys as "not capitalists but crony
capitalists" and said they were "playing a game"

I don't think that makes your point

[vince garcia]

one--i didn't say they IN MY TOWN had sex openly; i said "There are
reports there was open sex in some of these [events]". That was in new
york and has been reported in some media outlets

two--i said i had PERSONALLY seen drugs being used in the last couple of
days. End of debate on that

Three--i thought one of those links showed a photo of the guy crapping
on the police car. If not, here it is:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046586/Occupy-Wall-Street-Shocking-photos-protester-defecating-POLICE-CAR.html

Not "unsupported" at all

[Linda Lee]

No, YOU should apologize to me for refusing to admit your video of
that Fox News report did not support any of your outrageous
allegations, and the fact your inability to admit it has now led to
your attack on me.

I admit it's simply my opinion that their problem is likely bigotry
(and it is still my opinion, which I'm entitled to), but YOU have made
many false claims about the OWS Movement that your own alleged
'evidence' refuted, and now you're deliberately refusing to admit that
and trying to obscure that fact by sticking your head in the sand and
now going on the attack towards me.

>
> How dare you pass judgment on people you don't even know

Lol! What hypocrisy! You're passing judgment on people you don't
know and deliberately LYING about them with your falsehoods about the
OWS movement, which the video that you supplied from Fox News soundly
disproved.

> and declare
> them too politically correct to admit their racism. That's disgusting,
> and I expect better from you

I expected better from YOU too than for you to pretend you can't see
your false claims about the OWS Movement had no supporting evidence,
and to just do a cop-out, pretend you didn't see the comments made in
that video I bothered to quote to you, and say you'll talk about it
later once I once again spend a lot of time researching your new
claims only to find out your claims were false.

Obviously, merely 'appearing' to be right is more important to you
than being truthful, and that's both "despicable" and "outrageous", as
well as hypocritical. But you don't even appear to be right on this;
you only hope you do; in fact you appear hypocritical and false, as
the video link you provided is still there for anyone to check out to
see that what I posted it had said is completely TRUE. Next time you
post a video from Fox News, you'd better listen to it first, and not
just assume they're on your side because Rob Strom doesn't trust Fox
News - because I DID listen to it carefully, and I found out you don't
know what you're talking about on the subject of the OWS Movement.

[Linda Lee]

Vince,

P.S. I just listened to the last few seconds of that video you,
Vince, provided, and it ends with a new story, which begins, "He

[Linda Lee]

On Oct 25, 6:28 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Linda Lee wrote:
>
> > > Pelosi did.
>
> > >   I thought the Democrats generally were just supporting their
>
> > > > rights of free speech and non-violent protest.
>
> > > Except it's not non violent.
>
> > I see you stop here and have totally ignored how the video you
> > supplied negated all of your claims about the OWS Movement; I am
> > disappointed. I took the time to listen to the video you wanted me to
> > view and spent a lot of time listening to it and transcribing it for
> > you. I'd think you'd do the same.
>
> I listened to all of it before i sent it to you.

So now you deliberately lie about it. If you did listen to any of it,
you only heard what you wanted to hear.

> I totally disagree with
> your conclusion about it.

Quit your damn evasive dishonesty. I took so long to listen to it and
to write that post to you because I made sure I was quoting word-for-
word what they said, and would listen to it, write a few words, and
then go back and listen to it again. EVERYTHING I said they said is
true.

>
> Did you ignore the statement from from the anti-defamation league saying
> ststements out of the movement must not go unchellenegd?

No, and I also didn't ignore what the guy who approached the ADL to
denounce the statements said; I heard every word he, Andrew Breitbart,
said - heard it repeatedly, and he was the one who said, "Look, I

wanna be perfectly honest here; I'm NOT trying to state that the

Occupy Movement, at large, is ANTI-SEMITIC _OR_ that it's RASCIST".
AND he was the one who said the OWS Movement is being called racist
because the Tea Party Movement was accused of being racist; it's
retaliation.

Go ahead, challenge the individual anti-semitic statements, but don't
use them to try to claim the whole OWS movement is composed of racist
devils because NOTHING you've provided shows that; in fact what you
provided openly negates that. Your remarks are inflammatory and
deliberately false.


AS I POSTED BEFORE of Andrew Biebart, the guy who approached the the
ADL (Anti-Defamation League):

that the OWS Movement is racist [and he is also saying], the claims

that the OWS Movement is racist are simply retaliation for the Tea
Party having been called racist."


>

> Does that make the point the antisemitism is a non issue in your view?
>
> Did you miss the part about the rape?
>
> Did you miss the part about the threat on the KGO reporter Amy
> Hollyfield  if she tried to film?
>
> I suppose all those are illustrative of how peaceful this movement is

The lunatic fringe is attracted to any movement that gains publicity;
NONE of the three people Fox News interviewed in this video made the
claims that the movement as a whole is violent or racist.

>
> Saying that the very video bringing up these facts "negated all of your
> claims about the OWS Movement" is plain wrong

BS. Every person interviewed in the video refuted every
characterization you've made of the OWS Movement.

Now, I'm done arguing with you and wasting my time with someone who
just wants to make himself appear to be justified by making false
allegations and attacking me. Your claims about this movement are
BULL.

And snip the rest of the obfuscating BS.

[vince garcia]

So I guess rob is wrong about how biased they are, huh?

If what you're saying is that I'm claiming the whole movement is founded
on violence and antisemitism, and the newscast refuted that view, then I
will agree with you.

I did not say everyone in the movement is a violent antisemite. I said
the movement is

1. Violent.
2. Has antisemitism "influencing" it.

I consider "occupying" land and buildings to be acts of violence.
PERIOD. You may not. But I do. So to me it is a violent movement by its
"occupation" of parks and buildings, and their refusal to disperse at
the order of the authorities. Past that, i made the point--AND IT
STANDS--that acts of violence have regularly been taking place in this
movement with protestors scuffling with cops, smashing windows, and one
guy so unafraid and uncontested by his fellow occupiers that he crapped
on a car.

I then pointed put--correctly--that tea party gatherings DO NOT have the
same sort of problems associated with this LIBERAL movement.


2. I have repeatedly heard or heard of antisemitic comments being
reported from some of these protestors. I believe it IS influencing the
movement because it is coming OUT of the movement. Even if it's a
"minority" with an antisemitic view, the fact that the movement itself
is not coming out to denounce and expel these people is indicative of
tolerance for the view

The tea party is not tolerent and silent if someone with a swastika or
KKK banner shows up.

They police themselves

My gripe with you on the racism thing is you are making a false
judgement on specific people I actually know, not simply maiing a broad
bursh insult toward namless repubs or conservatives. I did not do that
with you. I did not take a group of your friends or relatives you
actually know and then pass judgment on their character


You have no right to do that, and should show how much better you are by
NOT doing that if you think yourself better

[vince garcia]

Fine. so this conversation is ended. I'm wrong. The occupiers are
peaceful, tolerent, non violent, non-antisemitic, respectful, anti-drug,
orderly folks.

Happy now?

[Terry Cross]

Quite probably.

> If what you're saying is that I'm claiming the whole movement is founded
> on violence and antisemitism, and the newscast refuted that view, then I
> will agree with you.
>
> I did not say everyone in the movement is a violent antisemite. I said
> the movement is
>
> 1. Violent.
> 2. Has antisemitism "influencing" it.

Garbage. Nobody controls the participants in a movement that size.
It is easy to inject some agent provocateurs into those groups, then
arrange for them to get all the press. News agencies themselves do it
so often, it is disgusting -- and nobody can call them liars.

> I consider "occupying" land and buildings to be acts of violence.

Are you referring to the "occupied territories" called Gaza Strip and
Sinai Peninsula?

> PERIOD. You may not. But I do. So to me it is a violent movement by its
> "occupation" of parks and buildings, and their refusal to disperse at
> the order of the authorities.

God is the only "authority". The others are just earthly powers.
They did not author anything and they have no "authority" at all.

TCross

[Linda Lee]

On Oct 25, 6:16 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Did you hear him say that a lot of them are confused kids "swayed by
> marxist/leninist rhetoric"?

Yes, I heard it.

Gasparino (at 12 min. 8 secs into the video) said of these three CEO's
at GE, Citigroup, and Blackrock who are pretending to sympathize with
the OWS Movement, "They're trying to change the debate, because, if
the protesters ever got a clue, because I'll tell you, I went down
there, a lot of them are really nasty, a lot of them are kids that are
just confused and don't understand what's going on; they're being
swayed by Marxist/Leninist rhetoric that's going down there; they
don't kind of get what happened with the financial crisis. They think
the financial crisis was a bunch of guys taking risks; they don't know
that this was risk that was subsidized by the federal government" -
meaning the REPUBLICAN federal government of that time. And "if they
ever got a clue" how the financial crisis REALLY came about; they'd
REALLY be angry.


See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb81Rbql6Nc

[Linda Lee]

Looks like he's wrong about Fox News yes; now their _subtitles_
running under their interviews were misleading; the content of the
interviews was unbiased and more for-than-against the OWS Movement.

>
> If what you're saying is that I'm claiming the whole movement is founded
> on violence and antisemitism, and the newscast refuted that view, then I
> will agree with you.
>
> I did not say everyone in the movement is a violent antisemite. I said
> the movement is
>
> 1. Violent.
> 2. Has antisemitism "influencing" it.
>
> I consider "occupying" land and buildings to be acts of violence.
> PERIOD. You may not.

Wasn't it you who was the poster Rob was talking about who said it was
okay for a woman who was verbally heckling someone at the Tea Party
gathering to have her head stomped on; she shouldn't heckle; she asked
for it? But NOW you're against violence?

> But I do. So to me it is a violent movement by its
> "occupation" of parks and buildings, and their refusal to disperse at
> the order of the authorities. Past that, i made the point--AND IT
> STANDS--that acts of violence have regularly been taking place in this
> movement with protestors scuffling with cops, smashing windows, and one
> guy so unafraid and uncontested by his fellow occupiers that he crapped
> on a car.
>
> I then pointed put--correctly--that tea party gatherings DO NOT have the
> same sort of problems associated with this LIBERAL movement.

Come off it with the sudden civility; you began this by saying they
were a bunch of devils. If it were up to people like you, we'll all
soon be on the breadlines, but you can be happy if that happens
because there won't be any welfare or unemployment compensation, or
Social Security retirement benefits to bail you out. Maybe the rich
teapartiers will throw you their table scraps.

>
> 2. I have repeatedly heard or heard of antisemitic comments being
> reported from some of these protestors. I believe it IS influencing the
> movement because it is coming OUT of the movement. Even if it's a
> "minority" with an antisemitic view, the fact that the movement itself
> is not coming out to denounce and expel these people is indicative of
> tolerance for the view
>
> The tea party is not tolerent and silent if someone with a swastika or
> KKK banner shows up.
>
> They police themselves

Yes, that is good, but that doesn't make what the Teapartiers will do
and have done to this country good. And one point Breitbart was
making was that the Anti-Defamation League jumped on the anti-semitic
statements made at a Tea Party movement, but was ignoring the anti-
semitic statements made at the OWS Movement, and also that NOW
(National Organization for Women) was ignoring that a woman was raped.
His point was the ADL and NOW support the OWS Movement and are
ignoring things they normally would not ignore, and that is not safe
for Jews or women. Breitbart's other point was that the OWS Movement
was being called racist by Republicans because the Tea Party Movement
had been called racist by Democrats; that it was retaliation for
similar accusations.

>
> My gripe with you on the racism thing is you are making a false
> judgement on specific people I actually know, not simply maiing a broad
> bursh insult toward namless repubs or conservatives. I did not do that
> with you. I did not take a group of your friends or relatives you
> actually know and then pass judgment on their character
>
> You have no right to do that, and should show how much better you are by
> NOT doing that if you think yourself better

I'm not apologizing for anything; you've been a REAL DRAG and
extremely attacking and insulting, and have ruined my evening.

[Linda Lee]

Vince, THIS below is what you said before, and now suddenly these Tea
Partiers who denounce Obama have gone from 'conservatives you know
personally' and have become your dear friends and relatives! I ALSO

did not "take a group of your friends or relatives you actually know

and then pass judgment on their character" because you gave NO
indication they were your friends and relatives when I made my opinion
about Tea Partiers in general.

[vince garcia]

Linda Lee wrote:

Not THAT sort of violence. If i went there and heckled a speaker, I'd
expect to get my ass kicked, and wouldn't gripe about it.

The sort i'm griping about is vandlaizing private property as some sort
of "protest"; and refusing orders by the authorities to vacate and
disperse, and "scuffling" with them.

>
> > But I do. So to me it is a violent movement by its
> > "occupation" of parks and buildings, and their refusal to disperse at
> > the order of the authorities. Past that, i made the point--AND IT
> > STANDS--that acts of violence have regularly been taking place in this
> > movement with protestors scuffling with cops, smashing windows, and one
> > guy so unafraid and uncontested by his fellow occupiers that he crapped
> > on a car.
> >
> > I then pointed put--correctly--that tea party gatherings DO NOT have the
> > same sort of problems associated with this LIBERAL movement.
>
> Come off it with the sudden civility; you began this by saying they
> were a bunch of devils.

I think they are. I thought that in the 60s too.

If it were up to people like you, we'll all
> soon be on the breadlines

dumb statement

, but you can be happy if that happens
> because there won't be any welfare or unemployment compensation, or
> Social Security retirement benefits to bail you out. Maybe the rich
> teapartiers will throw you their table scraps.
>
> >
> > 2. I have repeatedly heard or heard of antisemitic comments being
> > reported from some of these protestors. I believe it IS influencing the
> > movement because it is coming OUT of the movement. Even if it's a
> > "minority" with an antisemitic view, the fact that the movement itself
> > is not coming out to denounce and expel these people is indicative of
> > tolerance for the view
> >
> > The tea party is not tolerent and silent if someone with a swastika or
> > KKK banner shows up.
> >
> > They police themselves
>
> Yes, that is good, but that doesn't make what the Teapartiers will do
> and have done to this country good.

Did i not say before more than once i'm not a tea parteir and don't like
the tea party?

And one point Breitbart was
> making was that the Anti-Defamation League jumped on the anti-semitic
> statements made at a Tea Party movement, but was ignoring the anti-
> semitic statements made at the OWS Movement, and also that NOW
> (National Organization for Women) was ignoring that a woman was raped.
> His point was the ADL and NOW support the OWS Movement and are
> ignoring things they normally would not ignore, and that is not safe
> for Jews or women.

He's right, and that shows their hypocrisy

But that is the problem--they are not dealing with these incidents. It's
taking "conservative" media to illustrate them

So he's making one point of mine--the tea party polices itself pretty
good. The occupiers do not.

Breitbart's other point was that the OWS Movement
> was being called racist by Republicans because the Tea Party Movement
> had been called racist by Democrats; that it was retaliation for
> similar accusations.

probably some truth to that.

>
> >
> > My gripe with you on the racism thing is you are making a false
> > judgement on specific people I actually know, not simply maiing a broad
> > bursh insult toward namless repubs or conservatives. I did not do that
> > with you. I did not take a group of your friends or relatives you
> > actually know and then pass judgment on their character
> >
> > You have no right to do that, and should show how much better you are by
> > NOT doing that if you think yourself better
>
> I'm not apologizing for anything; you've been a REAL DRAG and
> extremely attacking and insulting, and have ruined my evening.

sry

[vince garcia]

Linda Lee wrote:

>
> Vince, THIS below is what you said before, and now suddenly these Tea
> Partiers who denounce Obama have gone from 'conservatives you know
> personally' and have become your dear friends and relatives!

They ARE friends amnd relatives. I do know them personally. that was my
point

I ALSO
> did not "take a group of your friends or relatives you actually know
> and then pass judgment on their character" because you gave NO
> indication they were your friends and relatives when I made my opinion
> about Tea Partiers in general.

I said i "knew them persoanlly", and many are TPers. I didn't say "I
know of" them

I am not a TPer. I don't like the TP. IT'S TOO PRO-BIG BUSINESS
CONSERVATIVE FOR ME!!!

[Linda Lee]

On Oct 25, 3:38 pm, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 7:47 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Linda Lee wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > Not every Christian is an ignorant teapartier; I plan to vote for
> > > Obama again.
>
> > I am not a tea partier either, but the average tea partier I think is
> > far more intelligent than most of the brain dead communist scumbags I
> > see in the occupy wall street thing.
>
> Which OWS did you attend, how long did you say, and what
> questions did you ask in order to ascertain that they were
> brain dead communist scumbags?
>
>
>
> > If they were really smart, they would target BOA and shut it down with
> > their protests.
>
> > Instead, they just hang out, do drugs, and have sex in the open.
>
> That's false.  They have targeted BOA and Citibank and have
> been arrested for "trespassing" trying to close their accounts!

Here are a couple of videos of the arrests; that is really scary. Talk
about a bunch of Nazis (the bank officials and cops)! They were
arrested for 'failing to disperse' while they were bank customers
there doing business; closing out their bank accounts. So now these
OWS protesters don't have the right to their own money?

http://breakthematrix.com/activism/ny-citibank-customers-arrested-closing-accounts/

This quote from the second video comparing the incident to this quote
of Martin Luther King is interesting:
"NONVIOLENT DIRECT ACTION SEEKS TO CREATE SUCH A CRISIS AND FOSTER
SUCH A TENSION THAT A COMMUNITY THAT HAS CONSTANTLY REFUSED TO
NEGOTIATE IS FORCED TO CONFRONT THE ISSUE. IT SEEKS TO SO DRAMATIZE
THE ISSUE THAT IT CAN NO LONGER BE IGNORED. MARTIN LUTHER KING April
16, 1963"

Citibank's public claim to police was that the woman in the videotape
was trespassing and wouldn't leave, but she had already left the bank
and was out on the street when the police arrived, and the police
force her, first picking her up and then shoving her BACK into the
bank to arrest her. The bank had LOCKED the other protesters inside
the bank. (This is seen in the first video, with a woman outside, them
inside, with her asking them through the glass to email her their
names, because she told them she was reporting this to a lawyer).
Incredible.

>
>
>
> > Tea partiers don't smash windows and get into fights with cops. They do.
>
> > NOT TO MENTION THE OPEN ANTISEMITISM INFLUENCING THE  MOVEMENT
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb81Rbql6Nc
>
> >http://weaselzippers.us/2011/10/16/israelis-shocked-by-anti-semitic-f...
>
> You give me a Faux News account and claim this shows anything?
>
> As we have been discussing elsewhere here, cherry-picking is evil.
>
> I can show you racist and anti-Muslim tea-party events; seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S38VioxnBaI

Really.

[Linda Lee]

Nice - not.

[Linda Lee]

On Oct 25, 9:46 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Linda Lee wrote:
>
> > Vince, THIS below is what you said before, and now suddenly these Tea
> > Partiers who denounce Obama have gone from 'conservatives you know
> > personally' and have become your dear friends and relatives!
>
> They ARE friends amnd relatives. I do know them personally. that was my
> point
>
> I ALSO
>
> > did not "take a group of your friends or relatives you actually know
> > and then pass judgment on their character" because you gave NO
> > indication they were your friends and relatives when I made my opinion
> > about Tea Partiers in general.
>
> I said i "knew them persoanlly", and many are TPers. I didn't say "I
> know of" them

So WHAT? I know lots of people personally that are neither friends nor
relatives. You had no reason to blow up at me like that; you did so
because you didn't like your video shown up as one that refuted 99.9%
of your claims about the OWS Movement.

[Linda Lee]

What bull! Assault is illegal. And wasn't that a Tea Party movement
demonstration where the woman was assaulted when she heckled the
speaker? So you think a single dissenting voice deserves to be kicked
in the head if they dare speak at a Republican movement. What anti-
Americanism.

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 25, 9:42 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Linda Lee wrote:
>

...

>
> > > So I guess rob is wrong about how biased they are, huh?
>
> > Looks like he's wrong about Fox News yes; now their _subtitles_
> > running under their interviews were misleading; the content of the
> > interviews was unbiased and more for-than-against the OWS Movement.

Fox News has a history; so, of course does Breitbart, who managed
to edit a video of Shirley Sherrod, to make her appear to have views
opposite her actual ones, and fooled her bosses into getting he fired.
He also tried to discredit ACORN using a video of a fake pimp
who was actually a Breitbart operative. In short he's a professional
liar
who looks for things to discredit groups he doesn't like, and makes
up the evidence when he can't find enough cherry-picked evidence.

Thanks to Linda's care in transcribing the videos, we now know
that *most* of the video doesn't support your conclusion, but
the subtitles for those who don't follow the whole message are
still designed to send the Fox message to its audience.

...

>
> > > 1. Violent.
> > > 2. Has antisemitism "influencing" it.
>
> > > I consider "occupying" land and buildings to be acts of violence.
> > > PERIOD. You may not.
>
> > Wasn't it you who was the poster Rob was talking about who said it was
> > okay for a woman who was verbally heckling someone at the Tea Party
> > gathering to have her head stomped on; she shouldn't heckle; she asked
> > for it? But NOW you're against violence?
>
> Not THAT sort of violence. If i went there and heckled a speaker, I'd
> expect to get my ass kicked, and wouldn't gripe about it.
>
> The sort i'm griping about is vandlaizing private property as some sort
> of "protest"; and refusing orders by the authorities to vacate and
> disperse, and "scuffling" with them.
>

Well it does appear that you and I have two different definitions of
"violence".

A peaceful sit-in where people refuse to obey (possibly legal,
possibly not)
requests to disperse and go limp and let themselves be dragged off
is to your mind "violent".

But knocking a heckler down to the ground and stomping on her face
is just "natural" behaviior, not violent at all.

OK, by your definition, I am ok with viiolence and hate non-violence.

...

>
> > making was that the Anti-Defamation League jumped on the anti-semitic
> > statements made at a Tea Party movement, but was ignoring the anti-
> > semitic statements made at the OWS Movement, and also that NOW
> > (National Organization for Women) was ignoring that a woman was raped.
> > His point was the ADL and NOW support the OWS Movement and are
> > ignoring things they normally would not ignore, and that is not safe
> > for Jews or women.
>
> He's right, and that shows their hypocrisy

So now the OWS is anti-semitic and yet the ADL supports it?????

>
> But that is the problem--they are not dealing with these incidents. It's
> taking "conservative" media to illustrate them
>
> So he's making one point of mine--the tea party polices itself pretty
> good. The occupiers do not.

I showed you a video showing where they didn't.

I'm not going to credit *anything* from Breitbart, and neither should
you.

--
Rob Strom

[Terry Cross]

On Oct 25, 4:47 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Linda Lee wrote:
>

> > On Oct 24, 5:18 pm, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 21, 6:02 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Rob Strom wrote:
>
> > > ...
> > > > > I do own books on Heydrich too, though.
>
> > > > > When I was a boy, I learned Edna St. Vincent Millay's poem
> > > > > "The Children of Lidice", which indirectly was about Heydrich.
>
> > > > He was a very smart man. Too bad he was such a callous prick.
>
> > > Somehow "callous prick" seems such an inadequate phrase
> > > to describe the Butcher of Prague.

>
> > > ...
>
> > > > > > I don't support it because i think it will bankruot the country. I know
> > > > > > or have heard more than one businessman say they are holding back on
> > > > > > iring, or else are not exopanding with new jobs, because of the program
>
> > > Yes, what you have probably heard is the Tea Party Pledge. These
> > > disgusting Sodomites have actually pledged to *make sure*
> > > any Obama-devised job creation program will fail, even if it
> > > means plunging the country into depression.
>
> > > Here is the exact wording of the action component of their pledge:
> > > "I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces
> > > the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country,
> > > hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war
> > > against business and my country is stopped.
>
> > > I hereby declare that my job creation potential is now ceased. "
>
> > > When you make your next inspection visit to Hell, I think you'll find
> > > any of these guys that died between then and now roasting on spits
> > > there.
> > > Say hi to them from me.
>
> > > > > Well the CBO disagrees. It both saves money *and* reduces
> > > > > the uncertainties that risk people becoming bankrupt themselves
> > > > > due to health issues.
>
> > > > Great.
>
> > > > And if it doesn't, it will be the Repubs' fault, right?
>

> > > It could be the fault of the Tea Partiers and the banksters.
> > > The banksters already threatened that if bank regulations
> > > would pass (as a few did) they would retaliate against
> > > customers. That has actually happened.
>
> > > Expect to see a few Citibank and BoA folks on your next inspection
> > > tour as well.
>
> > > ...
>
> > > > > It's in 2014, and I expect you to buy into the exchange by then.
>
> > > > More than one person has noted the timing is suspiciously AFTER the
> > > > election...
>
> > > You bet. The Sodomites wanted to do all they could that if they
> > > couldn't stop the passage of the bill, they'd make sure that the
> > > more dramatic of the improvements wouldn't be noticeable
> > > by the population until after 2012, so that poor health care
> > > and poor economic conditions would be more likely to continue
> > > through the election.
>
> > > May God have mercy on their souls.
>
> > > --
> > > Rob Strom
>
> > Not every Christian is an ignorant teapartier; I plan to vote for
> > Obama again.
>
> I am not a tea partier either, but the average tea partier I think is
> far more intelligent than most of the brain dead communist scumbags I
> see in the occupy wall street thing.
>

> If they were really smart, they would target BOA and shut it down with
> their protests.
>
> Instead, they just hang out, do drugs, and have sex in the open.
>

> Tea partiers don't smash windows and get into fights with cops. They do.
>
> NOT TO MENTION THE OPEN ANTISEMITISM INFLUENCING THE MOVEMENT
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb81Rbql6Nc

Vince you are too easily manipulated. These movements cannot police
their ranks like Communist parties. Outside organizations can easily
plant a few inflammatory voices in the ranks. The trick is so
standard, a fifth grader would see through the game.

It's called agent provocateur.

Quite obviously, not everyone opposed to Wall Street is antisemitic.

But maybe that's what the Jews INSIDE Wall street fear!

TCross

[vince garcia]

Rob Strom wrote:

>
> On Oct 25, 7:47 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Linda Lee wrote:
> >

> ...

> >
> > > Not every Christian is an ignorant teapartier; I plan to vote for
> > > Obama again.
> >
> > I am not a tea partier either, but the average tea partier I think is
> > far more intelligent than most of the brain dead communist scumbags I
> > see in the occupy wall street thing.
>

> Which OWS did you attend, how long did you say, and what
> questions did you ask in order to ascertain that they were
> brain dead communist scumbags?

Which republican or tea party caucuses and gatherings have you attended
how long did you stay, and what questions did you ask in order to
ascertain that they were sodomites?

>
> >
> > If they were really smart, they would target BOA and shut it down with
> > their protests.
> >
> > Instead, they just hang out, do drugs, and have sex in the open.
>

> That's false.

Ok. So for the record, you deny there is any open drug use at the
events.

you deny a bunch of them are just hanging out at the events, in the same
way wayward young people hang out on the streets or in alleys BSing,
doing drugs, and so on

You deny there was any open sex.

Correct?

They have targeted BOA and Citibank and have
> been arrested for "trespassing" trying to close their accounts!
>
> >

> > Tea partiers don't smash windows and get into fights with cops. They do.
> >
> > NOT TO MENTION THE OPEN ANTISEMITISM INFLUENCING THE MOVEMENT
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb81Rbql6Nc
> >

> > http://weaselzippers.us/2011/10/16/israelis-shocked-by-anti-semitic-f...
>
> You give me a Faux News account and claim this shows anything?
>
> As we have been discussing elsewhere here, cherry-picking is evil.
>
> I can show you racist and anti-Muslim tea-party events; see
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S38VioxnBaI

You really think showing a group being ANTI-MOSlEM is going to affect me
negatively??? Or that I think that's a BAD thing????

To me, that's like bashing a group for being anti-Nazi.

Nazis and moslems both stand for the extermination of jews: Hamas
spokesman Ismail Radwan, quoting the hadith – the oral tradition of
Muhammad – declared to the Palestinian audience: "The Hour [of
Resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews and
the Muslims kill them, and the rock and the tree will say: "Oh, Muslim,
servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, kill him!"

Radwan concluded with a prayer for Allah to "take" Israel and the U.S.,
reported the Israel-based media monitor Palestinian Media Watch.

We must remind our Arab and Muslim nation, its leaders and people, its
scholars and students, remind them that Palestine and the Al Aqsa mosque
will not be liberated through summits nor by international resolutions,
but it will be liberated through the rifle," he said.

"It will not be liberated through negotiations, but through the rifle,
since this occupation knows no language but the language of force,"
Radwan continued.

He concluded: "O Allah, strengthen Islam and Muslims, and bring victory
to your jihad-fighting worshipers, in Palestine and everywhere. … Allah
take the oppressor Jews and Americans and their supporters!"

Want to affect me nagatively about the TP? Show them sticking up for
Cane

>
> ...
> > Imagine how loud liberal hollywood and the liberal media would scream if
> > as much of the tea party held signs like this or said these things
> >
> > Liberal hypocrisy.
>
> They *do*.

Where? I watch ABC and MSNBC regularly and can't say I've seen one news
blurb on the antisemitic comments being made at these events. Sure, i
could have missed ir, but i haven't seen it covered outside of
"conservative" media

If I had, I'd search for a youtube video from THEM since you only
respect liberal media

>And many of them carried guns while saying it, too.

good!

> If the OWS were carrying guns they'd be hauled off in no time.

So the evil cops like TPers carring firepower, but not the peaceful,
non-violent, non-drug, pro-israel occupiers??

Why would cops hassle peaceful, non-violent, non-drug, pro-israel
occupiers but not violent, racist, revolutionaries like the TPers?

You have a low opinion of cops, it seems

>
> Most OWS folks are in fact going after the banks and wall-street
> deregulation and

and THAT part of it i said i agred with.

double standards in justice. Sadly,
> Republicans, who *ought* to be representing folks like
> you, are voting to let the unregulated be more unregulated,
> and to deny justice to the 99%.

Is this a claim that the poor innocent minorities are jailed at every
opportunity, but guilty whites are ignored by the cops at every
opportunity?

[Linda Lee]

On Oct 25, 10:36 pm, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 9:42 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Linda Lee wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > So I guess rob is wrong about how biased they are, huh?
>
> > > Looks like he's wrong about Fox News yes; now their _subtitles_
> > > running under their interviews were misleading; the content of the
> > > interviews was unbiased and more for-than-against the OWS Movement.
>
> Fox News has a history; so, of course does Breitbart, who managed
> to edit a video of Shirley Sherrod, to make her appear to have views
> opposite her actual ones, and fooled her bosses into getting he fired.


>
> He also tried to discredit ACORN using a video of a fake pimp
> who was actually a Breitbart operative.  In short he's a professional
> liar
> who looks for things to discredit groups he doesn't like,

Yet Breitbart does NOT seem to dislike the OWS Movement as a whole,
saying "Look, I wanna be perfectly honest here; I'm NOT trying to

state that the Occupy Movement, at large, is ANTI-SEMITIC _OR_ that

it's RACIST".

AND Brietbart is the one who said the OWS Movement is now being called
racist simply because the Tea Party Movement was accused of being
racist; the charges of the OWS being an anti-semitic movement are NOT
true, and are simply retaliation from the Republicans:

Breitbart concluded, BUT THE POINT OF THIS IS, IS THAT THE OCCUPY

MOVEMENT IS THE ANTI-TEA PARTY MOVEMENT.
ALL of the people in this group are ANGRY THAT THE TEA PARTY WAS ABLE
TO FOCUS THAT GOVERNMENT WAS A PROBLEM HERE, __and it turns on the
spigot,__ so this is President Obama and Nancy Pelosi and the
Organized Left's TEA PARTY, and they're the ones who have said that
the Tea Party is racist because one sign in Tallahassee means the
entire group is guilty of guilt by association. They're being hoisted
by their own petard right now."

According to Andrew Beibart (and the Fox News newscaster did not
disagree with him), "it turns on the spigot"' ('comes back to haunt

you', karma, whatever you want to call it); because "President Obama
and Nancy Pelosi and the Organized Left's TEA PARTY" (the Democratic
idea of the Republican Tea Party), was defined as a racist movement,
so now the OWS Movement is being characterized as racist. IOW, Andrew

Beibart is saying it is NOT TRUE that the OWS Movement is racist, and

the claims that the OWS Movement is racist are simply retaliation for
the Tea Party having been called racist.

Frankly, I think Brietbar's wrong about that; I think the Republican
Tea Party would have claimed the OWS Movement was racist and Iin
particular anti-semitic even if the Republican Tea Party had NEVER
been accused of being racist. But Brietbart's POINT is that (even
though he called for the Anti-Defamation League to denounce any anti-
semitic statements made) the OWS Movement is NOT racist or anti-
semitic; claims of racism and anti-semitism are false and are simply
tit-for-tat retaliation from Republican Tea Partiers.

> and makes
> up the evidence when he can't find enough cherry-picked evidence.

Is this what you're talking about concerning ACORN?

"ACORN statement on arrest of video "sting" operator
27 January 2010

In light of the arrest of James O'Keefe and three associates in New
Orleans, ACORN released the following statement from its CEO Bertha
Lewis:

The recent arrest of James O'Keefe, is further evidence of his
disregard for the law in pursuit of his extremist agenda. From the day
that O'Keefe's undercover "sting" videos came out, ACORN leadership
pledged accountability for its own staff while pointing out that the
videos had been shot illegally and edited deceptively in order to
undermine the work of an organization that has empowered working
families for four decades.

Unfortunately, during the rush to judge ACORN, both the media and
Congress failed to question the methods, intent and accuracy of Mr.
O'Keefe's videos. Subsequent independent reviews by the Congressional
Research Service and former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott
Harshbarger have already concluded that it was O'Keefe, and not ACORN
staff, even those fired for acting inappropriately, who broke the law
in the undercover videotapes.

Throughout all of the attacks that began with partisan smears against
our successful voter registration program, our members have never
stopped working to improve their communities, stop the foreclosure
crisis and make ordinary people's voices heard.

Background:
A report released by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service
on December 22nd, 2009 stated that two filmmakers likely broke the law
when they conducted a widely publicized "sting" against the group.
(The report on the community group ACORN also found no misuse of its
federal funds over the past five years and no attempts at improper
voting following its 2008 voter registration drive. The report raises
questions about the Constitutionality of a government wide funding
ban. The press release "Conyers Releases CRS Report on ACORN" is at
judiciary.house.gov/news/091222.html .)

Earlier in December month an independent report by former
Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger examining the
undercover videos filmed in offices of the national anti-poverty group
ACORN states the employees portrayed in the videos did not engage in
any illegal activity, but the filmmakers, who refused to be
interviewed during the investigation, likely did.

For more information see:

ACORN, an anti-poverty group, came under attack from Republicans in
recent years after it helped millions of mostly minority and low-
income citizens apply to register to vote. ACORN has helped families
prepare 150,000 free tax returns and obtain $190 million in tax
refunds in the last five years and worked for decades to promote
neighborhood safety and homeownership. More information www.acorn.org"
- see
http://www.acorn.org/node/695

>
> Thanks to Linda's care in transcribing the videos, we now know
> that *most* of the video doesn't support your conclusion, but
> the subtitles for those who don't follow the whole message are
> still designed to send the Fox message to its audience.

That is odd that the station would even allow these interviews to be
aired if the message they give in their subtitles is the opposite of
what the interviewees are saying. Are the subtitles for the
unintelligent who can't understand what is actually being said?
Perhaps they just want to be dramatic to draw viewers, like the yellow
journalism magazines that advertise one story on the cover and then
the story inside the magazine refutes it.

I found it odd that during Breitbart's interview, they showed people
with signs from the OWS Movement, and none of the signs said anything
about Jews, let alone anything anti-semitic or racist. You'd think
they'd have shown signs supporting his allegation that the ADL is
ignoring anti-semitic statements being made at the demonstrations, and
would have at least saved the two videos they had of the bigoted
schoolteacher and idiotic young man shown during Bauer's interview for
Breitbart's interview.

The FOX News newscaster also noted that some of Breitbart's
allegations (at 8 min. into the video - that a woman was raped in
occupied Cleveland and that 'NOW' has ignored it, and that a female
reporter was called "the b word") were NOT "proven by police
statements yet", and Brietbart admitted that was so. Breitbart may
have just wanted to get some publicity for himself by challenging the
ADL.

You have to give Breitbart SOME credit that at least he made it very
clear he was NOT saying the OWS movement was racist or anti-semitic
and that he believed claims of that were simply Republican Tea Party
retaliation for the Tea Party having been called racist. (You're
racist! No, you're racist!)


Gary Bauer (previously I misspelled his name as Bowers), the first
person interviewed, was the most biased and the only blatantly
dishonest one of the three interviewees; he magnified a bratty young
man telling someone to "go back to Israel", and a single anti-semitic
statement from that teacher (whom he falsely claimed still had her job
in the public school system, and the FOX newscaster corrected him,
saying no, she was fired for her statements) into an anti-semitic
movement he claimed began with the White House blaming economically
successful people, and he claimed it wasn't a far jump from blaming
bankers to blaming Jewish bankers, and claimed it was something
Fascists and Communists had done, thereby insinuating that Obama was
Fascist and Communist; Bauer was very biased. And WHO IS GARY BAUER?
LOL! Bauer worked for Republican President Reagan from 82-89, ran for
President himself under the Republican party in 1999, and endorsed
John McCain in his run for President against Obama. Bauer is
supposedly Pro-Life and is oddly against abortion, but for state
executions. (Aren't prisoners "Life" too?)
- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Bauer


Gee, I wonder WHY Gary Bauer is so anti-Obama and is using the OWS
Movement to imply it began with Obama and to imply Obama is a Fascist
and Communist?

And why is it that so many Republicans look like damned liars?




>
> --
> Rob Strom

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 26, 7:27 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Rob Strom wrote:
...

>
> Ok. So for the record, you deny there is any open drug use at the
> events.

Not only is it cherry-picked (just like they did in the anti-vietnam
war days), some
of it is explicitly manipulated.

Here's a video where they caught Evan Coyne Maloney, a right-wing
blogger,
handing out Che Guevara rolling papers at OWS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tFnotKQNaeY

That's very clear Breitbartism.


--
Rob Strom

[vince garcia]

Rob Strom wrote:
>
> On Oct 26, 7:27 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> ...
> >
> > Ok. So for the record, you deny there is any open drug use at the
> > events.
>
> Not only is it cherry-picked (just like they did in the anti-vietnam
> war days), some
> of it is explicitly manipulated.

so you don't deny it. good

>
> Here's a video where they caught Evan Coyne Maloney, a right-wing
> blogger,
> handing out Che Guevara rolling papers at OWS.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tFnotKQNaeY
>
> That's very clear Breitbartism.

So your computer can finally run youtube, unlike in the past?


>
> --
> Rob Strom

Good thing lierals are too pure to ever dop something like that, huh?

http://newsbusters.org/?q=blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/04/11/lefty-group-tries-infiltrate-tea-parties-offensive-signs-will-msm-ta

And that wasn't by Breitbart

But wait--you deny any left wingers would ever infiltrate TP gatherings
to misrepresent IT, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pErA2m5W9g&feature=related

Pay special attention from 1:35 on, and note the sign he holds says
"THEY TAKE JOBS - CORRUP CHILDREN - STEAL THE AMERICAN DREAM"

[Linda Lee]

Are you saying it is clear Breitbart was behind Evan Maloney's actions
or are you saying that sort of thing has been Breitbart's modus
operandi in the past? Breitbart made no claims of drug use at the
demonstrations and insisted claims of anti-semitism and racism were
false and that he thought the claims were the direct result of
Republican retaliation for Tea Partiers being called racist by
Democrats.



>
> --
> Rob Strom

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 26, 12:08 pm, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 11:10 am, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 26, 7:27 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > Rob Strom wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > Ok. So for the record, you deny there is any open drug use at the
> > > events.
>
> > Not only is it cherry-picked (just like they did in the anti-vietnam
> > war days), some
> > of it is explicitly manipulated.
>
> > Here's a video where they caught Evan Coyne Maloney, a right-wing
> > blogger,
> > handing out Che Guevara rolling papers at OWS.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tFnotKQNaeY
>
> > That's very clear Breitbartism.
>
> Are you saying it is clear Breitbart was behind Evan Maloney's actions
> or are you saying that sort of thing has been Breitbart's modus
> operandi in the past?

The second.

Breitbart is just the most notorious (and most "successful",
from the right-wing point of view) of these folks.

Let's see:
(1) the fake videos that brought down Shirley Sherrod
(2) the fake pimp videos (with O'Keefe in starring role) that brought
down ACORN.
(3) wiretapping Senator Landrieu (via Breitbart's employee, the same
O'Keefe)
(4) first to bring the Weiner tweets to the public attention (sadly,
in this case, it was
real evidence, not fake, but Breitbart made sure they were noticed
before being deleted)
Probably more, but these are the ones I can remember offhand.

So the guy goes around looking for dirt
(yes, there's always dirt, but Breitbart only looks for dirt on
democrats and liberals)
and when there isn't enough dirt, he manufactures it.

And despite the number of times he's shown as a flagrant violator
of the Biblical commands against lying and against malicious gossip,
FOX News is ready to give him a forum.

No, I'm not claiming that Breitbart was behind Maloney.

> Breitbart made no claims of drug use at the
> demonstrations and insisted claims of anti-semitism and racism were
> false and that he thought the claims were the direct result of
> Republican retaliation for Tea Partiers being called racist by
> Democrats.

The problem is that the less intelligent of the Fox viewers
(i.e. most of them) will only remember "OWS - anti-semitism",
and "OWS - drugs".

So once FOX gets the accusations in the air, then this leverages
the story onto mainstream news. They can report
the accusations as the story. For instance, last night,
a mainstream Connecticut station picked up on the story,
not based upon actual anti-semitism at the OWS rallies (which
their reporter even admitted during the story they didn't see any of),
but upon *accusations* of anti-semitism (which they
carefully covered both sides of by interviewing accusers
and defenders). The result: again, most viewers without
the perspicacity to note down the whole story will walk
away with the association "OWS - anti-semitism".

That's exactly how this evil spreads. Now they're putting
OWS on the defensive and getting people to associate
OWS and anti-semitism. This is exactly the sort of thing
God was talking about when He said "lo telech rachil b'amecha"
(and yes, I'm not going to forget to translate it this time --
it is "don't spread gossip/slander/rechilut among your people").

--
Rob Strom

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 26, 11:57 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Rob Strom wrote:
>
> > On Oct 26, 7:27 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > Rob Strom wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > Ok. So for the record, you deny there is any open drug use at the
> > > events.
>
> > Not only is it cherry-picked (just like they did in the anti-vietnam
> > war days), some
> > of it is explicitly manipulated.
>
> so you don't deny it. good
>
>
>
> > Here's a video where they caught Evan Coyne Maloney, a right-wing
> > blogger,
> > handing out Che Guevara rolling papers at OWS.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tFnotKQNaeY
>
> > That's very clear Breitbartism.
>
> So your computer can finally run youtube, unlike in the past?

I never said I couldn't run youtube. I said that I couldn't
****single frame****
youtube to stop a video at a particular frame to determine exactly
which part of Lauren Valle's body was stomped on by Tim Profitt.

I've looked at youtube videos you've shown me before, and I've
posted youtube video links of my own in discussions to you.

>
>
>
> > --
> > Rob Strom
>
> Good thing lierals are too pure to ever dop something like that, huh?
>

> http://newsbusters.org/?q=blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/04/11/lefty-group...

This is an article about somebody who saw some group *say* they were
going to do this.

>
> And that wasn't by Breitbart
>
> But wait--you deny any left wingers would ever infiltrate TP gatherings
> to misrepresent IT, right?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pErA2m5W9g&feature=related

That's evil, no matter who does it.


--
Rob Strom

[vince garcia]

\

I actually agree. In fact, I guess I'm too simple and non-machiavelian
to be in politics. It would never occur to me to infiltrate another
capmpaign, let alone heckle opponent speakers to try and shut them up

[Terry Cross]

On Oct 26, 8:57 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Rob Strom wrote:
>
> > On Oct 26, 7:27 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > Rob Strom wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > Ok. So for the record, you deny there is any open drug use at the
> > > events.
>
> > Not only is it cherry-picked (just like they did in the anti-vietnam
> > war days), some
> > of it is explicitly manipulated.
>
> so you don't deny it. good
>
>
>
> > Here's a video where they caught Evan Coyne Maloney, a right-wing
> > blogger,
> > handing out Che Guevara rolling papers at OWS.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tFnotKQNaeY
>
> > That's very clear Breitbartism.
>
> So your computer can finally run youtube, unlike in the past?

Try to stay focused, Vince. Maloney is an agent provocateur, just as
I told you. And how many others?

TCross

[Rob Strom]

On Oct 26, 1:17 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Rob Strom wrote:
...
>

> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pErA2m5W9g&feature=related
>
> > That's evil, no matter who does it.
>
> \
>
> I actually agree. In fact, I guess I'm too simple and non-machiavelian
> to be in politics. It would never occur to me to infiltrate another
> capmpaign, let alone heckle opponent speakers to try and shut them up

Infiltrating is evil because it involves spreading lies or being a
provocateur.

Heckling is ok. The Tea Party's heckling during the HCR
debate was much worse, since they not only
heckled the folks trying to explain health care reform, but they
actually
made so much noise that the town hall couldn't go on. It is really
vandalism.
The kind of heckling that I do is justifiable because it's the
opposite
of shutting down the discussion: It's making sure that someone
doesn't just present one side of a controversy or suppress
challenges and opposition. Lauren Valle was justified in making fun
of Rand Paul's positions. She didn't deserve to be silenced,
and she certainly didn't deserve to have her head stomped on by goons.

Jesus, as you remember, did a lot of heckling, and even threw down
the tables of the moneychangers.

--
Rob Strom

[Linda Lee]

I figured it was O'Keefe you were speaking of.

Speaking of gossip, is it true or false what Garafino claimed, i.e.
that Larry Fink and Blackrock (or even The Blackstone Group with whom
Blackrock was connected until recently) manages the books at the
Federal Reserve? (Garafino said 11 min. 40 secs. into the video,
"Blackrock is a money management firm; they're managing the Fed's

balance sheet essentially, all the bailout stuff that went on the

Fed's balance sheet, all those toxic acids, well guess whose managing
that money? RIGHT THERE, Baby!" - meaning Blackrock and Larry Fink the
CEO of Blackrock.)

I've looked and can't find any confirmation of any connection between
Fink/Blackrock/Blackstone Group and the Federal Reserve on the
Internet, so what Garafino was claiming appears to be false.

[vince garcia]

It's really beneath you to take the stand that "my sides's heckling is
more respectful than your side's heckling"

[Linda Lee]

Of course what the Messiah did in the temple had nothing to do with
"heckling"; that was a ridiculous comparison on many levels.

The man that stepped on that woman's face did it deliberately; that is
assault, and it had nothing to do with "heckling" during a speech.
They were all outside, and Rand Paul was arriving and was still in a
moving car and was NOT giving a speech when she was assaulted; in fact
Rand Paul wasn't speaking at all because he was just arriving and was
still inside a moving car.

Lauren Valle was outside watching Paul's car arrive with lots of other
people who were chanting "Rand Paul!" when she, along with lots of
other people, waved her sign at Rand Paul's car, and several guys
rushed at her from along the front side of the car, and this group of
guys had already felled her to the ground, and another guy was sitting
on her and holding her down on the ground, and she was just lying
there on her side when Tim Profitt (who was the county's Coordinator
for the Paul campaign, and no longer is) first put his foot on her
shoulder, and then deliberately shoved it down on the side of her
face. It does not look accidental at all. And one of the crowd said to
him when he stomped her face, "No, no, no - come on", and he backed
off away from her. The man is a cretin as well as a brute; he should
have known there was a possibility he'd be filmed at a public rally.
(At least one person said something to stop him. Good for them.)

Men assaulting women is repulsive, and a group of men assaulting a
lone woman is atrocious. As a Christian, you especially should not
condone and encourage this, even IF the woman is NOT a Republican.
What? I'd better not show up at a Republican rally with a sign for
another candidate, or I shouldn't be surprised that I wind up
assaulted by the group? Not only did he have no business stomping her,
the rest of them didn't have any business rushing her en masse,
bringing her to the ground, and sitting on her. They did it because
they recognized her, as she said, which is shown by her wig flying off
when they jumped her.

At every speech President Obama gives, there are people there who are
openly opposed to him, and they don't get assaulted.

See the assault incident on the first video at the following link. The
second video at that link edited out the assault entirely, but shows
the crowd rushing her, repeatedly shows this while editing out the
actual assault, but in doing so they show Rand Paul saw the men rush
at the woman right in front of his car window and saw them bring her
down, and he just exited his car and walked away leaving her there in
the process of being assaulted. (Rand Paul should have stopped this
incident. If Rand Paul had been in France, he'd have had charges
leveled against him for not assisting someone in peril.)

See the videos at http://www.redstate.com/rs_insider/2010/10/27/exclusive-video-lauren-valle-before-the-head-stomp-vid/

[Linda Lee]

Do you forget they killed him soon afterward?

>
> --
> Rob Strom