Re: Messianic Newsgroup - WARNING
"Mark T"
news:4h2tf5F...@individual.net...
> In news:Z4Fqg.3328$ye3....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net,
> Frank <roi...@mindspring.com> typed:
>> The Messianic newsgroup alt.messianic
>> is getting quite large and popular.
>> So evident is the love of those
>> who love our Lord Yeshua (Jesus)
>> and the opposition of those
>> who oppose the Lord and his people.
>>
>> --
>> http://roines.home.mindspring.com
>
> Amen, Frank!
>
> ::: vera :::
This is why alt.messianic has more trolls! Posted at
alt.christnet.christianlife
Look forward to more Trew Kristyun Kooks trying to converet you.
These people see Jews of no value unless they convert to Christianity or
build the Temple on the Dome of the Rock to force Jesus to come again soon.
Mary Hogan
>
>
> This is why alt.messianic has more trolls! Posted at
> alt.christnet.christianlife
>
> Look forward to more Trew Kristyun Kooks trying to converet you.
>
> These people see Jews of no value unless they convert to Christianity or
> build the Temple on the Dome of the Rock to force Jesus to come again
> soon.
It is all the ploy of the Accuser to eliminate the Torah Jews, thus truth is
open to a free-for-all.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
cindys
""Mark T"" <thinkaboutwh@youaredoing84562e7865789658076508573> wrote in
message news:44ac727a$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
That's all right because most educated Jews regard these people as a sad
joke at best. One time on the unmoderated Jewish group, a missionary told
me that the reason I wasn't buying into Christianity was that I insisted on
learning in Hebrew. He advised me to study *the bible* in English
translation, and then I would be able to see that Jesus was the messiah.
Right. These fundamentalist missionaries are problematic only in that they
are able to deceive ignorant Jews who never had the benefit of a Jewish
education, and lack the background to their deceptions. And now, I think
I've said enough. If I'm not careful, someone may *block* me. Lol.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
moshe
>
>
>""Mark T"" <thinkaboutwh@youaredoing84562e7865789658076508573> wrote in
>message news:44ac727a$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> " ::: veralein :::" <vera...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>> news:4h2tf5F...@individual.net...
>> > In news:Z4Fqg.3328$ye3....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net,
>> >> The Messianic newsgroup alt.messianic
>> >> is getting quite large and popular.
>> >> So evident is the love of those
>> >> who love our Lord Yeshua (Jesus)
>> >> and the opposition of those
>> >> who oppose the Lord and his people.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> http://roines.home.mindspring.com
>> >
>> > Amen, Frank!
>> >
>> > ::: vera :::
>>
>>
>> This is why alt.messianic has more trolls! Posted at
>> alt.christnet.christianlife
>>
>> Look forward to more Trew Kristyun Kooks trying to converet you.
>>
>> These people see Jews of no value unless they convert to Christianity or
>> build the Temple on the Dome of the Rock to force Jesus to come again
>soon.
>----------
>That's all right because most educated Jews regard these people as a sad
>joke at best.
=========
You and Mark are being idiotic, because both of the 2 statements Mark made
contradict the New Testament and contrdict what Christians believe.
Mark said:
"These people see Jews of no value unless they convert to Christianity or build
the Temple on the Dome of the Rock to force Jesus to come again
soon."
John 3:16 says that God loved *everyone* so much that God sent Jesus to save us.
Romans chapter 11 says that God still loves Israel.
II Peter 3:9 says that God loves *everyone* so much that God does not want
anyone to perish.
And there is absolutely nothing in the New Testament which says that we can
cause the Temple to be built before the time God intended and thus "force" Jesus
to return early.
There are millions of Christians who continue to love Israel and pray for Israel
even though they know they have a chance of being spit upon when they visit
Israel.
God loved Israel even though Israel didn't return the love.
Hosea loved his wife even though his wife didn't return the love.
Christians love Israel even though Israel doesn't return the love.
Because that is what *true* love is.
- moshe
emmas...@yahoo.co.uk
> contradict the New Testament and contrdict what Christians believe.
>
> Mark said:
> "These people see Jews of no value unless they convert to Christianity or build
> the Temple on the Dome of the Rock to force Jesus to come again
> soon."
>
> John 3:16 says that God loved *everyone* so much that God sent Jesus to save us.
>
So why do you spend your time here posting
about Jews and pedophilia, and saying that Jews are a
greater threat than Muslim terrorists, Judaism is evil,
making jokes about the holocaust, and defending anti-Semitic
Terry, and on and on?
Don't you see why Mark has formed this opinion?
serwad
moshe
emmas...@yahoo.co.uk says...
>
>
>moshe wrote:
>> In article <up9rg.45980$W97....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, cindys says...
>> >
>> You and Mark are being idiotic, because both of the 2 statements Mark made
>> contradict the New Testament and contrdict what Christians believe.
>>
>> Mark said:
>>"These people see Jews of no value unless they convert to Christianity or build
>> the Temple on the Dome of the Rock to force Jesus to come again
>> soon."
>>
>>John 3:16 says that God loved *everyone* so much that God sent Jesus to save us.
>>
>
>So why do you spend your time here posting
>about Jews and pedophilia
=========
When other people post about it one way or the other, I merely respond by
presenting the facts.
=========
> and saying that Jews are a greater threat than Muslim terrorists,
=========
I never said any such thing, you filthy liar.
=========
> Judaism is evil,
==========
See what Jesus said about the teachings of the Pharisees in Matthew 15 and
Matthew 23.
Those teachings of the Pharisees became the basis of modern Judaism.
==========
>making jokes about the holocaust,
===========
I do not make jokes about the Holocaust, you filthy liar.
===========
> and defending anti-Semitic Terry, and on and on?
===========
When people engage in valid debate with Terry by presenting facts to counter
Terry's claims, Terry is on her own.
But when vicious, hateful, lying people such as Deborah Sharavi call Terry a
"cunt" and make claims about her using "vibrators", I step in to call those
people "swine" because that is exactly how they are behaving.
On the other hand, Jewish lawyer Alan Dershowitz publicly *bragged* that he
would have defended *Hitler* and that he would have *won*.
===========
>
>Don't you see why Mark has formed this opinion?
>
===========
Bigot Mark was viciously claiming that Fundamentalist Christians are demonic
long before he ever came to alt.messianic.
- moshe
NefeshBarYochai
What would be real nice is if the Gentiles like you and Terry posted in
your own newsgroup and stayed out of ours. The Jewish people don't
want your prapaganda.
Terry Cross
Why is it important to you whether I am Jew or Gentile? Are you a
racist or something?
TCross
dsha...@gmail.com
> Why is it important to you whether I am Jew or Gentile?
It isn't. What you've proven yourself to be is a liar and an idiot.
>Are you a racist or something?
> TCross
No, you are.
Deborah
fact-c...@hotmail.com
=======
Nefesh's post did not object to the content of Terry's posts.
Nefesh complained that Terry was a Gentile posting in a Jewish
newsgroup.
- moshe
"Mark T"
> Mark said:
> "These people see Jews of no value unless they convert to Christianity or
> build
> the Temple on the Dome of the Rock to force Jesus to come again
> soon."
...
> And there is absolutely nothing in the New Testament which says that we
> can
> cause the Temple to be built before the time God intended and thus "force"
> Jesus
> to return early.
True ... however this is the fundamentalist agenda.
"Mark T"
> Don't you see why Mark has formed this opinion?
I've lived with the buggers for the last 30 years!
Jews are a means to an end for Fundamentalist Christians. The actions in
Israel are seen as a fulfilment of Jesus' prophecies. Jews are therefore
not valued for who they are.
"Mark T"
> Bigot Mark was viciously claiming that Fundamentalist Christians are
> demonic
> long before he ever came to alt.messianic.
Look at the quotes I have used in context.
Paul Tillich is one of the 20th century's greatest Christian theologians.
Peter Cameron is Australia's only living "heretic" (according to the
Australian Presbyterian church)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
I have suggested that Fundamentalism is demonic. ...Tillich (one of the
theological triumvirate of the twentieth century) makes the same allegation
on the first page of his magnum opus ... Fundamentalists "confuse eternal
truth with a temporal expression of the truth. ... the theological truth of
yesterday is defended as an unchangeable message against the theological
truth of today and tomorrow. ... It elevates something finite and transitory
to infinite and eternal validity. In this respect fundamentalism has
demonic traits. It destroys the humble honesty of the search for truth, it
splits the conscience of its thoughtful adherents, and it makes them
fanatical, because they are forced to suppress elements of truth of which
they are dimly aware."...[Tillich] uses the word demonic to indicate
something which is opposed to the truth, which subverts the truth and
presents an obstacle to those who are searching for the truth.
- Peter Cameron "Fundamentalism and Freedom" p. 81
--
"Fundamentalism is demonic, and can only be met with the sword, or at least
with a very vitriolic pen." - Peter Cameron, "Fundamentalism and Freedom"
(Doubleday; Sydney: 1995.) p.3
Terry Cross
Who says "Paul Tillich is one of the 20th century's greatest Christian
theologians?" How is "great" defined? Noisiest? Most in agreement
with Peter Cameron?
Let us gather the "great" critics of Judaism together - say Israel
Shahak, Samuel Roth, Daat Emet, and Elizabeth Dilling - and develop a
consensus on their criticisms of Judaism.
Truly, the critics of a religion cannot speak "for" a religion, simply
because they speak against it. To speak "for" a religion, the
individual must be an authoritative proponent.
TCross
Terry Cross
> <emmas...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Don't you see why Mark has formed this opinion?
>
> I've lived with the buggers for the last 30 years!
Your homosexual history is not important to this new group.
> Jews are a means to an end for Fundamentalist Christians. The actions in
> Israel are seen as a fulfilment of Jesus' prophecies. Jews are therefore
> not valued for who they are.
Israel should stop accepting money and weapons from Fundamentalist
Christians, then. When Israel chooses to stand on its own two economic
feet, perhaps then it can pick and choose its friends. Right now,
however, Israel is getting rich in the manner used Abraham of Ancient
Days:
Abraham used to visit a king, pretend that Sarah was his sister, send
Sarah to visit the king, then depart a much richer man. If Israel does
not prefer the company of kings and would rather not have the riches
Israel gets in return, Israel should swear off the easy money and look
to a more honest profession.
TCross
"Mark T"
>> > Don't you see why Mark has formed this opinion?
>>
>> I've lived with the buggers for the last 30 years!
>
> Your homosexual history is not important to this new group.
Your misunderstanding of Aussie idioms is is not important to anyone, you
silly old bugger!
>> Jews are a means to an end for Fundamentalist Christians. The actions in
>> Israel are seen as a fulfilment of Jesus' prophecies. Jews are therefore
>> not valued for who they are.
>
> Israel should stop accepting money and weapons from Fundamentalist
> Christians, then.
Nope. Take what is useful but be themselves.
Terry Cross
When you write that word "Fundamentalist" to denote the name of a sect,
you must capitalize it. If you intend only "fundamentalist
Christianity," then you refer to those Christians who adhere to the
fundamentals of the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament.
And take my word for it, the NT does not support human action
leveraging prophecy.
I suggest you learn to use the word properly or not at all.
TCross
"Mark T"
> If you intend only "fundamentalist Christianity," then you refer to those
> Christians who >adhere to the fundamentals of the teachings of Jesus and
> the New Testament.
There are NO fundamentals for Christianiaty. NONE! ZILCH! ZERO!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FUNDAMENTALISM (from Peter Cameron's "Fundamentalism and Freedom"
(Doubleday; Sydney: 1995.) p. 10 ff
[Fundamentalists] will be fearful in the face of any challenge to their
security and
brutal in their reaction; they will seek to bolster their security by
persuading others of its validity.; and those others will be persuaded
because of their own increasing sense of insecurity in the modern world.
...the key concepts being security and power ...the Fundamentalist is
usually both a bully and a coward. ...the potential bully in them responds
eagerly to authority and looks forward to the time when they will exercise
that authority; while the most bullying of the bosses tend to shelter behind
the more cowardly and get them to do their dirty work for them.
...security for the convert ... The Fundamentalist deals in absolutes. ...
"We have the answer. The answer is to ask no questions. Everything is set
out in the Holy Book. Simply obey and you will find happiness - in other
words, security."
... Argument, debate, the possibility that they might be wrong - these are
not on the agenda. In any other walk of life they would be regarded as
unhinged. Very few of them have ever been exposed to the simplest form of
biblical criticism, yet they feel qualified to tell people who have spent
half a lifetime on the subject that they are barking up he wrong tree. It's
rather like witchdoctor medicine confronted with real medicine. The
primitive reaction is one of fear, suspicion and hostility - out with the
spears and shields. And the witchdoctors themselves, of course, have vested
interests to protect: their positions of control and authority. naturally
they resist.
...Fundamentalists need an enemy; an enemy both gives them their own
identity and unites them. ...they stand for nothing positive at all - simply
obedience to rules and the condemnation of those who break them.
...Fundamentalists are impervious to rational argument. They are convinced
that they are God's chosen instrument and that their victims are agents of
the devil. They need to be convinced of this, because it is what gives them
purpose to their lives. Fundamentalism's real purpose is not to save but to
condemn: for the dissenter or for the outsider it is dangerous almost by
definition.
... the danger is manifested in the methods used. No holds are barred. All
is fair in holy war. The end always justifies the means. ...appropriate is
the Old Testament norm, according to which the apostate who deviates from
true doctrine contaminates the people of God and must be weeded out and
burned.
The pattern therefore is one of private hearings, and stacked committees,
and kangaroo courts, or - more simply and more devastatingly - a
behind-the-scenes verdict and a sentence of ostracism with no possibility of
appeal.
... a closed system of rules and obedience, and authoritarian control, and
rigid conformity. Instead of a religion of love which proceeds by
invitation, it is a religion of fear which proceeds by intimidation.
...Fundamentalism is wrong, it is a distortion of Christianity, in fact it
is its complete contradiction. ... it masquerades as the truth. Christianity
is not a matter of obeying commandments, or of obtaining salvation through
the acceptance of an authoritative holy book, or of believing in certain
propositions like a physical resurrection. The irony is that what
Fundamentalist Christianity teaches is exactly the sort of thing which the
founder of Christianity came to warn people about.
...Fundamentalism ... thrives on protective stupidity.
...fear in the face of any challenge to the status quo; indoctrination in
order to prevent dissent, and brutality in suppressing dissent; the
exaltation of authority and rules and control and manipulation; and
certainty on the part of those in charge that they possess the truth, hand
in hand with an actual perversion of the truth into mere expediency.
#################################################
John: Well, everything that you've been saying implies that
[Fundamentalism] is a manifestation of a fairly low level of mental health,
doesn't it? For a start, Fundamentalists call for a literal interpretation
of scripture, and as we saw when we were discussing secular values, focusing
in on the letter of the law is a characteristic of the less healthy. In
addition, wise people tend not to exhibit literal mindedness, so it seems
singularly inappropriate to assume that this is the vein in which great
spiritual teahers are speaking. Then again, whether we're talking about
Christianity, Islam, Judaism or Hinduism, the values of Fundamentalists seem
aimed at making themselves feel better by placing all negative and
destructive emotions in people with different beliefs, and enjoying the
golden glow of self-justification that results. ... You know that simile:
'As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.' ... the Inquisition did
largely miss the point of 'Love Thy Neighbour', didn't they? Wasn't burning
heretics 'worse' than being tolerant towards them? ...
Robin Skinner & John Cleese "LIFE ...and how to survive it" - (Methuen;
London:1993) p. 287
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A young woman teacher explains to her class of third graders that she is a
born-again Christian. She asks the class if any of them are born-again
Christians too. Not really knowing what it means to be born-again, but
wanting to please and impress their teacher, many little hands suddenly shot
up into the air. There was, however, one exception. A girl named Sarah had
not gone along with the crowd. The teacher asker her why she has decided to
be different. "Because I'm not a Christian." "Then," asks the teacher, "what
are you?" "I'm an atheist." The teacher is a little perturbed now, her face
slightly red. She asks Sarah why she is an atheist. "It's just that my
family isn't religious. My Mom is atheist, and my Dad is atheist, so I am
atheist." The teacher is now angry. "That's no reason." she says loudly.
"What if your Mom was a moron, and your Dad was a moron. What would you be
then?" "Then," says Sarah, "I'd be a born-again Christian."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
moshe
=========
Then show us a bunch of quotes from Fundamentalists which say such a thing.
- moshe
Terry Cross
> "Terry Cross" <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you intend only "fundamentalist Christianity," then you refer to those
> > Christians who >adhere to the fundamentals of the teachings of Jesus and
> > the New Testament.
>
> There are NO fundamentals for Christianiaty. NONE! ZILCH! ZERO!
Communion was taught by Jesus, and is therefore a fundamental of
Christianity.
The Golden Rule was taught by Jesus, and is therefore a fundamental of
Christianity.
The golden robe of the Pope was NOT taught by Jesus, and is therefore
NOT a fundamental of Christianity.
The holy power of Relics was NOT taught by Jesus, and is therefore NOT
a fundamental of Christianity.
Get it?
TCross
"Mark T"
... whatever ...
There are NO fundamentals for Christianiaty. NONE! ZILCH! ZERO!
Are you illiterate?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Peter Cameron's "Fundamentalism and Freedom" (Doubleday, Sydney: 1995)
pp 36 -42
The word 'Fundamentals' in this context - in the sense of certain doctrines
or elements which are foundational to Christianity, and in the absence of
which it would cease to exist or at least no longer be recognisable as
Christianity-was first used in the early part of this century in the USA and
of course gave rise to the term Fundamentalism. In due course a consensus
formed in Fundamentalist circles that there were five such Fundamentals~ the
infallibility of scripture, the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, the
Virgin Birth, and atonement through the blood of Christ. And it was made
clear both to Fundamentalists and to those outside the magic circle that
unless you accepted each of these articles of the faith and 'believed' them,
then you were not properly speaking a Christian.
The main reason for identifying and setting out these Fundamentals was the
encroachment on traditional belief which had been made by biblical
scholarship, or 'modernism' as the Fundamentalists called it. For example,
the suggestion that the Bible should be viewed in principle like any other
historical document, was abhorrent to the conservative Christian mind, which
rather saw in the divine origin of the Bible the guarantee of salvation: if
you attacked the status of the bible you were attacking the Christian faith
at its foundation, at its Fundamentals. Similarly if you suggested that the
Virgin birth stories were legendary and arose out of a desire that prophecy
should be fulfilled, or if you understood the resurrection of Jesus as a
symbolic story intended to convey his enduring presence, or if you claimed
that a proposition like 'the Word was made flesh' was unintelligible in the
twentieth century and that Jesus was simply a human being (although a human
being with a unique insight into the nature of God), or if you questioned
an objective connection between the death of Jesus and the reconciliation to
God of sinful humanity-in all these cases you were fundamentally undermining
Christianity. The time had come, thought the Fundamentalists, for a clear
statement to be made of the essentials of the faith, so that the faithful
should know just what it was they were expected to believe, and so that
Christianity could look 'modernism' squarely in the eye and say 'Thus far
and no further'.
Of course there was nothing new in all this. The historic creeds of
Christianity in the third and fourth centuries were drawn up for very much
the same reasons. Various adventurous minds had explored the implications of
the Christian faith in new directions and in the light of different
philosophical backgrounds. In some cases 'the Church' decided that their
conclusions or tentative suggestions were dangerous to the stability of
what the majority considered to be common ground-in other words, orthodoxy.
The Church thought it necessary therefore to formulate that common ground in
a coherent statement, both to lend official weight to orthodoxy and to
identify and exclude what it deemed to be heretical. So that the various
elements in the creeds-the creation, Jesus as the son of God, the trinity,
the Virgin Birth, the resurrection of the body, the forgiveness of sins, and
so on-could very well be described as the Fundamentals of early orthodox
Christianity
There are, however, certain problems associated with any such attempt to lay
down what is essential to the faith or that by which, in a historic phrase
the Church stands or falls. First of all there is the practical question of
who decides. In a period where there is a universal Church, when everyone is
a Christian and the only dispute is whether they are orthodox or heretical,
it is relatively simple: the Church decides. But what happens when the
Church begins to fragment into various denominations, and the 'Fundamentals'
of a particular denomination are different from those of another, each
claiming to be orthodox? What happens when the Fundamentals of a Christian
movement which claims to be impeccably conservative are different from the
Fundamentals of early Christian orthodoxy? Is there not, for example,
something odd in the fact that Fundamentalism's five Fundamentals do not
include everything in the classic Christian creeds?
And that leads to the second problem, a logical problem. What is the status
of those elements of Christianity which are not included in the
Fundamentals? Take the residue of the Apostles' Creed which is not covered
by the five Fundamentals of Fundamentalism: for example, the creation and
the Holy Spirit. Does their absence from the Fundamentalists' creed imply
that they are unimportant, optional, mistaken? I suppose the Fundamentalists
would argue that their insistence on the infallibility of the Bible takes
care of the creation and the Holy Spirit, but in that case why single out
the resurrection and the virgin birth for special mention? Is it in fact
possible for any movement claiming to stand in the tradition of orthodoxy to
make any pronouncement at all on the Fundamentals of the faith, which does
not simply repeat previous such pronouncements? In other words, can
something which has once been stated to be fundamental to Christianity ever
cease to be fundamental?
The third problem is partly logical and partly psychological. The
implication of the Fundamentalists' Fundamentals is that you must believe
them before you can claim to be a Christian. But how can you be required to
believe anything? Does the formulation 'You must believe' make any sense at
all? We do not in fact decide what to believe or if we do we are misusing
the word 'believe'. The content of a belief constrains us to believe. To
that extent it does make sense to say I must believe it: I must believe it
because it's true. But I cannot be compelled to believe anything by external
authority, not just because l might wish to resist that authority but becau
e belief cannot be coerced.
Now if the Fundamentalists say that they are simply stating in their
Fundamentals what is true, and that is why I must believe them, the question
naturally arises: what about all the other aspects of Christianity, the
non-Fundamentals? Are they less true, or untrue? It seems that any statement
of what must be believed can only apply to the whole of Christianity, that
is, to the whole truth. Once the Fundamentalists attempt to concentrate on
'Fundamentals' then either they become logically incoherent or they are in
fact trying to force us to believe, which is impossible.
But the most important objection to Christian Fundamentals, or essentials
of the faith, is a theological objection: the whole idea of an irreducible
minimum of belief is contrary to the spirit of Christianity. It is not easy
to explain why, except obliquely - by saying, for example, in Kierkegaard's
arresting simile, that it is like trying to paint the god Mars in the armour
which made him invisible. I was once asked on a radio program to sum up in
one sentence the message of Jesus. I racked my brains feverishly for a
minute, but then I thought, 'No, why should I play this game?' if Jesus
could have said in a single sentence why he had come, then it would have
been quite unnecessary for him to come at all - except in order to utter
that sentence.
We live of course in an age of definitions. There are so many rival messages
and so much competition for media space and time that we have to be able to
convey instantly what it is that is distinctive about us, or else people
will have lost the thread or lost interest. But the trouble with definition
is that - by definition - it puts limits on things. When you define you
exclude: if you define what you stand for, you simultaneously distance
yourself from everything else.
Now if someone comes with a message about the love of God, a love which is
absolute in the sense that it reaches everywhere and covers every situation,
which cannot be excluded, which is entirely without condition but which can
only be responded to adequately by completely surrendering ourselves to
it-how can such a message possibly be defined? Because to define the love of
God would be to exclude the situations to which it did not apply, or to lay
down the conditions on which it could be won, or to indicate the appropriate
ways of responding to it in particular circumstances. Such a message can
only be conveyed indirectly, by hints, by deeds, by stories.
That is why Jesus spoke so much in parables: not out of condensation to an
illiterate audience, or, as the gospels on sometimes suggest, to prevent
outsiders from understanding what he meant, but because only the parables
with their 'it is like' formula, are adequate to something as elusive and
all embracing as the love of God. You cannot for example decode the parable
of the prodigal son, and say that Jesus is here teaching us that God's love
knows no barriers, or forgives everything, or is always there waiting for
us. Such impersonal, generalised abstractions do no justice at all to the
parable, which can only be grasped if you have had a prodigal son yourself,
or been one yourself, or can imagine what it is like to have or be one-and
then there is nothing more to say. All that needs to be done with the
parable is to repeat it.
And the same argument applies to Christianity as a whole, or to the life and
death and teaching of Jesus as a whole. You cannot generalise or abstract
certain principles or 'Fundamentals' and attach some saving significance to
them, or make of them a test of allegiance and put everything else on the
level of non-essential or optional or whatever. Of course it is entirely
understandable why people should want to do so. As Dostoevsky's Grand
lnquisitor saw so clearly, people don't want freedom, they want to be told
what to do. And psychologically there is nothing more satisfying than a rule
book, or a party manifesto, which tells you simply and categorically just
what you should do and what you should believe. And that psychological need
is so great that you remain blind to the fact that a religion which wants to
~~ from rules and exclusiveness and seeing God as a possession, and to open
you up instead to the absolute love of God is immediately involved in a
hopeless contradiction whenever it allows itself to be reduced to certain
essentials or 'Fundamentals'.
Undeterred, however, the Fundamentalists might reply that their beloved Paul
himself thought in this way when he said, 'If Christ has not been raised,
your faith is futile'. Isn't this a classic example of identifying a
Fundamental of the faith-- the resurrection? There are several possible
answers. One is that the appeal to the Bible as the rule book which decides
the issue simply proves my argument. Another is that Paul himself may be
succumbing here to the same psychological need for abstractions and
generalities, and that two blacks don't make a white.
A third possible answer is that there is a difference between on the one
hand a necessary condition, a causa sine qua non or a cause without which
the effect would not have taken place, and on the other hand a
'Fundamental', an essential ingredient. For example, your mother-in-law is a
causa sine qua non of your marriage: if it weren't for her your wife and
therefore your marriage would not exist. But it is not necessarily the case
that your mother-in-law is 'fundamental' to your marriage in the sense that
your marital bliss is inseparably bound up with her. In the same way it is
no doubt a necessary condition of Christianity that Christ should have
lived and died, but it would be superfluous to insist on these facts as
Fundamentals of the faith, unless of course someone were to deny them-as
indeed was the case with the early heresy called Docetism (from the Greek
'to seem'), according to which Christ was entirely divine and only 'seemed'
to be human.
But there is a fourth answer, and that is that when Paul speaks about the
resurrection of Christ he is not laying down something which you must
believe before you can call yourself a Christian; what he is doing is
describing his own experience of Christ, and therefore what Christianity
means to him. He is in fact taking up a position which is diametrically
opposite to that of Fundamentalism, and saying that Christianity has nothing
to do with propositions or formulations of essential ingredients: it is the
lived experience of the living Christ.
And in that sense Christianity is incommunicable, in any direct sense. It
doesn't proceed on the analogy base camp in mountaineering, and 'teach'
certain minimum beliefs which you can then build upon for the purposes of
your individual attempts to climb higher, but below which you need never go
in refreshing yourself and taking stock. Much more apt is the anaIogy of the
pilgrimage or voyage, which is different for everyone, and on which you
never come back to the same point.
It is your pilgrimage, your voyage, and no one else has ever taken exactly
the same route. You can get advice from other people, hints on the sort of
things that might happen to you and the sort of things you might do; but no
one can travel with you, far less instead of you. And dictating to you the
Fundamentals of Christianity, telling you what you must believe js
precisely trying to travel with you or instead of you.
And, as if to prove a point, it is on this question of the incommunicability
of Christianity that the Fundamentalists really become angry. They quoted a
sermon of mine on the subject at one stage in the heresy proceedings,
without comment, as if I was condemned out of my own mouth. Because it is
here that we are fundamentally opposed. The whole basis of their religion is
that it offers salvation through acceptance of propositions about God and
Jesus Christ-the Fundamentals of Christianity. And their whole purpose as
Christians is to persuade themselves and others to accept these
propositions, to be converted. But that is precisely why they will never be
converted. In the Fourth Gospel Jesus offers freedom to the Jews but in
reply they deny that hey have ever been slaves. You cannot liberate those
who think they are free. You cannot convert a Fundamentalist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Terry Cross
> "Terry Cross" wrote:
>
> ... whatever ...
>
> There are NO fundamentals for Christianiaty. NONE! ZILCH! ZERO!
Of course there are.
> Are you illiterate?
Are you a homosexual?
TCross
"Mark T"
... a pity ...
... we all have our "Cross" to bear ...
**************************************************************************
Dear Trew Kristyun Terry
Kissy kissy! Now you pucker up and greet me with a kiss. (Romans 6:16;
1Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians13:12; I Thessalonians 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14.)
I am refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view. You make silence
a wonderful thing to look forward to. However I took exception to your
recent scribble
It was:
[X] backmasked with Satanic messages
[X] Pagan
[X] New Age
[X] unChristian
[X] Secular Humanist
[X] written in King James English
[X] written in tongues and did not include the interpretation
Your attention is drawn to the fact that:
[X] You flamed the Archbishop of Canterbury
[X] You flamed the Pope
[X] You flamed God
[X] You contradicted Jesus
[X] You contradicted yourself several times
[X] You mindlessly chanted the Pente Mantra several times
[X] You repeatedly assumed unwarranted spiritual, moral or intellectual
superiority
My informed, considered, rational and logical answer to your scribble is in
the acronyms:
[X] AWGTHTGTTSA
[X] DBEYR
[X] DILLIGAD
[X] DQYDJ
[X] FUBAR
[X] GIGO
[X] HUYA
[X] LSHHTCMS
[X] NRN
[X] PMF
[X] SITD
[X] SOI
[X] TAFL
[X] VI
[X] YGBK
I'd explain them to you, but your brain would explode.
It is recommended that you:
[X] Buy an indulgence from me.
[X] Send me a triple tithe.
[X] Do penance.
[X] Devote your life to missionary work in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[X] Start up a Christian Clown Ministry
[X] Start up a Kristyun Skool
QUESTIONS TO UNDERSTAND YOU BETTER:
[X] Jesus said in Matthew 5:42, "Give to him that asketh thee, and from
him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." May I have your house
and car and may I borrow your most prized possession?
[X] Can I have your car after the Rapture?
[X] Were you in the special class at school?
[X] Are you from the shallow end of the gene pool?
[X] Do you want fries with that?
Please save this message and review it occasionally to determine your
progress toward being;
[X] a tolerable Trew Kristyun
[X] a fully-functional human being
[X] integrated into humanity
[X] re-integrated into the wild
If what you don't know can't hurt you, you're practically invulnerable.
Thank you for taking the time to read this flame form.
*********************************************************************
fla...@verizon.net
As this post definitely proves.
After all, SHE is the one who calls "Jews"/"Gentiles" "races".
Susan
dsha...@gmail.com
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> > > If you intend only "fundamentalist Christianity," then you refer to those
> > > Christians who >adhere to the fundamentals of the teachings of Jesus and
> > > the New Testament.
> "Mark T" wrote:
> > There are NO fundamentals for Christianiaty. NONE! ZILCH! ZERO!
Terry Cross wrote:
> Communion was taught by Jesus, and is therefore a fundamental of
> Christianity.
Rubbish. It wasn't established until the 2ndC CE.
> The Golden Rule was taught by Jesus, and is therefore a fundamental of
> Christianity.
Jesus didn't teach any "Golden Rule".
> The golden robe of the Pope was NOT taught by Jesus, and is therefore
> NOT a fundamental of Christianity.
> The holy power of Relics was NOT taught by Jesus, and is therefore NOT
> a fundamental of Christianity.
> Get it?
> TCross
All that anyone has gotten is that Terry Cross is an uneducated bigot
with an agenda which she is inadequate to fulfill.
Deborah
dsha...@hotmail.com
> > > Don't you see why Mark has formed this opinion?
> "Mark T" wrote:
> > I've lived with the buggers for the last 30 years!
Terry Cross wrote:
> Your homosexual history is not important to this new group.
It't not important to Terry because she preferes poodles like Morris.
> > Jews are a means to an end for Fundamentalist Christians. The actions in
> > Israel are seen as a fulfilment of Jesus' prophecies. Jews are therefore
> > not valued for who they are.
> Israel should stop accepting money and weapons from Fundamentalist
> Christians, then. When Israel chooses to stand on its own two economic
> feet, perhaps then it can pick and choose its friends.
LOL! That more accurately reads:
The PalArab Authority and the Hamas Terrorist Group should stop
accepting money and weapons from Muslim countries, Fundamentalist
Muslims groups, the UN, the US, the UK, Canada, the European Union, etc
etc. When PalArabs chose to stand on their own economic feet, perhaps
then they can pretend their actually a country.
>Right now,
> however, Israel is getting rich in the manner used Abraham of Ancient
> Days:
> Abraham used to visit a king, pretend that Sarah was his sister, send
> Sarah to visit the king, then depart a much richer man. If Israel does
> not prefer the company of kings and would rather not have the riches
> Israel gets in return, Israel should swear off the easy money and look
> to a more honest profession.
> TCross
Sounds more like Terrorfat than anything in the bible, or in modern
Israel.
Deborah
dsha...@hotmail.com
> Let us gather the "great" critics of Judaism together - say Israel
> Shahak, Samuel Roth, Daat Emet, and Elizabeth Dilling - and develop a
> consensus on their criticisms of Judaism.
Shahak is a proven liar; Roth was a jailbird and a pornographer as well
as an antisemite; the Daat Emet site is dedicated to proving Judaism
false; and Elizabeth Dilling -- one of Terry's idol -- was a braindead
Jew hater.
Just Terry's ilk.
Deborah
moshe
dsha...@hotmail.com says...
===========
That was Terry's point, idiot.
Mark was quoting anti-Fundamentalists as "proof" of what Fundamentalist
Christians are like.
That is like quoting anti-Semites as "proof" of what Jews are like.
- moshe
fla...@verizon.net
On 7-Jul-2006, dsha...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Terry Cross wrote:
> > Let us gather the "great" critics of Judaism together - say Israel
> > Shahak, Samuel Roth, Daat Emet, and Elizabeth Dilling - and develop a
> > consensus on their criticisms of Judaism.
Get the consensus of a group of - to put it the most politely -
non-Torah scholars, some of whom weren't even Jewish.
Sounds like Terry's speed.
>
> Shahak is a proven liar;
Wsn't he the one whose own family said was nuts?
> Roth was a jailbird and a pornographer as well
> as an antisemite; the Daat Emet site is dedicated to proving Judaism
> false; and Elizabeth Dilling -- one of Terry's idol -- was a braindead
> Jew hater.
She wrote for Hitler.
>
> Just Terry's ilk.
Exactly.
Susan
dsha...@gmail.com
> >> Let us gather the "great" critics of Judaism together - say Israel
> >> Shahak, Samuel Roth, Daat Emet, and Elizabeth Dilling - and develop a
> >> consensus on their criticisms of Judaism.
> >Shahak is a proven liar; Roth was a jailbird and a pornographer as well
> >as an antisemite; the Daat Emet site is dedicated to proving Judaism
> >false; and Elizabeth Dilling -- one of Terry's idol -- was a braindead
> >Jew hater.
moshe wrote:
> That was Terry's point, idiot.
Bullshi'ite, O impotent ass.
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> > > Let us gather the "great" critics of Judaism together - say Israel
> > > Shahak, Samuel Roth, Daat Emet, and Elizabeth Dilling - and develop a
> > > consensus on their criticisms of Judaism.
fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> Get the consensus of a group of - to put it the most politely -
> non-Torah scholars, some of whom weren't even Jewish.
> Sounds like Terry's speed.
> > Shahak is a proven liar;
> Wsn't he the one whose own family said was nuts?
Not sure. He sniffed so many chemicals during his career, it's likely.
Certainly he couldn't distinguish fact from fantasy.
> > Roth was a jailbird and a pornographer as well
> > as an antisemite; the Daat Emet site is dedicated to proving Judaism
> > false; and Elizabeth Dilling -- one of Terry's idol -- was a braindead
> > Jew hater.
> She wrote for Hitler.
> > Just Terry's ilk.
> Exactly.
> Susan
And of course, as usual, her poodle Morris yaps to her defence. Is
Morris having some kind of lesbian affair with her?
Deborah
fla...@verizon.net
On 7-Jul-2006, dsha...@gmail.com wrote:
If that was he point, why does she agree with them?
And if Morris thinks the same, why does HE agree with them?
He certainly agrees with Dilling - he quotes her,
and refuses to condemn her for what she is.
Susan
dsha...@hotmail.com
> > > >> Let us gather the "great" critics of Judaism together - say Israel
> > > >> Shahak, Samuel Roth, Daat Emet, and Elizabeth Dilling - and develop a
> > > >> consensus on their criticisms of Judaism.
> > > >Shahak is a proven liar; Roth was a jailbird and a pornographer as well
> > > >as an antisemite; the Daat Emet site is dedicated to proving Judaism
> > > >false; and Elizabeth Dilling -- one of Terry's idol -- was a braindead
> > > >Jew hater.
> > moshe wrote:
> > > That was Terry's point, idiot.
> > Bullshi'ite, O impotent ass.
fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> If that was he point, why does she agree with them?
> And if Morris thinks the same, why does HE agree with them?
> He certainly agrees with Dilling - he quotes her,
> and refuses to condemn her for what she is.
> Susan
Both Morris and Terry are liars. Moreover, they're arrogant liars, as
they expect all and sundry to ignore the numerous discrepancies between
their various lies.
Deborah
Ben Cramer
<dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152312776....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It's yet to be proved they're liars.
Yet you, on the other hand, are definitely a liar. You're a yid, ergo,
you're automatically a liar. It's genetic.
moshe
...
>He certainly agrees with Dilling - he quotes her,
>and refuses to condemn her for what she is.
>
>Susan
=========
I have no idea what Dilling has said about anything.
Show exactly where I have ever quoted Dilling.
- moshe
Ron Jacobson
Ben Cramer <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
(snip)
"my younger Brother got me absolutely stoned on magic mushrooms.
I spent three days sitting in the corner of the tent waiting to come
down." -- the neo-Nazi "Ben Cramer" reflects on his usage of
hallucinatory drugs. Source:
Message-ID: <1125123267.5e5d281ad88798917af26011bcb01dc0@teranews>
RJ.
Terry Cross
And just what is Elizabeth Dilling? E.D. is a Susan-disagreer. In
Susan's world, a Susan-disagreer is always an anti-Semite.
E.D. writes things is disagreement with Susan only because E.D. hates
Susan. If E.D. did not hate Susan, E.D. would agree with everything
Susan thinks about herself.
Certainly that makes sense. It makes for a very simple world - and a
very simple Susan.
TCross
Ben Cramer
"Terry Cross" <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152396036....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Suzie is not only very simple, she's a thick Irish cunt who thinks that by
taking a jewish conversion she can change race.
Norma
"Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e8pija$161e$1...@otis.netspace.net.au...
You seem to conveniently forget that Suan's father was a Jew. She didn't
have to change any genes or DNA, she got them from her male parent.
The Reverend
And yet she claims you can't "catch it" from your father.
Norma
"The Reverend" <reni...@angglikkan.co.nz> wrote in message
news:44b07c43...@news.onetel.net.uk...
What ever you say or don't say, depending on what the heck you are talking
about. Still a little sleepy and confused upon arising?
The Reverend
Nobody's as confused as you, shitske.
mark...@digiverse.net
NefeshBarYochai wrote:
> moshe wrote:
> > In article <1152201686....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > emmas...@yahoo.co.uk says...
> > >
> > >
> > >moshe wrote:
> > >> In article <up9rg.45980$W97....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, cindys says...
> > >> >
> > >> You and Mark are being idiotic, because both of the 2 statements Mark made
> > >> contradict the New Testament and contrdict what Christians believe.
> > >>
> > >> Mark said:
> > >>"These people see Jews of no value unless they convert to Christianity or build
> > >> the Temple on the Dome of the Rock to force Jesus to come again
> > >> soon."
> > >>
> > >>John 3:16 says that God loved *everyone* so much that God sent Jesus to save us.
> > >>
> > >
> > >So why do you spend your time here posting
> > >about Jews and pedophilia
> >
> > =========
> >
> > When other people post about it one way or the other, I merely respond by
> > presenting the facts.
> >
> > =========
> >
> > > and saying that Jews are a greater threat than Muslim terrorists,
> >
> > =========
> >
> > I never said any such thing, you filthy liar.
> >
> > =========
> >
> > > Judaism is evil,
> >
> > ==========
> >
> > See what Jesus said about the teachings of the Pharisees in Matthew 15 and
> > Matthew 23.
> >
> > Those teachings of the Pharisees became the basis of modern Judaism.
> >
> > ==========
> >
> > >making jokes about the holocaust,
> >
> > ===========
> >
> > I do not make jokes about the Holocaust, you filthy liar.
> >
> > ===========
> >
> > > and defending anti-Semitic Terry, and on and on?
> >
> > ===========
> >
> > When people engage in valid debate with Terry by presenting facts to counter
> > Terry's claims, Terry is on her own.
> >
> > But when vicious, hateful, lying people such as Deborah Sharavi call Terry a
> > "cunt" and make claims about her using "vibrators", I step in to call those
> > people "swine" because that is exactly how they are behaving.
> >
> > On the other hand, Jewish lawyer Alan Dershowitz publicly *bragged* that he
> > would have defended *Hitler* and that he would have *won*.
> >
> > ===========
> > >
> > >Don't you see why Mark has formed this opinion?
> > >
> >
> > Bigot Mark was viciously claiming that Fundamentalist Christians are demonic
> > long before he ever came to alt.messianic.
> >
>
>
> What would be real nice is if the Gentiles like you and Terry posted in
> your own newsgroup and stayed out of ours. The Jewish people don't
> want your prapaganda.
The whole west is buried in your zioNAZIST propaganda barrage,
hypocrite.
mark...@digiverse.net
>
> It isn't. What you've proven yourself to be is a liar and an idiot.
>
> >Are you a racist or something?
> > TCross
>
> No, you are.
And you should all be living in Israel, like your racist faith
instructs you, hypocrites.
>
> Deborah
Norma
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 23:06:54 -0500, "Norma" <njb...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"The Reverend" <reni...@angglikkan.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:44b07c43...@news.onetel.net.uk...
> >> On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 20:04:58 -0500, "Norma" <njb...@charter.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:e8pija$161e$1...@otis.netspace.net.au...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Terry Cross" <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1152396036....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> >> >> >> On 7-Jul-2006, dsha...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> >What ever you say or don't say, depending on what the heck you are
talking
> >about. Still a little sleepy and confused upon arising?
>
> Nobody's as confused as you, shitske.
That statement alone shows how stupidly crazy and zoned out you are. It is
always the real crazy and stupid that makes statements like.
Ben Cramer
"Norma" <njb...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:w17sg.186$m93...@fe06.lga...
The Reverends statement has just been most adequately proved.
How do ya feel, stupid?
>
>
Norma
I feel fine, thank you very much. But this is just another chance to use
some insulting remark.
You can stop now. I am really tired of this manic you and your
ridiculousness. Bye.
fla...@verizon.net
How lovely of Terry to equate e with truth!
> > > In
> > > Susan's world, a Susan-disagreer is always an anti-Semite.
In anyone's world, considering the subjects always under discussion.
> > >
> > > E.D. writes things is disagreement with Susan only because E.D. hates
> > > Susan.
Not just me - Terry is granrting me far too much power.
> > > If E.D. did not hate Susan, E.D. would agree with everything
> > > Susan thinks about herself.
> > >
Me? Why on earth is Terry focusing so much on me?
Oh, I get it - she can;t refute what i say, so she's shifting the
discussion!
And here I was, being so flattered I nearly forgot to notice it!
> > > Certainly that makes sense. It makes for a very simple world - and a
> > > very simple Susan.
> >
The fact that truth is truth is simple - no wonder Terry is so angry
aboutit.
> > Suzie is not only very simple, she's a thick Irish cunt who thinks that
> > by
> > taking a jewish conversion she can change race.
>
> You seem to conveniently forget that Suan's father was a Jew.
He also forgets the fact that Judaism is not a race.
He is merely sucking on what the phony rev has stuck out.
HIs projectionism is, this this statement, as great as his belligerent
ignorance.
> She didn't
> have to change any genes or DNA, she got them from her male parent.
And I had to convert because his "genes" meant NOTHING.
Okay, it made me taller than the average, but that's hardly religious :-)
Susan
Norma
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:Nt9sg.2445$Th7.751@trnddc05...
A lucky thing for you, actually. They love to speak of genes, so I put it
in as an additional factor.
> Susan
moshe
...
>> She didn't
>> have to change any genes or DNA, she got them from her male parent.
>
>And I had to convert because his "genes" meant NOTHING.
=========
Then so much for the claim that Messiah must be a son of David.
- moshe
Mary Hogan
""Mark T"" <thinkaboutwh@youaredoing82658265798698768754872639595915> wrote
in message news:44ad9f99$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> Israel are seen as a fulfilment of Jesus' prophecies. Jews are therefore
> not valued for who they are.
Wow, what a fool.
What a blind fool.
Roy was right.
>
>
>
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
fla...@verizon.net
On 9-Jul-2006, "Norma" <njb...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > She didn't
> > > have to change any genes or DNA, she got them from her male parent.
> >
> > And I had to convert because his "genes" meant NOTHING.
> > Okay, it made me taller than the average, but that's hardly religious
> > :-)
>
> A lucky thing for you, actually. They love to speak of genes, so I put it
> in as an additional factor.
And I thank you for it, becuse it gave me yet another opportunity to
point out what does/not count when it comes to Judaism.
Susan
"Mark T"
> ROTFOL!
Something I wrote that I have used many times. ;-)
>> Dear Trew Kristyun Terry
>>
>> Kissy kissy! Now you pucker up and greet me with a kiss. (Romans 6:16;
>> 1Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians13:12; I Thessalonians 5:26; 1 Peter
>> 5:14.)
>>
>> I am refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view. You make
>> silence
>> a wonderful thing to look forward to. However I took exception to your
>> recent scribble
>>
>> It was:
>> [X] backmasked with Satanic messages
>> [X] Pagan
>> [X] New Age
>> [X] unChristian
>> [X] Secular Humanist
>> [X] written in King James English
>> [X] written in tongues and did not include the interpretation
>>
>> Your attention is drawn to the fact that:
>> [X] You flamed the Archbishop of Canterbury
>> [X] You flamed the Pope
>> [X] You flamed God
>> [X] You contradicted Jesus
>> [X] You contradicted yourself several times
>> [X] You mindlessly chanted the Pente Mantra several times
>> [X] You repeatedly assumed unwarranted spiritual, moral or intellectual
>> superiority
>>
>> My informed, considered, rational and logical answer to your scribble is
>> in
>> the acronyms:
>>
>> [X] AWGTHTGTTSA
>> [X] DBEYR
>> [X] DILLIGAD
>> [X] DQYDJ
>> [X] FUBAR
>> [X] GIGO
>> [X] HUYA
>> [X] LSHHTCMS
>> [X] NRN
>> [X] PMF
>> [X] SITD
>> [X] SOI
>> [X] TAFL
>> [X] VI
>> [X] YGBK
>>
>> I'd explain them to you, but your brain would explode.
>>
>> It is recommended that you:
>> [X] Buy an indulgence from me.
>> [X] Send me a triple tithe.
>> [X] Do penance.
>> [X] Devote your life to missionary work in Iraq and Afghanistan.
>> [X] Start up a Christian Clown Ministry
>> [X] Start up a Kristyun Skool
>>
>> QUESTIONS TO UNDERSTAND YOU BETTER:
>>
>> [X] Jesus said in Matthew 5:42, "Give to him that asketh thee, and from
>> him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." May I have your house
>> and car and may I borrow your most prized possession?
>> [X] Can I have your car after the Rapture?
>> [X] Were you in the special class at school?
>> [X] Are you from the shallow end of the gene pool?
>> [X] Do you want fries with that?
>>
>> Please save this message and review it occasionally to determine your
>> progress toward being;
>>
>> [X] a tolerable Trew Kristyun
>> [X] a fully-functional human being
>> [X] integrated into humanity
>> [X] re-integrated into the wild
>>
>> If what you don't know can't hurt you, you're practically invulnerable.
>>
>> Thank you for taking the time to read this flame form.
>>
>> *********************************************************************
>
Ben Cramer
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:khhsg.3858$F8.2505@trnddc02...
Not much counts at all, when it comes to Judaism, you thick Irish cunt. It's
a pagan religion based on shite.
Ron Jacobson
Ben Cramer <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
(snip)
Benjie, can you please elaborate further on those "shitty
experiences with hallucinogenics" you had? Message-ID:
<1125145048.cafe8828396fceebe6c6eb01bec409b3@teranews>.
Seems you suffered some serious damage. Why don't you
seek help?
RJ.
The Reverend
>
>"The Reverend" <reni...@angglikkan.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:44b08938...@news.onetel.net.uk...
>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 23:06:54 -0500, "Norma" <njb...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"The Reverend" <reni...@angglikkan.co.nz> wrote in message
>> >news:44b07c43...@news.onetel.net.uk...
>> >> On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 20:04:58 -0500, "Norma" <njb...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:e8pija$161e$1...@otis.netspace.net.au...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Terry Cross" <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1152396036....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> > fla...@verizon.net wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 7-Jul-2006, dsha...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
><snip>
>
>> >What ever you say or don't say, depending on what the heck you are
>talking
>> >about. Still a little sleepy and confused upon arising?
>>
>> Nobody's as confused as you, shitske.
>
>That statement alone shows how stupidly crazy and zoned out you are. It is
>always the real crazy and stupid that makes statements like.
You're so confused you can't even finish your sentences, shitske.
Do you suffer from attention defi
The Reverend
>Suzy
Converting to the jew religion doesn't make you a real jew, you th*ck
Irish cunt. If you weren't Irish, i.e. thick, you'd realise that.
moshe
===========
When you post filth like that, you are being just as hateful and disgusting and
obscene as Deborah Sharavi.
Get out of here, you hateful, obscene, anti-Semitic trash who pretends to be a
"reverend".
And, ironically, take that hateful, obscene jerk Deborah Sharavi with you.
You two hateful, obscene jerks deserve each other.
- moshe
emmas...@yahoo.co.uk
moshe wrote:
> > >>
>
> When you post filth like that, you are being just as hateful and disgusting and
> obscene as Deborah Sharavi.
>
> Get out of here, you hateful, obscene, anti-Semitic trash who pretends to be a
> "reverend".
Oh please. You are in no position to moralize.
You post far worse!
The Jews here all think you are an anti-Semite.
I think you are just a troll and
a twit.
But they do believe you hate Jews, and that's because you give
them good reason to think that.
The Reverend
B'low it out your ass, "moshe", you shitforbrains bible thumper.
dsha...@gmail.com
> > > > >> Let us gather the "great" critics of Judaism together - say Israel
> > > > >> Shahak, Samuel Roth, Daat Emet, and Elizabeth Dilling - and develop a
> > > > >> consensus on their criticisms of Judaism.
> > > > >Shahak is a proven liar; Roth was a jailbird and a pornographer as well
> > > > >as an antisemite; the Daat Emet site is dedicated to proving Judaism
> > > > >false; and Elizabeth Dilling -- one of Terry's idol -- was a braindead
> > > > >Jew hater.
> > > moshe wrote:
> > > > That was Terry's point, idiot.
> > > Bullshi'ite, O impotent ass.
> fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> > If that was he point, why does she agree with them?
> > And if Morris thinks the same, why does HE agree with them?
> > He certainly agrees with Dilling - he quotes her,
> > and refuses to condemn her for what she is.
Terry Cross wrote:
> And just what is Elizabeth Dilling?
You should know. You gave her antisemitic diatribes a prominent place
on your website.
> E.D. writes things is disagreement with Susan
Things certainly is disagreement between Susan and Dilling. Things is
disagreement between Susan and Dilling because Dilling is a Jew hating
liar -- just your ilk.
> Certainly that makes sense.
Yes, indeed. From the pen of one Jew hating liar to the posts of
another Jew hating liar.
Deborah
Terry Cross
> moshe wrote:
> > > >>
> >
> > When you post filth like that, you are being just as hateful and disgusting and
> > obscene as Deborah Sharavi.
> >
> > Get out of here, you hateful, obscene, anti-Semitic trash who pretends to be a
> > "reverend".
>
> Oh please. You are in no position to moralize.
> You post far worse!
>
With the beginning, your statement could not be otherwise than the
height of stupidity. You don't have any way of knowing who-all reads
this group, or even who-all is posting. And worse yet, you are in no
position to speak for what they all think.
But go for it, child. See if you can ascend to even greater heights.
TCross
![Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWC6mzzawUrO7GCu7fCerkyuc2lhlBFoatj_KeGRNuuk3rG=s40-c)
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]
> NefeshBarYochai wrote:
> > What would be real nice is if the Gentiles like you and Terry posted in
> > your own newsgroup and stayed out of ours. The Jewish people don't
> > want your prapaganda.
>
> racist or something?
>
> TCross
which 'race' are Gentiles or Jews ?
emmas...@yahoo.co.uk
Terry Cross wrote:
> emmas...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > moshe wrote:
> > > > >>
> > >
> > > When you post filth like that, you are being just as hateful and disgusting and
> > > obscene as Deborah Sharavi.
> > >
> > > Get out of here, you hateful, obscene, anti-Semitic trash who pretends to be a
> > > "reverend".
> >
> > Oh please. You are in no position to moralize.
> > You post far worse!
> >
> > The Jews here all think ...
>
> With the beginning, your statement could not be otherwise than the
> height of stupidity. You don't have any way of knowing who-all reads
> this group, or even who-all is posting. And worse yet, you are in no
> position to speak for what they all think.
>
Actually, you're right. I shouldn't have said
*all* the Jews. I don't think Rob sees moshe
as seriously anti-Semitic. I think he sees him
as a troll. But certainly, many of the Jewish
posters here do think moshe hates Jews.
They have said so.
And frankly, it's hard to blame them, because
moshe does give a very good impression of an
anti-Semite.
moshe
emmas...@yahoo.co.uk says...
==============
-----------begin quote-------------
Thread: a few bad apples in Judaism
From: joest...@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, Jun 28 2006 12:14 pm
Email: joest...@hotmail.com
Groups: alt.messianic, soc.culture.jewish
I remind the followers of Jesus here that most followers of Judaism in
the world are nice people who are *nothing* like the obscene
hate-filled followers of Judaism in alt.messianic who post filth like
the quotes below.
Most followers of Judaism I have met in synagogues around the country
would be appalled by the hateful obscenity found in the posts below.
So please do not judge all followers of Judaism by the few bad apples
who post here in alt.messianic.
...
[If you Google alt.messianic for "bad apples you will see that I posted a
similar message in May 2006, April 2006, November 2005, July 2005, February
2005, December 2004, October 2004, October 2000, April 1999]
-----------begin quote-------------
From: moshe (joes...@earthlink.com)
Subject: Re: Columbine massacre...the jewish connection
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Date: 1999/05/05
[snip]
There are good Gentiles.
There are bad Gentiles.
There are good Jews.
There are bad Jews.
There are Gentile criminals.
There are Jewish criminals.
Because Gentiles and Jews are both people
and are both prone to the same sins.
-----------begin quote-------------
From: moshe (joester...@earthlink.com)
Subject: Re: The Catholic Church "made" Hitler.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.messianic
Date: 1999/12/09
[snip]
I criticize specific individuals for
specific sins, recognizing that Jews
are no better and no worse than
Gentiles, for all are human and all
have sinned and fallen short of
the glory of G-d as seen in I Kings 8:46
and Romans 3:23.
However, you seem to lump all Jews
together in your description of them
as detestable creatures.
Therefore, you are presenting false
stereotypes of Jews and you are engaging
in anti-Semitism.
Are you aware of that?
Do you know that you need to repent of it?
-----------begin quote-------------
From: moshe (joester...@earthlink.com)
Subject: Re: How "messianic jews" are made
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Date: 1999/12/28
[snip]
Jews are not better than Gentiles, and
Gentiles are not better than Jews, for
all have sinned and come short of the
glory of G-d (I Kings 8:46, Romans 3:23),
and Jews and Gentiles are equals in
receiving G-d's salvation (Romans 10:12).
-----------begin quote-------------
From: moshe (joes...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: rules for quoting Jewish sources
Newsgroups: alt.messianic, soc.culture.jewish
Date: 2004-06-19 19:59:44 PST
[snip]
> > Hey moshe, so what is your deal with the Jews anyways? Do you like 'em or
> > hate 'em?
> >
> > -Mike
>
> ******************
>
> "The Jews"?
>
> There are atheist Jews.
> There are Jews who believe in Jesus.
> There are Jews who follow Judaism.
> There are some very nice, loving rabbis in the world.
> There are some extremely hateful followers of Judaism in this
> newsgroup.
>
> Not all Jews can be lumped together, just as not all Gentiles can be
> lumped together.
>
> When John 3:16 says that "God so loved the world", that means that God
> loves both Jews and Gentiles.
>
> When II Peter 3:9 says that it is not God's will that any should
> perish, that means that God loves both Jews and Gentiles and wants to
> save them.
>
> When Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned, that includes all Gentiles
> and all Jews.
>
> - moshe
**************
90 percent of the followers of Judaism in this newsgroup (includes
soc.culture.jewish) are hateful liars and slanderers whenever the mood
hits them.
That is *not* typical of the followers of Judaism out in the real
world.
If you go into the average synagogue in America you will find that
more than 95 percent of the members there are very nice people.
So please do not judge the followers of Judaism elsewhere by the
behavior of the dozen or so that post here.
- moshe
------------begin quote-------------
From: moshe (joes...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: New Testaments burned in Israel
Newsgroups: alt.messianic, soc.culture.jewish
Date: 2004-10-09 09:25:55 PST
Hieron <geo...@msn.de> wrote in message news:<2spt81F...@uni-berlin.de>...
> If this is true, this says something about the Jewish tolerance of other
> religions that was stated so often here.
>
> It appears tolerance only works in foreign lands, but not in Israel.
>
> According to Mordecai the JWs are the closest to the Jews in belief and
> practice, so why is this awful rage?
>
> Can the Jews explain?
*********
Fortunately, the Orthodox in Israel who feel compelled to burn New
Testaments are only a tiny minority of the entire Jewish population,
and so the entire Jewish population should not be judged by the
actions of that tiny minority.
Those who burn New Testaments in Israel do not even represent all
Orthodox, but are rather a small sub-group of Orthodox.
But that tiny group manages to stir up trouble for everyone else.
In the same way that I have often pointed out to the Gentile
Christians here that the hateful and dishonest followers of Judaism
who post in alt.messianic and soc.culture.jewish do not represent the
vast majority of the followers of Judaism in the world who are very
honest and friendly.
- moshe
------------begin quote-------------
From: moshe (joes...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: denouncing bigotry (from moshe)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Date: 2003-07-21 06:35:48 PST
Martin Graham said:
> Thew Jews to this day reject Christ, just as they did when their
> rejection led to his suffering. ...
> To this day,> he Jewish people do not disavow the actions of those
> among them who commited this crime against God and man.
> > Do you believe that all Jews are "Christ killers"?
>
> To the extent that thye do not repent of the crime against God
> committed by their ancestors, yes...
**************************
You lump all Jewish people together and judge them as a "race".
You then hate that "race".
That makes you a "racist".
You hate Jews.
You want to call Jews "Christ killers".
You have made up your mind, dug in your heels, and nothing will make
you change.
In that case, I want to be *the* Jew that you hate.
I want to be *the* Jew that you call "Christ killer".
Anytime you feel the urge to hate a Jew, you should e-mail *me*.
Anytime you feel the urge to call a Jew a "Christ killer", you should
e-mail *me*.
I will consider it an honor.
Your condemnation of me will serve as evidence for your own
condemnation at the White Throne Judgement of Revelation 20:11-15.
Here is how you are the ultimate hypocrite:
You complain that Jews refuse to come into your church to accept
Jesus.
But what Jew would want to walk into a church full of anti-Semites
like you?
I am *already* a believer in Jesus, and *I* would not want to be in a
church full of anti-Semites like you.
Your hateful anti-Semtism drives Jews away from your church, then you
condemn Jews for staying away from your church.
- moshe
------------begin quote-------------
From: moshe (joes...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: For me/moshe: Read and learn.
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Date: 1999/04/20
[snip]
Some parts of Talmud
are profoundly true and profoundly
beautiful. Other parts of Talmud are
the traditions of men which
misrepresent the character of G-d
and which attempt to nullify the
word of G-d in the Bible.
[snip]
------------begin quote-------------
From: moshe (joes...@earthlink.com)
Subject: Re: a messiah with real value
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Date: 1999/04/29
[snip]
I am on record that there are some tremendously
beautiful and profoundly true statements in Talmud,
mixed in with some utter blasphemy and false teachings.
Thus I give credit where credit is due, and give
criticism where criticism is due.
I am on record as saying that there are some wonderful
people in our local Orthodox shul, while some of the
people representing Rabbinic Judaism in this forum
are atrociously hateful.
[snip]
------------begin quote-------------
From: moshe (joes...@earthlink.com)
Subject: Re: Persecuting Moshe<was-Re: Jesus is not the Messiah...
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Date: 1999/11/06
[snip]
> These people are indeed a profound surprise and marvel. Their example
> and their faith is one reason that I choose to believe. I am sure their
> are Jewish individuals that you hold in the same regard and strengthen
> your faith.
**************
Our town's Lubavitch rabbi is so
patient, so gentle, so kind, that
he never defends himself when
the non-Lubavtich rabbi-emeritus
bad-mouths him to the congregation.
Either that Lubavitch rabbi is extremely
weak, or that Lubavitch rabbi has an
inner strength that is almost never seen
in Gentiles or Jews in this world.
------------begin quote-------------
From: moshe (joester...@earthlink.com)
Subject: Re: The Catholic Church "made" Hitler.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.messianic
Date: 1999/12/09
[snip]
There are good and bad Jews, just
as there are good and bad Gentiles.
Both groups are human and fall
short of the glory of G-d (I Kings 8:46
and Romans 3:23).
The difference between our local
Lubavitch rabbi and "Rabbi" Moshe
Shulman is like the difference between
night and day.
The difference between the former cantor
of our local traditional synagogue and
Joel here in alt.mess is like the difference
between night and day.
All four people I just mentioned are Jews
who do not believe in Yeshua.
2 of them are real stinkers, while the other
2 are extremely nice people who wouldn't
say a bad thing to a fly.
------------begin quote-------------
From: moshe (joes...@earthlink.com)
Subject: Re: missionaries and Jews
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Date: 1999/11/26
[snip]
In case you haven't been around long
enough to know this, I have great
respect for some Orthodox rabbis.
Our local Lubavitch rabbi, for example,
has a G-dly patience that is amazing
and I repect him for it.
The cantor in the Modern Orthodox
shul was also a very G-dly man and
the kindness he showed my daughter
will always be appreciated.
------------end quote-------------
moshe
==============
emmas...@yahoo.co.uk
moshe wrote:
> In article <1152614277.3...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> emmas...@yahoo.co.uk says...
>> > >>
> >
> >*all* the Jews. I don't think Rob sees moshe
> >as seriously anti-Semitic. I think he sees him
> >as a troll. But certainly, many of the Jewish
> >posters here do think moshe hates Jews.
> >They have said so.
> >And frankly, it's hard to blame them, because
> >moshe does give a very good impression of an
> >anti-Semite.
>
> ==============
Oh no, no, no,nooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!
I've triggered the "There are good Jews, there
are bad Jews" mantra!!
Moshe has a re-post for every occasion!
Is this how you speak to your wife?
Do you refer her to past conversations???...
"Janet, please listen to my words to you from 1985!..."
> -----------begin quote-------------
>
Aaaaaargh!!!!!!!
And btw, to some of the Jewish posters here,
these quotes come across as sincerely
as Terry Cross saying all her best friends are Jews!
moshe
[Sin Tet Nun]" <has...@grex.cyberspace.org> says...
==========
---------begin quote-------------
race 1 (rs)
n.
...
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common
history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
...
- quoted from
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/race
---------begin quote-------------
Definition of Race
...
1. The descendants of a common ancestor; a family, tribe, people, or nation,
believed or presumed to belong to the same stock; a lineage; a breed.
...
- quoted from
http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/Race
---------end quote-------------
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]
You certainly have that correct.
Indeed a 'race' is a biological family.
which Jews are not except in parts,
and certainly Gentiles are not,
unless one refers to the `gentiles` class of Rome which may have had
blood relationship at least at the outset.
Jews belong to many races even if they did begin as one biological
family.
moshe
emmas...@yahoo.co.uk says...
>
>
>moshe wrote:
>> In article <1152614277.3...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
==========
My post began with quotes of what I have said repeatedly in 2006,
but you dishonestly characterize that as being from "1985".
I was a member of Bnai Brith, but you claim that I am an anti-Semite.
I repeatedly say that most Jewish are very nice people whom you'd be proud to
have as neighbors, but you dishonestly claim that I am a Jew hater.
I donate books, such as by Ramban, to the Jewish Community Center Library, but
you claim that I am an anti-Jewish troll.
I attended shul for many years and was a member of a Conservative synagogue, but
you claim that I am a fake Jew.
I quote Orthodox rabbis from Orthodox Web sites, but you claim that such
practice is spreading "lies" and "prejudice".
I repeatedly say that only a small minority of the followers of Judaism engage
in violence, but you accuse me of saying that all Jews are evil.
In 7 years I have quoted a thousand rabbis regarding dozens of subjects, but you
claim that I know nothing about Judaism.
Out of thin air you made up the accusation that I said that Jews are a greater
threat than Muslim terrorists.
Summary:
You, Emma, are a filthy liar when you say that I am an anti-Semite.
But you will not repent of being a filthy liar, because you enjoy being a filthy
liar, as shown by the smiley faces that you often post along with those fithy
lies.
And Revelation 21:8 shows the fate of filthy liars.
- moshe
fla...@verizon.net
On 11-Jul-2006, "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <has...@grex.cyberspace.org>
wrote:
> Jews belong to many races even if they did begin as one biological
> family.
That's it in a nutshell!!
Susan
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]
it's the truth.
Based on a, albeit quite extreme, cultural distinction, combined with
the fact that since ancient times many Jews have "Armenoid" features,
Europeans stupidly imagined they had isolated a "race."
There are Nordi(c), Balti(c), Ponti(c), Alpini(c), Dinari(c) etc
streams of Jews.
One Jewish group in relative isolation were the Yemeni Yehudim.
They might most closely resemble how Jews appeared 2000 years ago.
Compare with today.
False dialectics break down at both ends ,
in this case the dilemma would be in confusing 'race' with 'culture',
a typical error.
moshe
[Sin Tet Nun]" <has...@grex.cyberspace.org> says...
>
>fla...@verizon.net wrote:
>> On 11-Jul-2006, "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <has...@grex.cyberspace.org>
=============
I have repeatedly quoted dictionaries which prove that the word "race" can have
different meanings and that it is even valid to refer to a "German race" based
on one definition of the word.
But you and Susan Cohen are so Hell-bent on using one definition in order to
ridicule people who use another definition that there is no use in trying to
talk to you.
-----------begin quote-----------
The Free Dictionary
race 1 (rs)
n.
...
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common
history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
...
- quoted from
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/race
- also found at
www.answers.com/topic/race-1
- also found at
education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/race
-----------end quote-----------
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]
> n.
> ...
> 2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common
> history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
i am telling you that is wrong, false, an utter fallacy.
Germany has at least five or six races, not even including those from
Asia or Africa.
According to you one would have to conclude that a sample population
from Hamburg averaging 1.82 meters height, leptorhinne nasal root,
dolichocephalic or mesocephalic index, strong blondism in eye and hair,
and very white pigmentation
to be the same race as a Bavarian population sample with short stature,
thick trunk, brachycephalic index, mesorhinne nasal, wide face, dark
eyes and a tendency to be swarthy.
No.
That to which you refer is a 'Kultur' based on a Germanic language.
Variations on this Germanic culture include the Dutch and Austrians.
Yet the Austrians are predominantly one race and the Dutch another.
> 3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
>
Correct definition. Or more precisely, a biological stream.
if one is entertained by such information,
one must "forage" here and there among 'mitochondria' and 'Y
chromosome' studies which cluster certain populations and then in the
end one must use one's head to elminate propaganda by using consistent
measurements.